[StJacques]

"Here we go..."

I hear you PianoMan.

I'm prepared to discuss any alternative to Darwin that does not attempt to tell me:

--That the Grand Canyon was formed by the Great Flood of Noah.

--That the concept of Geologic Time is flawed and that the earth is not millions of years old.

--That oolitic hematite and oolitic limestone deposits found at high altitudes in mountain ranges do not present proof of prehistoric oceans.

--That the earth's surface is not divided into tectonic plates.

--That the dinosaurs . . .

I could go on.

As I understand the Theory of Intelligent Design, none of the preceding are argued and it has relevance to true science. If that's true, then I'm prepared to discuss it. But maybe later because it's almost past my bedtime.

[little jeremiah]

Check out the book I recommend at the end of my post above. It doesn't claim any of those things.

[TalonDJ]

"true science" and picking unproven tenants that you refuse to question are incompatible. No, I am not arguing that the tectonic plates don't exist or any of that. I am only pointing out that refusing to question something that has not been proven conclusively is bad science. There problems with the commonly used models of geologic age. To refuse to acknowledge them is just as bad science as picking an age for the earth and bending all conclusions to match it.

I believe God invented science and logic so I have nothing to fear from an absolutely objective approach that questions everything that is not bolted down and sometimes questions those things also.

[F16Fighter]

Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. I know -- it's only ONE opinion...

FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track JUST ONE down which has been done in the last ten years?)

It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionist "scholars" avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE.