Evolution is existence and this process is occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy. What is known as intelligent design is really unintelligent and impossible. We cannot have a fixed and finite universe. May I suggest that one of the problems with such teddy magic like ID is that a pattern cannot be designed and necessary at the same time. If it is necessary then it is not designed, and if it is designed it is not necessary. Go figure.

Us students of science shouldn't forget that we're in a distinctly different position to ID proponents. While ID proponents need to win people over and constantly debate in order to give their theory validity (hasn't worked yet), we, on the other hand, really needn't say a word. The reason being is that even if no one accepted Evolution, it would still exist, because it does not require belief to function.

There are no 'Darwinists' or 'Evolutionists'. We do not 'believe' in Evolution. We accept it is the nature of life, based on testable and observable evidence.

If you do not accept evolutionary theory, you simply are yet to learn the hows and whys of its undeniable nature. Also, you're almost certainly religious.

It's hilarious when you see others say things like '..people who are gullible enough to believe evolution..', as if the entire scientific world has made an incomprehensibly large series of blunders that led to the point we're at today. It would be the most astronomically unlikely coincidence in the history of the planet. And apparently its the scientists, with all their 'credentials', who are the gullible ones.

You know there's something wrong in our society when people start thinking this way.

spendocrat,
The nature of reality cannot be denied; however in the minds of atheists they have concluded nature just happens without an original cause. We happen to believe there was an original intelligent design cause. Science does not deal with the externals only the internals of natural chemistry and design.

Correct Philo. Whats your point?

Even as an athiest, I have a spiritual side. I like to ponder the 'why' as much as the next person (recommend: psilocybin mushrooms). I don't believe in a literal creator as such, and my spiritual *considerations* (as opposed to beliefs) would take far too long to express here. But I will say I am in touch with the sense of oneness that I believe others consider to be God.

But here's the important part: I'm aware that those considerations are not science. They are a different passage entirely, and while the nature of science may be incorporated into my spirituality to some extent (based on my perception), faith has no place in science.

You can almost define science by absence of faith.

So to try to assert that ID is science, and on the same level to deny evolution on the basis that it contradicts your faith, is about as unscientific a consideration can possibly get.

You wanna talk spirituality, religion and philosophy - awsome, I'll be right there with you. But it has nothing to do with the science of evolution.

I think some people are mixing up Spontaneous generation theories of simple cells; these thoughts stem from the 18th century. As in those days, they did not know the complexities of the cell contents or of the information contained in the DNA molecules that guides the development of the smallest living organism.
Spontaneous Generation was dispelled by no other than Francesco Redi- and Louis Pasteur – Ring any bells anyone?

This became to be known as Biogenetic Law- Life only comes from life.
So I suppose they became the Daddy of the Genome experiment’s.
That became the realization period and the faltering of Darwins Theory.

I could waffle on but everyone’s eyes are glazing over; so My point is simple.

West said: "Darwins discovery of natural selection has been confirmed in the lab and in the field."

It's patently obvious that you don't know much about evolutionary biology, theory or otherwise. Here's a little insight for you - not even bible-bashing creationists deny the process of natural selection. It's observable and testable. However, natural selection in itself is not a mechanism for net evolutionary advancement as it does not increase the amount of DNA in the genome (the requirement for the specification of new functions and structures). Rather, natural selection is simply a process of fine-tuning to the environment involving genetic variability already resident in a gene pool of a species. Rather than adding new information, natural selection actually results in the elimination of certain genes in response to environmental pressures. How can the thinning out of the gene pool (information loss) result in the up-hill evolutionary development of new structures and functions?

If you had only the simplest possible life form, and there is not a gradual increase in the amount of DNA in the genome, then you'd never be able to account for more advanced life. You could wait billions of years, but without a mechanism for generating new specified information, there will be no net evolutionary change.