Well the weekend's here and I've got time to finally come back around...

quote:

I think that you misunderstood my point. I was not saying that ID teaches anything about another designer other then God. As far as I know most followers of ID believe in some type of God. However the theory of ID does not specify a designer, it teaches that there is design, and that that design points to a designer and not to a design.

That last part is extremely confusing. The design doesn't point to a design? What? I get that ID says that the design implies a designer. But your writing is turning around on itself.

quote:

Also you made a point about the irreducibly complex organs and said that they really aren’t irreducibly complex. Do you have any evidence to support that point?

Nice try, but it's up to those who claim irreducible complexity to actually provide convincing evidence of such. Commonly cited organs/structures are eyes and ears. However, it doesn't take much of a stretch to see how eyes could have developed from early bacteria, flatworms and such, into complex modern eyes. The fact that eyes have evolved in multiple creates and with mulitple variations points to the theory that eyes developed over time from simple structures.

quote:

Evolution does state that all animals came from a common ancestor. So Dogs and cats would both stem from a common ancestor, granted that is not the same as a dog turning into a cat, but I was using a basic illustration to point out that Macro evolution, and micro evolution are two very different things, and that micro evolution does not necessarily point to Macro evolution.

Then your example was just horribly flawed and irrelevent? Is that your point? You say that cats don't turn into dogs, and that is a "simple illustration" that shows that micro evolution doesn't point to macroevolution? How? You don't see how small changes over time can differentiate one species from another?

quote:

You can create modifications to DNA, the Question I posed was will this happen naturally with a positive benefit. Also Marco evolution would require more then just changes in the traits; it would require the addition of entirely new traits. Can this happen without the DNA changing?

It happens naturally with both a positive AND negative changes. However, the negative changes are more likely to die out and not breed. Thus those with positive mutations are MORE likely to breed. Therefore, over time, the positive changes will become more prolific while the negative ones die out.

Through this same manner entirely new traits can form over time also, it is simply a matter of long-term mutations. Also I don't get your question about "Can this happen without the DNA changing?". The whole point is that the DNA changes, so no it wouldn't happen without it.

quote:

Do you have any evidence to support your claims about the Cambrian explosion? Because I have seen numerous references to the Cambrian explosion from many different sources and none of them questioned its validity.

This is because you're either reading old or oversimplified sources. Or you simply glossed over that concept, or didn't understand it.

Also, here's a paper that rejects the Cambrian Explosion hypothesis based on molecular dating of metazoans:Testing the Cambrian explosion hypothosis by using a molecular dating technique.
You need Adobe or some PDF reader to see that.
Another abstract finding evidence for Precambrian complexity.

quote:

And to address the time frame. A Few million years is tiny in comparison to 4 billion years so it would be a significant reduction in the time frame for evolution. Not only that, but a few million years is not enough time for evolution to occur to the magnitude that the evolutionary theory would require.

What? Seriously what's this about compressing 4 billion years of evolution into a few million? I never said that, and it's total junk. And who are you to say that a few million years isn't enough time for that evolution to occur? You say that like you're God.

quote:

The link gave the Archaeopteryx as its key example of transitional links between reptiles and birds.
You cited an attempt to discredit this fossil that occurred in the 80’s. This was not the group that I was referring to. The scientists that I was referring to acknowledge that that first attempt was clearly unfounded but say that since then more information has arouse that once again calls into question the validity of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil.
I got my information about the Archaeopteryx from Jonathan wells book Icons of Evolution.
Here is a link to Jonathan wells credentials, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?comma...&id=41&isFellow=true
He devotes an entire chapter of his book to the Archaeopteryx

Again, you go ahead and state that it's been called into question without stating, at all, WHY. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY. Get it? Just because some PhD. says something doesn't mean it's true. You need reasoning. And Archaeopteryx was merely one fossil out of dozens in that FAQ.

As for Jonathan Wells, your link tells me that he's associated with the Discovery Institution, basically the sole bastion of ID proponents. Hardly objective.

quote:

The picture that you gave and the explanation of the path taken by evolution are insufficient. Evolution can propose theory’s about what path the evolution took, but can it explain how it went down that path.

First off, of course it's insufficient, it's a cartoon. It's a visual aid, not evidence. Second, evolution proposes both path and method. Mutation, genetic drift, recombination, diseases...

quote:

I don’t believe in a common ancestor, on that point I disagree with some of the other leading people in ID and agree with others.

