Unfortunately, your comments are flawed. Here is some of the scientific evidence to back Intelligent Design put in layman's terms and not scientific jargon.

First of all, carbon dating itself cannot be accurately calibrated. Carbon dating can only be accurately calibrated to the present. From that point on, when attempting to date an item from a previous period, carbon dating cannot take into account environmental changes, temperature changes, pressure and weight over time, etc. and therefore, totally skews the results of carbon dating. Let’s face it, it can only generalize about the date of something, plus or minus a couple million years!

Secondly, fossils are found on the LAND of every continent on earth. One small detail evolutionists omit when talking about the fossil record is that the common element required to make fossils is water. There is at least one account in history where water covered the earth, let the reader decide. Furthermore, absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

Evolution science cannot account for how organisms that evolved from water to land develop lungs from gills. If no organism ever lived on land before, how could an organism possibly develop lungs if it was never exposed to an atmospheric rather than aquatic environment?

Evolutionary science cannot explain the simple changes in gender, male and female within the same species, let alone the evolution from aquatic to atmospheric organisms. Additionally, there is not one scientist, EVER, that has created life from a substance. So the basic question is, how did life start from a cluster of atoms?

Finally, let's look at the scientific probability that the earth, solar system, atmosphere, etc. just happened to result in the perfect atmospheric conditions to sustain life. It has been mathematically calculated that it would be easier to win the lottery every day for more than 400 years than it would for everything to either evolve or explode (the Big Bang theory) into the perfect environment that sustains life.

In conclusion, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in intelligent design; thereby making evolution faith based itself! Therefore, since evolution is faith based, isn't that a religion and shouldn't it be banned from being taught under the so called "separation of church and state." (By the way: "separation of church and state" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution).

Reply

In response to Jay Kay from this morning. First off you are wrong. On several different occasions, scientists were able to recreate basic life out of a "few random atoms". When you put a simple piece of iron in a salt water solution at a certain temperature. The result is basic single cell life can form.

But the most important point is not what scientist did what or how. But if we are all God's creatures, then shouldn't it be said that everything God made is beautiful and intelligent?

That is why the whole argument of intelligent design is a way for people with nothing better to do, to raise a stink about religion in school.

I say get a job, pick a field of expertise and become great at it. Let scientists, whose expertise is to find the truth and meaning behind everything do their work.

Reply

Evolution is base completely on a species evolving, which is influenced by everything
that surrounds us. Changes of any kind in a species involves some kind of mutation taking
place. There are micro changes that have occurred over time; i.e. bird beaks have been observed to take on different forms accordingly with food sources. But these "can not" be considered in the same evolutionary text as man becoming an upright creature from a lower life form. Evolution requires mutations to occur.
And there has "NEVER" been one positive mutation observed by "ANY" scientist in recorded history. If you cab prove this statement incorrect please do so !!
J. Wilson

Reply

In response to Jay Kay from this morning. First off you are wrong. On several different occasions, scientists were able to recreate basic life out of a "few random atoms". When you put a simple piece of iron in a salt water solution at a certain temperature. The result is basic single cell life can form.

But the most important point is not what scientist did what or how. But if we are all God's creatures, then shouldn't it be said that everything God made is beautiful and intelligent?

That is why the whole argument of intelligent design is a way for people with nothing better to do, to raise a stink about religion in school.

I say get a job, pick a field of expertise and become great at it. Let scientists, whose expertise is to find the truth and meaning behind everything do their work.

Reply

I am sticking with the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself. http://www.venganza.org/

I will be one of those parents if need be when the time comes. I won't allow my child to be taught that 'some giant inexplicable thing' created the universe and all living things...no thanks.

Reply

J. Wilson: "And there has "NEVER" been one positive mutation observed by "ANY" scientist in recorded history. If you cab prove this statement incorrect please do so !!"

Here you are, complete with citations.

# Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Reply

Said better than I could ever have:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html?gusrc=rss

But I will add this -- if the earth and the universe and people and all of Ellie Mae's critters are far too complex to have developed/evolved without an intelligent designer, then surely that intelligent designer must be even more complex. So who designed the designer? (I'm betting on the FSM.)

Reply

Evolution is based exclusively on presumption and does not have any supportive facts in the fossil record or in the laboratory.

Show me one instance of a transitional form in the fossil record.
Show me one instance of an evolutionary step with both precursor and subsequent species in the fossil record or in current nature.
Give one plausible evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian Explosion based on fossil evidence.
Give one plausible explanation for the origin of life using know early earth parameters and based on either fossil or laboratory evidence.
Give one plausible evolutionary path based on laboratory observation that would result in one irreducibly complex mechanism that has been proposed by Behe.

These are not gaps in a theory they are grand canyon sized holes. The evolutionary tree is nothing but a bunch of leaves with no trunk or branches supporting it.

Reply

For those who support Darwinism maybe they should do some reading about their champion. Seems he spent less than a month studying the animals off of Peru. Five years later he wrote his articles on evolution. By the way he was paid 2 cents per word when he published his articles and believed that you could determine how smart a person, or race, was by removing a cadavers brain and refilling it, first few years he used rice, then he evolved and used lead pellets. Face it, he just wanted evidence that the English had manifest destiny to rule the world.
Second, if you are a one of those who believe that you can start life from just a few atoms of this and that and that it has been done. Please site your evidence. It has never been done but some seem to enjoy hanging on to fairy tails. Some people would rather believe in the impossible rather than looking with eyes that can really see

As a footnote the leaders in the field of microbiology have supported intelligent design as far back as the 1970's as their were two may holes in evolution, or things that evolution cannot explain.

Reply

If the school my daughter attends teaches any form of creation science by the time she is old enough to study it, I will exercise the right that creationists should be using.... I will remove her from the class for the period of time necessary. I believe in god, however I also believe in science. The two merge in grey areas from time to time, but evolution is scientifically supported and should not be challenged by a theory based on faith because faith cannot be proven or supported by fact.

Reply

I am not an expert on the subject and will not act as one.
Here is what I do know.
ID does not teach a 5000 to 10000 year old earth as creationism does. ID does allow for the earth to be billions of years old.. Id also allow for micro evolution. For example, the races in the world are all adaptations acording to their environment (sory about my lack of proper spelling).
ID does not allow for all life to have evolved from a single cell as evolution does.

ID does not teach who GOD is or even call it GOD. It only states that something created life.
Evolution states that all life is the result of a natural process and the GOD does not exist. It also does not define GOD since it already states that it doesn't exist.

In my mind I can conclude that if teaching that God exist (without defining who or what God is) violates the first amendment. Stating that God does not exist would also violate it as well.

David Lapham

Reply

All of Jay Kay's creationist claims are debunked here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Thanks. ID fails many scientific criteria and so is not science. Fine for a humanities course, though.

Reply

David Lapham:

Ecvolution does not teach god does not exist. Many proponents are religeous and evolution is endorsed by the Catholic Church. God may have created initial life and evolution may be his/her/its mechanism, maybe not. Science can only opperate in teh natural arena, it doesn not conern itself with the supernatural -that is not to say the supernatural doesn't exist, only that it can't be measured by science.

Reply

David Lapham:

Ecvolution does not teach god does not exist. Many proponents are religeous and evolution is endorsed by the Catholic Church. God may have created initial life and evolution may be his/her/its mechanism, maybe not. Science can only opperate in teh natural arena, it doesn not conern itself with the supernatural -that is not to say the supernatural doesn't exist, only that it can't be measured by science.

Reply

Reguarding Jay Kay's earlier statements.
First and foremost: Evolution does not ignore the existence of God. It is our arrogance as a species that we keep insisting that God created us exactly as we are now, that we are somehow the center and purpose of the universe even though we are such a tiny part (see below)
1) While carbon dating is know to have imperfections, even if we inlcude significant percentage variations (even 50%) in the time table this does not discredit evolution. Nor does it support I.D.
2) Unless the flood you are referring to spanned millions of years the immense differences in the age of fossils rules out a global flood (which is not even in I.D.) Also you are implying total submersion is required for fossils, otherwise such simple ideas as rain, hummidity, swamps, lakes, rivers, etc are all valid alternatives. BTW even if we accept a cataclysmic flood killing a large number of animals at the same time how does this discredit evolution or support I.D?
3)There are countless transitional fossils, the biggest flaw in I.D. is that it insists on ignoring scientific facts. Just taking one instance: Since the publishing of "Of pandas and people" the I.D. book which questions why there are no transitional fossils for whales no less than three distinct transitional stages for whales have been identified from fossils.
4)You are partially correct that evolution does not explain a detailed mechanism for why species evolved lungs; however this does not discount the evidence that fish DID evolve lungs. Try reading up on modern lungfish or perhistoric Sarcopterygian.
5)As for the old probablitiy game of look how improbable our world is try this:
While there is no way to calculate the true possiblity of life even if we say it is a billionth of a billionth take into consideration that:
There are an estimated 100 to 500 billion galaxies.
There are an estimated 400 billion stars in our galaxy.
In our own solar system we strongly suspect that Mars may have had / or still have some form of single celled life in its history as we know it contains most of the basic necessities for life. (Two planets just for just one star)

