Good thing that evolution doesn't claim it's mere chance that humans are the way they are, then. Science can claim that a certain design must have evolved a certain way because it is "efficient" to be that way – but it can never, ever answer WHY the universe is aligned in such a way that a certain design is efficient.

On the other hand, liberals DO believe that evolution means that humans exist that way because of random chance – that it disproves God (it does nothing of the sort!). Plus, if humans evolved this way because of random external factors, then social engineering has a chance (it doesn't).

Also, sadly, that's the version of the theories of evolution that creationists believe to be the one science is proposing (it isn't).

So both creationists AND liberals are wrong. Fancy that. BTW: if liberals started catching wind that the majority of conservatives/republicans stick to the actual theories of evolution, they'd change their beliefs but fast. For that's what their behavior to science, a tool, is: blind pagan belief.

The way I see it is like this:

We know evolution Is possible within a species. There's no better reason to explain how bugs and microbes develop resistance to toxins and antibiotics. Those that survive pass that trait to their offspring. Those that don't have that trait die. We see it because their short life-span makes it easier to notice large scale changes.

That man has evolved over the millenia has also been documented. What hasn't been documented is the link between Ape and Man. Archaeologists have been searching for that "Missing Link" for a long time.

I don't see a large chasm between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both of them postulate life on Earth pretty much is as it was. I think the big chink in the armor of Evolution is the concept of Entropy. Entropy states that the nature of the Universe is from one of Order to one of Disorder. True Evolution, that all animal life on Earth started as cellular life from the sea, is the antithesis of Entropy.

I find it funny that Evolutionists like to try to use Science to refute Creationism and Intelligent Design when it is Science that directly refutes Evolution.

Intelligent design is so self evidently obvious and overwhelming that it takes a certain zealotry and denial of scientific and rational fact to reject it.

One of the more curious things is that often people who are smart and scientifically trained enough to be skeptical about AGW, rejecting the religious tones, the insistence that not believing makes you a moron, and the cries of consensus over actual data… fall for it with evolution.

Then there are idiots like hoggo who think that ID is opposed to evolution, one of the more sad and pathetic examples of ignorance that is evident in some of the smartest folks. And hoggo.

And trog, we get your fun on football, I just don't give a crap about that sport.

I just emailed William Teach, who as a co-blogger on this site has moderator powers and complained about groundhog/snohomish. In my email I explain his status as a sock puppet of a repeatedly banned user and included the link to his confession of trolling the site. I encourage everyone else to take a few moments and do so as well. Mayby we can get this guy gone.

Teach's email address is: wteachNOSPAM@nc.rr.com (remove the no spam of course)

It probably won't do any good, but at least we can try.

Oh yes…

And Hoggo's confession of trolling is the 14:54:29 post on this thread:
http://rightwingnews.com/2009/09/white-student-be…

*resolutely ignores the tard, speaks up*

The problem with creationism is deceptively simple. In essence: it hypothesizes that human life on Earth (or if you prefer, all life) results from the outside interference of a Greater Entity — although /which/ Greater Entity should also be up for grabs. I kinda want us all to be the children of Baron Samedi, myself.

This hypothesis cannot be tested with the scientific method, however, because it relies on 'absence of evidence' as opposed to testable results. Since we cannot (yet) devise a test for the presence of a Greater Entity's involvement, we must regretfully set creationism and ID to the side, where it can be debated in theology and philosophy classes rather than in science.

Does this excuse the holes in evolution? Of course not. There's a reason it's still called the theory of evolution, and not 'Darwin's First Law of Evolution'. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence and small-scale reproducible results to warrant granting evolution the status of a theory. Perhaps someone will come along to swat it down — or solidify it — in the future.

Now my next question is: why the frak do physics theories never have this much heat? Have you /seen/ some of Einstein's work? Or worse, quantum theory?

This hypothesis cannot be tested with the scientific method, however

Aside from the simple fact that scientific testing isn't the sole method of understanding reality, there's two problems with this position:

1: Evolutionary theory can't be tested with the scientific method either. By definition it requires millions of years, and trying to test it by using lab experiments with fast-generation creatures like bacteria is intelligent design in action.

2: ID simply notes that the world and all that is in it shows unbelievably clear and inescapable evidence of design by an intelligent source. To argue that we have to abandon all that because it can't be proved in a lab is beside the point. Good science would take the design at face value… unless you start out with a presupposition that it cannot be true, for whatever personal reasons you have.

And regarding physics: sure, we can exceed the speed of light too, its absurd to state we cannot, knowing 1/1002002th of what there is to know. Most science these days is like alchemists and bone shaking witch doctors, theorists reaching far beyond any rational basis. Quantum physics is on the desperate stretching edge of this, like a baby trying to build a computer.

[...] – the commenters over at Right Wing News are completely missing the point. Plus, somehow I’ve got a negative score on that one. [...]

A practitioner of forensic medicine or an archeologist have to decide if an artifact or event is the product of design or chance. The body fell down the stairs. Accident, or was he pushed? The interestingly shaped rock is accident, or spearhead? So to the scientist studying ID.

Also, there is only so much probability in the universe at maximum. Multiple the particles by the time by the number of possible interactions, and you get a really huge number, something like 10 to the Fifty. So, if something like evolution requires way more than that, like enough more than that to make it a very small number, well, then you've got the Impossible. There is not enough luck in the universe.

The Fossil Record stands against evolution. There is enough evidence to stop funding the creation myth for atheists with taxpayer money, for sure. Maybe we could get all those Darwinian 'scientists' new jobs as writers of Just So stories for children.

End the Established Church and the veneration of saints such as St. Charles of the Galapagos.

"I think the big chink in the armor of Evolution is the concept of Entropy. Entropy states that the nature of the Universe is from one of Order to one of Disorder. True Evolution, that all animal life on Earth started as cellular life from the sea, is the antithesis of Entropy."

Posted by Ralph_Gizzip

No it isn't.

There can be lowering entropy in some parts of the universe while the universe as a whole still has increasing entropy.

Entropy states that the nature of the Universe is from one of Order to one of Disorder.

That is assuming the Universe is a closed system. Even then, Earth isn't a closed system, so it tends to minimum entropy i.e. Order.

There is not enough luck in the universe.

An assertion that cannot be proven. As I've said above, science cannot explain – by its very definition – why order in this universe is that and nothing else. It doesn't disprove evolution, not by a long way.

My idea why men and apes must've had a predecessor in common (and are not descended the former from the latter, as is the usual misstatement): God's humble pie for humanity.

The goal of Intelligent Design is not to reconcile science with an acknowledgment of a higher power, but to put creationism in the classroom.

The ignorance about Intelligent Design is stunning to behold, especially in those who pontificate the loudest against it.

And entropy isn't a general average, its a physical law: everything without outside influence tends toward the simplest form, not the more complex. In every instance.

You can say there is a power somewhere that is guiding all evolution & time, that we have no hope of even comprehending, because we are simply dust to this intelligence.

But its not the Christian God. And that is the problem. I know ID sounds innocent. "Not the Christian God, just something, somewhere making the thing called a human being evolve to where they are."

But really its about bringing us all back to the Christian God. Who are the people who are really pushing ID? Seriously.