You realize that in modern evolution the "common ancestor" is some single-celled organism billions of years ago right? Why is that such a repulsive idea to you?

quote:

That is an incorrect statement. ID was founded by scientists who were usually deistic or atheistic in beliefs and then had become dissatisfied with the theory of Evolution.

The Discovery Institute's "Wedge" paper pretty much shoots that to pieces:
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Plus, the whole idea of the "Wedge" strategy is a PR move and has nothing to do with the supposedly "scientific" goals of the Discovery Institute.

quote:

As far as I know ID was the excuse invented by the religious to involve God in the history of the universe once it was proven that creationism just didn't make the cut.

That is an incorrect statement. ID was founded by scientists who were usually deistic or atheistic in beliefs and then had become dissatisfied with the theory of Evolution.

quote:

As far as I know most followers of ID believe in some type of God

As far as I know ID was the excuse invented by the religious to involve God in the history of the universe once it was proven that creationism just didn't make the cut.

quote:

Problems with this:
First, honestly, I don't know if I can beleive that most ID proponents don't believe the designer is supernatural.

I think that you misunderstood my point. I was not saying that ID teaches anything about another designer other then God. As far as I know most followers of ID believe in some type of God. However the theory of ID does not specify a designer, it teaches that there is design, and that that design points to a designer and not to a design.

Also you made a point about the irreducibly complex organs and said that they really aren’t irreducibly complex. Do you have any evidence to support that point?

quote:

Well no we don't see dogs turning into cats because they're wildly different species that would NEVER turn into eachother. That's not the way evolution works.

Evolution does state that all animals came from a common ancestor. So Dogs and cats would both stem from a common ancestor, granted that is not the same as a dog turning into a cat, but I was using a basic illustration to point out that Macro evolution, and micro evolution are two very different things, and that micro evolution does not necessarily point to Macro evolution.

quote:

It's not the DNA that needs to change so much that it's the TRAITS that the DNA causes. We can see this in the forced (and truely "intelligently designed) evolution caused by our domestication of plants. Overall our DNA is fairly similar to other higher primates, however small switches can have drastic changes.

You can create modifications to DNA, the Question I posed was will this happen naturally with a positive benefit. Also Marco evolution would require more then just changes in the traits; it would require the addition of entirely new traits. Can this happen without the DNA changing?

quote:

Back to the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion has always been suspect, as it is only evidenced from a few rock units.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims about the Cambrian explosion? Because I have seen numerous references to the Cambrian explosion from many different sources and none of them questioned its validity.

And to address the time frame. A Few million years is tiny in comparison to 4 billion years so it would be a significant reduction in the time frame for evolution. Not only that, but a few million years is not enough time for evolution to occur to the magnitude that the evolutionary theory would require.

quote:

It had a whole section detailing a number of fossils that had both reptillian and avian traits.

The link gave the Archaeopteryx as its key example of transitional links between reptiles and birds.
You cited an attempt to discredit this fossil that occurred in the 80’s. This was not the group that I was referring to. The scientists that I was referring to acknowledge that that first attempt was clearly unfounded but say that since then more information has arouse that once again calls into question the validity of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil.
I got my information about the Archaeopteryx from Jonathan wells book Icons of Evolution.
Here is a link to Jonathan wells credentials, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?comma...&id=41&isFellow=true
He devotes an entire chapter of his book to the Archaeopteryx

quote:

Is it that much of a stretch of your imagination to see how continued changes within a family of animals would lead to an eventual deviation into a new family?

The picture that you gave and the explanation of the path taken by evolution are insufficient. Evolution can propose theory’s about what path the evolution took, but can it explain how it went down that path.

quote:

find it odd that you're argueing against transitional fossils as there's no reason they don't mesh with the ID philosophy. Is this a bit of your creationist past leaking through?

I don’t believe in a common ancestor, on that point I disagree with some of the other leading people in ID and agree with others.

quote:

Speed, please don't make my job harder here. There's no hard-set "laws" describing what the nature of conciousness is and whether or not it's tied to organic creatures.

