Comments on: Intelligent Design http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/ By Michael Dowd Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:20:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Peter Wolk http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-112 Peter Wolk Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:37:40 +0000 http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-112 <I> I am so tired of the Creationists/IDs who keep saying the same thing - you've never shown me an intermediate species. Well, right now I'm looking at a full-page article in Newsweek (1/28/2008)talking of the find of the 375M year-old fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with a neck and elbows four years ago. But of course, that will be disregarded as these people always keep their eyes closed to these things. As they did to the discovery of the fossil of a dinosaur with feathers, as they did to the evolution of a new species of nematode that occurred in a laboratory recently. Nothing can be done to make them understand how science works, let alone thinking outside their own tiny little box. I've just stopped listening to or arguing with these types - except if it's a rainy Sunday and I have nothing better to do. About as meaningful as a game of Monopoly.

I am so tired of the Creationists/IDs who keep saying the same thing - you’ve never shown me an intermediate species. Well, right now I’m looking at a full-page article in Newsweek (1/28/2008)talking of the find of the 375M year-old fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with a neck and elbows four years ago. But of course, that will be disregarded as these people always keep their eyes closed to these things. As they did to the discovery of the fossil of a dinosaur with feathers, as they did to the evolution of a new species of nematode that occurred in a laboratory recently. Nothing can be done to make them understand how science works, let alone thinking outside their own tiny little box.

I’ve just stopped listening to or arguing with these types - except if it’s a rainy Sunday and I have nothing better to do. About as meaningful as a game of Monopoly.

]]> By: Peter Wolk http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-111 Peter Wolk Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:36:00 +0000 http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-111 I am so tired of the Creationists/IDs who keep saying the same thing - you've never shown me an intermediate species. Well, right now I'm looking at a full-page article in Newsweek (1/28/2008)talking of the find of the 375M year-old fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with a neck and elbows four years ago. But of course, that will be disregarded as these people always keep their eyes closed to these things. As they did to the discovery of the fossil of a dinosaur with feathers, as they did to the evolution of a new species of nematode that occurred in a laboratory recently. Nothing can be done to make them understand how science works, let alone thinking outside their own tiny little box. I've just stopped listening to or arguing with these types - except if it's a rainy Sunday and I have nothing better to do. About as meaningful as a game of Monopoly. I am so tired of the Creationists/IDs who keep saying the same thing - you’ve never shown me an intermediate species. Well, right now I’m looking at a full-page article in Newsweek (1/28/2008)talking of the find of the 375M year-old fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with a neck and elbows four years ago. But of course, that will be disregarded as these people always keep their eyes closed to these things. As they did to the discovery of the fossil of a dinosaur with feathers, as they did to the evolution of a new species of nematode that occurred in a laboratory recently. Nothing can be done to make them understand how science works, let alone thinking outside their own tiny little box.

I’ve just stopped listening to or arguing with these types - except if it’s a rainy Sunday and I have nothing better to do. About as meaningful as a game of Monopoly.