Reply

Rich:

Like I said I am not an experct, but my understanding is that evolution as it is presented
is the teaching that life began from a single cell. That that single cell was greated by the combining of several components that were created by one of several possible events including the big bang. Take that one cell add in a few billion years and you have the diversity of life that we now see on earth today.

Through fossil records and the like, it is easy to see several adaptations of different species on the planet. This is what got Darwin started, and this is where ID and Evolution both agree.

Where eveolution has a much more difficult time is showing how that one cell was created and then showing the process that the cell made to get to the earth full of life that we have today.

As somone above may have stated. It takes a lot of faith to fill in the large gaps from cell to human. It also takes a lot of faith to bealive that a bang or whatever theory you bealive in caused the right situation for one cell to be "created".
It just seems "supernatural" that a bang would cause life in any form to exist. It also seems "supernatural" that one cell could with the help of a little time make itself into any of the advanced forms of life that we know today.

Does ID have its gaps and holes? Sure. Does ID require faith in something that we can not prove exist? Yes! The thing is that evolution also relies on unprovable forces. The Big bang used to be that force. recently other theories of come in to populatity, but they are all supernatural. If the fact that something can not be recreated using modern scientiffic methodes makes it junk science, Then I would have to logicly conclude that both evolution and ID are junk science. I am assuming that anything that can not be recreated using the laws of science as being supernatural. That would make the forming of a living cell from a bang supernatural. that would also make the cell's mutation into intelligent life supernatural. So not only are both ID and Evolution both junk science, that are also both relient on the supernatural.

Reply

You know, Darwin was racked with guilt and indecision about his theories, and only published because somebody else was about to publish the same ideas.

In any case, an argument could be made for ID that is non-religious in nature - that we are all part of somebody else's (alien) experiement/quest/etc. Of course, there really aren't too many facts to back that up, but it's certainly an idea that's been floating around for generations. I personally believe in evolution (one of the very few conservative Republicans to admit so, I'm sure), but I also think that a variety of ideas should be presented to the students, ranging from ID to evolution to that spaghetti monster thingy. The students should then be allowed to use the Scientific Method (remember that?) to discern for themselves which makes the most sense to them. Make it a project or something, and they'll be able to learn about how to make their own conclusions about a highly contentious subject.

Reply

Once ID people can bring forward scientific facts that have been deemed creditable by a third party I don't think it should be allowed in schools. The part that bothers me is, that this "new" theory seems to be gathering a lot of followers who are so devout. Considering it hasn't been 10 years since my last anthropology class and I had never heard of "I.D.", I think it's extremist to bring it to our children at this time. Again, until they come up with some 'science' and have 3rd party support with peer review (and that means ALL scientists not just I.D. supporters) I do not think it should be in our schools.

Reply

Hi David - thank's for your response.

Actually you're talking about an different science - abiogenisis - the ofrmation of life from no life. There is clearly space for god here if you wish, but it shouldn't be confounded with evoution.

Anna - its interesting that you talk about the scientific method - because ID clearly violates it. The scientific method is based on methodological naturilsm and has a set of laws as to what is and isn't science. You might want to look at these and see if ID qualifies? whilst you're there check out Occam's razor - a very powrefull scientific concept, and apply it to ID.

Reply

Thy should ID not be referenced as an possible alternative or addendum to evolution:
1) There is no question that I.D. has not obtained scientific acceptance. It is more of a hypothesis than a theory, and even that status is questionable as parts of the hypothesis (specifically that NO species has even undergone ANY major evolutionary change, and that there are NO transitional fossils ever found) would be considered disproven already by the scientific community.
2) If a public school is required to make a statement which supports an otherwise unaccepted scientific hypothesis, because that hypothesis happens to be viewed favorable by a particullar religious group, then this represents a law attempting to support a particullar religion which would be a violation of the first ammendment. This is true even if the hypothesis itself was entirely non-religious. (which is dubious in IDs case)

Reply