Rebuttals from the ID camp contain no such expertise or references, and are usually based on long refuted arguments against evolution, but little or nothing that truly supports ID.
Actually, you know, I have heard a well-based defense of ID, based on "irreducible complexity," which with all the latest in technology, and knowledge of DNA, and genome projects, actually, hasn't been refuted, but is even more strongly supported.
And in regard to expertise and references, I believe that the biologists who worked on the human genome project are probably among the most qualified of all. Funny thing, though... by the time they finally finished mapping the human genome, every last one of them believed in Intelligent Design, thinking it impossible for such a mass of intricate complexity to have evolved spontaneously.
Macroevolution is so well supported by evidence that only the ignorant doubt it.
The only evidence that can possibly support macroevolution, is the exact same evidence that points to creationism. The only thing that changes is how the evidence is interpreted. Now, in my previous diatribe, I assumed an unbiased point of view, in which the most proven scientific facts, point to a theistic worldview. Evolution, on the other hand, to arrive at an interpretation that supports evolution, can only get there by starting with a bias: namely, a non-theistic worldview. Bias is unscientific in that it causes a self-serving basis to reach its own conclusion, at the exclusion of any other possibility. What I did above was the exact opposite, I let the evidence of the Big Bang, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and General Relativity, to speak for themselves, the the conclusion is noted above. THAT is scientific analysis of the evidence.
Actually, ID is supported by the Big Bang, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, and General Relativity. In fact all of these point to a definite beginning of the universe as we know it, including, but not limited to, time, space, and matter. Therefore, for the universe to exist, something which/whose existence is outside of the universe is necessary.
Hence, being outside of time, it must be eternal, being outside of space, it must be infinite, being outside of matter, it must be immaterial. Not only do these scientifically proven facts (Big Bang, 2Law, and GR) point to these qualifications, but they also require that this eternal, infinite, and immaterial whatever be intelligent, and personal. Something, or whatever, is not capable of causing the existence of a universe that is so fine-tuned to the very existence of life without being intelligent. And by necessity, it must also be personal, because an impersonal whatever/something does not have the capability of making any choice, much less the choice to cause the existence of a fine-tuned universe.
So, if even the the most high, profoundly, and widely accepted, and broadly proven scientific fact (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) points to a creation of the universe, not accepting and teaching Intelligent Design "demands stupidity," to quote the reviewer.
As for evolution, now that's a whole other can of worms. Yes, it has been researched; no, it has not been tested. No scientist has ever observed a spontaneous appearance of a new species from another. The rationale behind the theory of evolution is actually very interesting, it shows a great deal of keen insight. It was, however, based upon a limited knowledge of science from over a century ago.
If evolution were in fact true, we would expect to see intermediate specimins, between species. We would also expect to see different life forms show up chronologically in the fossil records, whereas, we actually see all varieties of viruses, monera, protista, fungi, plants, invertibrates and vertebrates show up in the fossil record all at the same time, at the beginning of the Pre-Cambrian era. If anything, I would say that Evolution is not based on scientific fact, whereas Intelligent Design is, as noted above.
Slashdot Mirror
Rebuttals from the ID camp contain no such expertise or references, and are usually based on long refuted arguments against evolution, but little or nothing that truly supports ID.
Actually, you know, I have heard a well-based defense of ID, based on "irreducible complexity," which with all the latest in technology, and knowledge of DNA, and genome projects, actually, hasn't been refuted, but is even more strongly supported.
And in regard to expertise and references, I believe that the biologists who worked on the human genome project are probably among the most qualified of all. Funny thing, though... by the time they finally finished mapping the human genome, every last one of them believed in Intelligent Design, thinking it impossible for such a mass of intricate complexity to have evolved spontaneously.
Macroevolution is so well supported by evidence that only the ignorant doubt it.
The only evidence that can possibly support macroevolution, is the exact same evidence that points to creationism. The only thing that changes is how the evidence is interpreted. Now, in my previous diatribe, I assumed an unbiased point of view, in which the most proven scientific facts, point to a theistic worldview. Evolution, on the other hand, to arrive at an interpretation that supports evolution, can only get there by starting with a bias: namely, a non-theistic worldview. Bias is unscientific in that it causes a self-serving basis to reach its own conclusion, at the exclusion of any other possibility. What I did above was the exact opposite, I let the evidence of the Big Bang, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and General Relativity, to speak for themselves, the the conclusion is noted above. THAT is scientific analysis of the evidence.
Actually, ID is supported by the Big Bang, and the Laws of Thermodynamics, and General Relativity. In fact all of these point to a definite beginning of the universe as we know it, including, but not limited to, time, space, and matter. Therefore, for the universe to exist, something which/whose existence is outside of the universe is necessary. Hence, being outside of time, it must be eternal, being outside of space, it must be infinite, being outside of matter, it must be immaterial. Not only do these scientifically proven facts (Big Bang, 2Law, and GR) point to these qualifications, but they also require that this eternal, infinite, and immaterial whatever be intelligent, and personal. Something, or whatever, is not capable of causing the existence of a universe that is so fine-tuned to the very existence of life without being intelligent. And by necessity, it must also be personal, because an impersonal whatever/something does not have the capability of making any choice, much less the choice to cause the existence of a fine-tuned universe. So, if even the the most high, profoundly, and widely accepted, and broadly proven scientific fact (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) points to a creation of the universe, not accepting and teaching Intelligent Design "demands stupidity," to quote the reviewer. As for evolution, now that's a whole other can of worms. Yes, it has been researched; no, it has not been tested. No scientist has ever observed a spontaneous appearance of a new species from another. The rationale behind the theory of evolution is actually very interesting, it shows a great deal of keen insight. It was, however, based upon a limited knowledge of science from over a century ago. If evolution were in fact true, we would expect to see intermediate specimins, between species. We would also expect to see different life forms show up chronologically in the fossil records, whereas, we actually see all varieties of viruses, monera, protista, fungi, plants, invertibrates and vertebrates show up in the fossil record all at the same time, at the beginning of the Pre-Cambrian era. If anything, I would say that Evolution is not based on scientific fact, whereas Intelligent Design is, as noted above.