]]> By: Daryle http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-47 Daryle Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:27:31 +0000 http://evolutionarychristianity.theooze.com/2007/12/20/intelligent-design/#comment-47 The first comment I have to make is that all beliefs about origins are just that, beliefs. You see natural selection, which is a culling process not a creative one, and then you assume macro evolution. My question that has gone unanswered ever since I became a creationist is, where's the proof? I've been told that there are intermediate species, yet no one has ever shown me one. The best example that I've ever heard would be archaeopteryx which I heard about from creationists first. And unfortunately I believe the creationists when they say it's fully a bird because it very much seems to be. All "prehumans" seem to disappear as time reveals them to be hoaxes or apes. Then there's the fact that we keep finding "living fossils" i.e. the coelacath, the wolemi pine, Gracilidris (an ant that supposedly extinct millions of years ago), and there are many more, that still live completely unchanged. If evolution were a constantly occurring, completely random directionless process, this could not happen. The only reason things like this haven't falsified evolution is because of "science's" pre-determined belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism. Which brings me to my final point. The god of the gaps argument, which is used by evolutionists more than anyone I know. I say it's used by evolutionists because if it weren't for them, I would have no idea that such a thing existed. I've certainly never heard a creationist or Intelligent Design researcher use it. On the other hand, evolution frequently uses the "millions of years of the gaps" to fill in large gaps that should not need filling if large scale evolution not only happened, but is happening and has been happening for billions of years. You say that evolution is based on knowledge, but I'm afraid you're quite wrong about that. It's based on belief, dogma, and propaganda. Intelligent Design on the other hand IS based on knowledge. And the best example of that is from specified complexity. S.E.T.I. is not a creationist, or ID group, yet they believe in ID and their entire organization is based on it. They search the skies for radio signals that are not random. To them a very basic, but repeated pattern of beeps would be enough to prove life on other planets. Yet when they and most other evolutionists look at the incredible complexity of the cell and DNA, which is anything but random, the invoke an unwarranted belief in a naturalistic process that has never been observed to explain the appearance of intelligent design without the need for a designer. I'm sorry, but I get so tired of hearing that ID is based on untestable faith from people who believe in evolution uncritically. The truth is both have good arguments for them, both are supported by real scientists, both have researchers do research into them, and we all have the same evidence. But only ID has any martyrs. People who have had their careers destroyed for believing that Darwin might have been wrong. And considering that last point, I don't find it the least bit surprising that only 5% of scientists have vocalized their belief that Darwin is wrong. The truth is, to most of the 95% that haven't, Darwin is an irrelevant side issue that isn't worth risking their careers over. The first comment I have to make is that all beliefs about origins are just that, beliefs. You see natural selection, which is a culling process not a creative one, and then you assume macro evolution. My question that has gone unanswered ever since I became a creationist is, where’s the proof? I’ve been told that there are intermediate species, yet no one has ever shown me one. The best example that I’ve ever heard would be archaeopteryx which I heard about from creationists first. And unfortunately I believe the creationists when they say it’s fully a bird because it very much seems to be. All “prehumans” seem to disappear as time reveals them to be hoaxes or apes. Then there’s the fact that we keep finding “living fossils” i.e. the coelacath, the wolemi pine, Gracilidris (an ant that supposedly extinct millions of years ago), and there are many more, that still live completely unchanged. If evolution were a constantly occurring, completely random directionless process, this could not happen. The only reason things like this haven’t falsified evolution is because of “science’s” pre-determined belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Which brings me to my final point. The god of the gaps argument, which is used by evolutionists more than anyone I know. I say it’s used by evolutionists because if it weren’t for them, I would have no idea that such a thing existed. I’ve certainly never heard a creationist or Intelligent Design researcher use it. On the other hand, evolution frequently uses the “millions of years of the gaps” to fill in large gaps that should not need filling if large scale evolution not only happened, but is happening and has been happening for billions of years.
You say that evolution is based on knowledge, but I’m afraid you’re quite wrong about that. It’s based on belief, dogma, and propaganda. Intelligent Design on the other hand IS based on knowledge. And the best example of that is from specified complexity. S.E.T.I. is not a creationist, or ID group, yet they believe in ID and their entire organization is based on it. They search the skies for radio signals that are not random. To them a very basic, but repeated pattern of beeps would be enough to prove life on other planets. Yet when they and most other evolutionists look at the incredible complexity of the cell and DNA, which is anything but random, the invoke an unwarranted belief in a naturalistic process that has never been observed to explain the appearance of intelligent design without the need for a designer.
I’m sorry, but I get so tired of hearing that ID is based on untestable faith from people who believe in evolution uncritically. The truth is both have good arguments for them, both are supported by real scientists, both have researchers do research into them, and we all have the same evidence. But only ID has any martyrs. People who have had their careers destroyed for believing that Darwin might have been wrong. And considering that last point, I don’t find it the least bit surprising that only 5% of scientists have vocalized their belief that Darwin is wrong. The truth is, to most of the 95% that haven’t, Darwin is an irrelevant side issue that isn’t worth risking their careers over.

]]>