Please don't tell me you took that seriously

OK, back on track (Please read my post immediately below this one first):

Back to the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion has always been suspect, as it is only evidenced from a few rock units. These rock units represent conditions that were prime for preserveing soft-bodied organisms. Normally, only hard-bodied organisms (ie. brachiopods, bivalves, etc.) are preserved. The result: We don't see any soft-bodied organisms except in the "snapshots" we get from units like the Burgess Shale. This means the rock units that represent the "Cambrian Explosion" may only be a representation of the pre-existing diversity of life. This is supported by fossils suggesting complex life farther back in the Proterozoic.

And if there indeed was a "Cambrian Explosion" it still likely occured over several millions of years, and represented the first proliferation of multicellular life, a situation where you would expect to see a huge explosion of evolutionary diversity because there's little competition and a huge number of niches to fill.

quote:

We see it in the fossil record? What we would need for this to be true is a large number of transitional fossils. What I mean by this is fossils for creatures that would fit in between to different types of animals. So if the fossil could be classified as a bird, it would not fit as a transitional fossil between a reptile and a bird.

Wow, you really didn't look at that link at all did you? It had a whole section detailing a number of fossils that had both reptillian and avian traits. More evidence lies in that, athough modern birds don't have teeth (an avian trait), they can be induced to grow teeth with certain hormones and such (a reptillian trait). This suggest a reptillian ancestory for modern avians.

quote:

Let’s look at your first example. Scientist are now doubting if this is actually a transitional fossil, and its use as a “ missing link” is under question, so it is not the best example of a transitional fossil.

Really? Scientists are doubting it? Care to show evidence of that instead of just blurting it out there? Some people tried to discredit it back in the 80's but they failed as thier claims showed a misunderstanding of how impression fossils are made. The authenticity of Archeopetryx has been confirmed through the finding of several other examples of the species, as well as the series of aforementioned bird-reptile transitional fossils.

quote:

For example if the progression of whale fossils only is changes within whale types then we are not looking at macro evolution.
If you mean progression from one animal type to the next then what animal type are they evolving to? For example what is the whale evolving from, evolving to and do they have fossils that fill the transitions?

Whales evolved from some sort of hippo-like creature. And what's this about "changes within whale types is not macro-evolution"? Is it that much of a stretch of your imagination to see how continued changes within a family of animals would lead to an eventual deviation into a new family?

Again, please read through this link:
Transitional Fossils FAQ

And here's a picture chart of horse evolution if you're intimidated by the heavy scientific writing of the FAQ:
Horse Evolution Image

I find it odd that you're argueing against transitional fossils as there's no reason they don't mesh with the ID philosophy. Is this a bit of your creationist past leaking through?

quote:

Obviously, if this being is not supernatural like you just said it must be a living being, and must be of organic nature, because according to natural law inteligence, sentience, and especially creativity are all traits associated to living organisms.

Speed, please don't make my job harder here. There's no hard-set "laws" describing what the nature of conciousness is and whether or not it's tied to organic creatures.

Back to Nephilem:

quote:

I think that you misunderstand The Intelligent Design Theory. Id makes claims that there is a designer. It does not specify that there is a supernatural force that is the inferred conclusion. It states that we can see design and infers the Designer.

Problems with this:
First, honestly, I don't know if I can beleive that most ID proponents don't believe the designer is supernatural.
Two, in order to infer design, you need to know what to look for that specifies "design". There's absolutely no way to know this. Most of the evidence for "design" comes from the concept of irreducably complex organs and such. The problem is that most of these irreducably complex organs really aren't irreducably complex when you really think about it.

The problem is, overall, is that you have to assume there's a designer first to make ID work. Since there's no evidence for a designer outside of ID, you get into a vicious circle that can't be externally confirmed.

quote:

Animals do change over time but you don’t have dogs turning into cats. Threw micro evolution we see change within these species. However we don’t see macro evolution.

Well no we don't see dogs turning into cats because they're wildly different species that would NEVER turn into eachother. That's not the way evolution works.

quote:

You make the claim that an animals DNA can drastically change, has this hypothesis been proven, and how much time would it take to get from a very simple life form to the complex and diverse range of life that we see now?

It's not the DNA that needs to change so much that it's the TRAITS that the DNA causes. We can see this in the forced (and truely "intelligently designed) evolution caused by our domestication of plants. Overall our DNA is fairly similar to other higher primates, however small switches can have drastic changes.

