[LeeMcCoy]

"Fair enough, IMO. I wouldn't want a department chair who didn't believe the laws of thermodynamics."

Absolutely correct. Irrespective of my devotion to God, the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor. Given that, this department chair should be a scientist or mathematician familiar with the concept of scientific research, and as ID and Creationism don't seem to be founded on those principals, her removal as chair is justified.

Notice I did NOT say that her questions shouldn't be asked, but they must be asked within the context of the scientific method. Simply saying, "God did it", or "Evolution does not have all the answers" does not qualify as evidence. The theory of natural selection does have flaws, and scientists are constantly seeking new data and information to further refine the theory. That's how science works. I do not see any evidence that the same is being done in ID or Creationism.

[Remedy]

>>Irrespective of my devotion to God, the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor.<<

Stay outta court.

[GilesB]

"...as ID and Creationism don't seem to be founded on those principals..."

I'll just make this short and sweet: Your assumptions couldn't be more wrong. IP is being put under very rigorous examination from some outstanding scientists - and holding up well, thank you.

[bondserv]

Maybe after we read a transcript of her presentation your comments may apply.

You may be pleasantly suprised at the number of good scientists who are coming out of the closet.

Link

[thedilg]

"the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor."

What an incredible statement. Let me briefly outline the first step in life. In the Miller-Urey experiment they showed how amino acids could be formed naturally. These are the first steps needed to assemble a protein which is millions of time more complex. A huge amount of intelligence was exerted in this experiment that resulted in a few amino acids.

Scientists were giddy with excitement. They were on the verge of creating life. Now a half century later we know that the experiment was bogus as it did not duplicate the early earth. All we found in the half century since is that mankind is now eons further from creating life than we originally believed. Life has proven to be enormously more complex than they ever dreamed.

If scientists cannot assemble a protein using the laws of chance in half a century how can you state the prepronderance of evidence supports evolution. Of course a protein is still eons short of life.

"Simply saying, "God did it", or "Evolution does not have all the answers" does not qualify as evidence."

What informatiion do you have that suggests that she said, "God did it."? I will bet that you are totally mistaken. I am all but certain that she explained the continuing unscientific evolutionary assumptions that are hopeless in the real world and why.

Godspeed, The Dilg