Replies

In recent years, a handful of renegade scientists and academics have launched a revolt against Darwinism. Unlike creationists, they accept that the Earth is four billion years old and that species undergo some change over time. What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next — as in ape to man. Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence — though not necessarily the God of the Bible — created life in all its forms. Proponents of intelligent design agree with the scientific establishment that students should be taught evolution, but they think students should be made aware there is some controversy over the theory.

Hiya PH! When I told you I wasn't a creationist, I suspected you didn't believe me. The above excerpt is an excellent description of my position in this never-ending dispute between evos and crevos. It's clearly not an observation from the creationist position. (So there! :^P) :^)

IMHO neither side has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Reality continues to unfold, and there is still much for man to learn. To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past. Or so it seems to me.

Real advances in human knowledge and human progress, IMHO, require that we keep our minds open to the idea that we as humans do not know what God knows. FWIW.

Thanks so much A-G for the bump; and thanks to you, xsysmgr, for the marvelous post.

To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past. Or so it seems to me.

BB, you are always in my dreams! It's nice that we agree on something, like the above sentence. Of course, no one in the biology field would ever make such a statement, so you can relax. No point getting worked up over a position that no one has ever taken.

Young Earth Creationists are a subset of creationism, not the whole set. There is also Day-Age Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. If you aren't any of the preceding three, you're probably a theistic evolutionist like several on this board. However, I'd bet against that as you clearly have too many issues with mainstream science and the preponderance of evidence since the mid-19th century.

Thank you so very much for your reply!

I agree with your statement: To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past.

My two cents was that "inquiry is not a threat to truth." I could have extended that as follows:

Inquiry is not a threat to truth; therefore, objection to inquiry is prima facie cause for such inquiry.

IMHO neither side has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Well, logically speaking, I do not think that the above can be true. If there is no God as materialistic/evolution claims, then intelligent design would be impossible. If there is a God then the ridiculous assumptions of matter changing itself by evolutionists must be false. This is not really a scientific argument at all but a theological one and therefore cannot be half true/half false.