Example: It took thousands of years for corn to go from a stubby little plant to the plant we know today, with the large, soft ears of sweet corn. And this was evolution directed by humans. Changes caused by random chance would take signifigantly longer. How much longer would depend on a number of factors, and we really can't say exactly yet. But it's extremely likely that it's well within the scope of the time scale provided by the fossil record.

quote:

Also there is the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. This event is often referred to as the Biological Big bang, and during this period we can see an explosion of animal types. This introduction of many different types of life, on all different level of complexity, does not fit with the evolutionary idea of slow change from non-complex to complex

The Cambrian Explosion is looking more and more like a false artifact in the fossil record.

I'll be back to explain further, I'm out of time now. Class awaits.

quote:

I think that you misunderstand The Intelligent Design Theory. Id makes claims that there is a designer. It does not specify that there is a supernatural force that is the inferred conclusion. It states that we can see design and infers the Designer.

So you essentially believe there is some NON SUPERNATURAL being that plays with life and the universe like a box of legos?
Obviously, if this being is not supernatural like you just said it must be a living being, and must be of organic nature, because according to natural law inteligence, sentience, and especially creativity are all traits associated to living organisms. Coincidentally, living organism are known to require certain conditions to be able to exist, most notably warmth and oxigen, neither of these can be found anywhere outside of our planet as far as our current knowledge on the matter goes.
Also, seing this being is not supernatural, we must assume that it's influence over the universe must have been exerted through physicall means, because telekinesis, telepathy, and the other traits that a living being would require to move planets, and assemble living beings are supernatural and thus not correspondent with this organisms non-supernatural nature.

So essentially, what you just said is that there is this simply unimaginably huge being sitting behind the universe and for some reason he got bored at one point or other and decided to start screwing around with the chemical components of our universe.

Now that we know god is just this really big animal, I wonder if we could somehow do a DNA test on him and try to understand him better. With Jesus being the son of god, he must of shared some of his DNA, but if a DNA test where to be conducted on the remains of Jesus(in the case that they where found) we would in all probability find him to be 100% human, thus we must assume god was human.
This is mandatory and unquestionable because god is not supernatural according to your words.
So... There is this huge human that uses tiny instruments(he must of used them, otherwise I don't understand how he manipulated the elements being so massively huge and all) to screw around with the chemical components of the universe and produces the big bang and later on, life.

Hey, wait a sec, if ID does accept the progressive appearance of animal life forms, how could god (being human and all) be around before humans existed?

Please think of the implications of your words

quote:

ID does this: It takes an observation and hypothosizes that the observation was caused by God. This is perfectly legitimate philosophically.

I think that you misunderstand The Intelligent Design Theory. Id makes claims that there is a designer. It does not specify that there is a supernatural force that is the inferred conclusion. It states that we can see design and infers the Designer.

quote:

Life changes and adapts over time, creating new species.

Animals do change over time but you don’t have dogs turning into cats. Threw micro evolution we see change within these species. However we don’t see macro evolution.

You make the claim that an animals DNA can drastically change, has this hypothesis been proven, and how much time would it take to get from a very simple life form to the complex and diverse range of life that we see now?

I also have two other points under this, first of all why are we seeing a decrease in species types. We can look back and see a rising drop in the number of species. However Evolution would state that the species Number should be rising not dropping.

Also there is the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. This event is often referred to as the Biological Big bang, and during this period we can see an explosion of animal types. This introduction of many different types of life, on all different level of complexity, does not fit with the evolutionary idea of slow change from non-complex to complex.

quote:

We see it in the fossil record.

We see it in the fossil record? What we would need for this to be true is a large number of transitional fossils. What I mean by this is fossils for creatures that would fit in between to different types of animals. So if the fossil could be classified as a bird, it would not fit as a transitional fossil between a reptile and a bird.

quote:

Here's some off the top of my head:
-Archeopetryx
-Progression of whale fossils
-Progression of horse fossils
-Progression of elephant fossils
-Progression of HUMANOID fossils
The list goes on.

Let’s look at your first example. Scientist are now doubting if this is actually a transitional fossil, and its use as a “ missing link” is under question, so it is not the best example of a transitional fossil.

When you say progression, what type of progression are you talking about if it is a progression of variants inside an animal type then it does not prove anything? For example if the progression of whale fossils only is changes within whale types then we are not looking at macro evolution.
If you mean progression from one animal type to the next then what animal type are they evolving to? For example what is the whale evolving from, evolving to and do they have fossils that fill the transitions?

quote:

Sorry I did not write that correctly, I meant to say that: The question is not do people think of it as a science, but instead the question is does it meet the requirements for qualifying as a science.

