Replies

"I disagree with your statement. On one hand, we have a theory of evolution, with a pretty obvious set of evidentiary fossils to look at."

ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does.

"On the other hand, we have various human religions, each with its own creation story."

Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story, which is just as unsupported by the facts.

"The two things are very, very different, indeed. Many people do have the faith required to believe in supernatural entities. Others do not and rely on physical evidence."

Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms.
Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.

Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.

In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist, all know facts about the entire universe would have to be known. We haven't got there yet.

"Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms. "

You have made the principal error that creationists make regarding the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with speciation.

The reality is that the origins of the beginnings of life are unknown at this point. Suppositions have been made, but there is no widely-accepted theory regarding this.

By making this most common of errors, you reveal your lack of knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. In doing so, you destroy your entire argument.

You also, in your article, demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the "Cambrian Explosion." This further diminishes your article.

It is very simple. If you believe in the Creation story, as laid out in Genesis, simply say you so believe. Attempting to turn that story into some sort of science is a waste of your time. Just say you are a creationist and be done with it. It is a matter of faith.

If you plan to counter the Theory of Evolution, then more study will be needed on your part, since you apparently don't understand the very basics of the theory. After that, you will need to study the current evidence...not on creationist websites...but from the publications of science. At that point, when you actually become an expert on Evolution, you can begin to criticize the theory.

The moment you claim that the TOE attempts to explain life's origin, then you identify yourself as another of the long line of folks who are arguing against something they don't even understand at the definitionary level.

"ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does."

The Raelians, Scientologists, Moonies, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have lovely explanations for fossil evidence based on "Intelligent Design". Are we to give them equal time as well? They're all perfectly valid under base ID, which declines to name the supposed designer(s).

"Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story"

Evolution isn't a story; it's observable and observed fact. The Theory of Evolution tells the story of how that fact brought us to where we are today from the first lifeforms on Earth.

"Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals"

Your beef here is with the theory of Abiogenesis; not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution deals not with how life began, but with how it has changed over time.

"then evolved into many different organisms."

Speciation has been observed many times in nature.

"Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life."

Science does not seek to prove or disprove that which cannot be observed, measured, and studied. As we have not yet reached the boundaries of scientific understanding of the origins of life on this planet, it's rather silly to begin discussions of what science will or will not be able to prove in the future.

ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does.

Say WHAT?!? Please support this amazing statement. We'll wait.

Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story, which is just as unsupported by the facts.

ROFL! Okay, feel free to support *this* one was well. How did you ever arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that evolution is "just as unsupported by the facts"?

Be sure to explain how, exactly, the massive DNA evidence for evolution (along dozens of independently confirming lines) is, you allege, not actually support for evolution. This should be really amusing.

Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms.

...because...? Funny, it sure *looks* that way to the people who are most intimately acquainted with the physical evidence -- over 99% of biologists accept the validity of evolution, based on the evidence.

Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.

Exactly so, just as the fact that science cannot prove the existence of unicorns doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.