Is there a scientific rule that states that a scientific theory can’t include mention of the supernatural?

YES. That is what I've been trying to tell you. By definition something that is "super"natural exists outside of our plane of existance. Science is used to describe things in a repeatable, testable manner based upon natural laws. A "super"natural influence would not be bound to natural law and would therefore not be able to be testable or provable.

ID does this: It takes an observation and hypothosizes that the observation was caused by God. This is perfectly legitimate philosophically.

However, in order for it to become a science, you must come up with an experiment or repeated evidence to prove that your hypothosis is correct. In order to prove this, ID must come up with an experiment that proves divine influence. The problem is that ID has never done this, because nobody has ever come up with a "God Test".

ID then fails as a science because, essentially, there is no way to confirm or deny there is a God, therefore there's no way to confirm or deny thier hypothosis, therefore there is no series of experimentation, therefore no science.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes a simple prediction: Life changes and adapts over time, creating new species. There's a few easy tests for that.
One, would be to go look at the fossil record to see if life has indeed changed over time to adapt to new conditions. Easy experimentation: Evidence from the fossil record. We find evidence that animals do, in fact, change over time.
Two, with modern knowladge of DNA we can test to see if there is an actual mechanism for this change. We find that DNA is information for building a lifeform that is passed from generation to generation, but also changes due to mutation and sexual reproduction. We hypothosis that these mutations can lead to lifeforms with different traits, ie. evolution. Over time we observe signifigant changes within species, this is microevolution.

Therefore, we combine the confirmed predictions microevolution, and the confirmed accommodation of the fossil record, and we have the basis for a solid science through various tests. This science may be strengthened when we observe macro-evolution in the long term.

quote:

Macro evolution is not observable, micro evolution is observable but Macro evolution is not.

Macro evolution IS observable though. We see it in the fossil record. Darwin's theory lead to the obvious prediction that we'd find a trend of increasing complexity through the fossil record, which we have observed. And, eventually, we may observe marco-evolution over time. But it progresses at an extremely, extremely slow rate.

It's like looking at small earthquakes. We don't actually SEE a mountain being built up by them, but we know that's what's happening by looking at mountains that were built up long ago.

quote:

Can you cite the top ten examples of a transitional fossil?

You really didn't read that link to the Transitional Fossils FAQ at all did you?

Here's some off the top of my head:
-Archeopetryx
-Progression of whale fossils
-Progression of horse fossils
-Progression of elephant fossils
-Progression of HUMANOID fossils
The list goes on.

quote:

I'm going to make an assumption here, correct me if I'm wrong: You're 16 so you, in all likelyhood, haven't taken a class that focuses on evolution. You've probably taken biology or poly-sci classes that discuss evolution for a short period of time. This really is not a thorough explaination of the various evolutionary theories out there.

Yes I am 16 and I have not taken any class specifically on the theory of evolution. However as I stated origin of life theory’s of a kind of hobby for me so I have done more specific reading into individual theories

quote:

Of course that's the question! Does ID meet the definition of a science! Here's why it DOESN'T, in your own words:

Sorry I did not write that correctly, I meant to say that: The question is not do people think of it as a science, but instead the question is does it meet the requirements for qualifying as a science.

quote:

The basis of ID, the whole reason for it existing, is the stipulation that evolution is driven by an external designer.

Is there a scientific rule that states that a scientific theory can’t include mention of the supernatural?

quote:

Well given how a version of ID is the current dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest christian sect on the planet, I'd say it's very much considered a religious theory by "most" in the religious community.

Which version of ID are you referring to? I am non denominational so I am not familiar with the Catholic teachings on Origin of life.

quote:

Well yeah but you could also say that's the sky's green, but you have to PROVE it. Please EXPLAIN why you think evolution fails those points, rather than just repeating the same "No it isn't!!" line over and over again.

Macro evolution is not observable, micro evolution is observable but Macro evolution is not.
It is not Parsimonious because it has many proposed explanations.
Just to clarifyI do think that evolution is a scientific theory that should be evaluated. However I think that ID is just as qualified as Evolution to be considered a scientific theory.

quote:

HUGE numbers of transitional fossils.

Can you cite the top ten examples of a transitional fossil?

quote:

You can go down and read my previous posts. I don't need to summarize them as the post is already a summary of a very complex theory.

I have read your previous posts and I am not sure which points you are referring two. If you could quickly list them I will know what I am looking for, and then I can respond to your point.

quote:

After reading those books I became aware of all the evidence for alternate theories, as well as found newer and bigger holes in the theory of evolution that are not clearly stated in normal educational settings.

I'm going to make an assumption here, correct me if I'm wrong: You're 16 so you, in all likelyhood, haven't taken a class that focuses on evolution. You've probably taken biology or poly-sci classes that discuss evolution for a short period of time. This really is not a thorough explaination of the various evolutionary theories out there.

quote:

Before you accept that ID is not a scientific theory I suggest that you look at the theory and at what the creators of ID say, and how they show that they are putting forth a scientific theory.

The question is not do people think of it as a science or does it meet the requirements of qualifying as a science.

Of course that's the question! Does ID meet the definition of a science! Here's why it DOESN'T, in your own words:

quote:

Also from a technical stance ID does not specify I believe in the supper natural it says that there is a designer and then leaves it up to people to decide what type of designer there is.

The basis of ID, the whole reason for it existing, is the stipulation that evolution is driven by an external designer. This is an inherently untestable idea. It's also dangerous in that it blinds people to research that may help develop other TESTABlE theories. Throughout the history of science, there's been claims that something is deisgned, or attempts were made to fit observations into Biblical descriptions, and almost invariably these theories failed. Imagine if people just accepted them at face value.

quote:

Let me rephrase that, it is not considered a religious theory by most in the religious community; it is considered to be a negation of the bible.

Well given how a version of ID is the current dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest christian sect on the planet, I'd say it's very much considered a religious theory by "most" in the religious community.

quote:

You could say that evolution is not consistent, is not parsimonious, does not predict an observable phenomena, is not empirically testable and falsifiable, is not based on multiple observations, and is not provisional.

Well yeah but you could also say that's the sky's green, but you have to PROVE it. Please EXPLAIN why you think evolution fails those points, rather than just repeating the same "No it isn't!!" line over and over again.

quote:

The Fossil record? How many transition al creatures have been found in the fossil record that point to evolution?
Micro evolution is testable and seen in our world today, however micro evolution is not proof for macro evolution.

HUGE numbers of transitional fossils. The arguement that there's "no transitional fossils" worked back when Darwin first proposed evolution, but since then that statement has been steadily disproven. Here's a faq written by a PhD in Zoology from Washington University:
Transitional Fossils FAQ
It's quite extensive.

quote:

I am sorry if I have dropped your points, can you please just summaries what your points were and then I will respond to them to the best of my ability.

You can go down and read my previous posts. I don't need to summarize them as the post is already a summary of a very complex theory.

quote:

My point was that many facts can be interpreted in different ways and the Facts are the evolutionist’s interpretation of the evidence, only looking at on side of the argument.

See, you fail to see how science works. The reason evolution has gotten where it has, and this is true of every scientific theory, is that thousands of scientists HAVE looked at all the facts, and formed general consensus.
There's this feeling I'm getting from you that you think that "Evolutionists" are a conspiracy of atheists bent on removing God. That's just simply untrue.

quote:

It neither affirms nor denies it. It merely says the species of animals have evolved over time due to natural circumstances.

Okay I will cede that point. What does that prove? There is rule that science can’t support the idea of the supernatural.
Also from a technical stance ID does not specify I believe in the supper natural it says that there is a designer and then leaves it up to people to decide what type of designer there is.

quote:

This makes no sense. Facts are facts, regardless of who presents them. Please note: Steven Colbert is joking when he talks about truthiness.

My point was that many facts can be interpreted in different ways and the Facts are the evolutionist’s interpretation of the evidence, only looking at on side of the argument.

quote:

Evolution claims that there is no divine, Id claims that there is a divine. They both deal with the divine the only difference is that one affirms a belief in the divine and the other negates it.

Wrong. As Dr.S said, evolution theory makes no claim regarding God. It neither affirms nor denies it. It merely says the species of animals have evolved over time due to natural circumstances. Now, ID basically takes evolutionary theory and says that God guided those natural circumstances. In this sense, ID adds the divine onto evolution. Evolution is neutral with respect to any sort of divine power, while ID affirms it.