Bit strong? Nope - they are and they actually know it, but presumably they are able to justify this on the grounds that it is for a ‘higher good’ or similar reason.

Let’s go over some of the commonly used ‘proofs’ they bring out to disprove evolution.

1. Evolution is a belief not a science and it was invented by atheists who hate God (their capitilisation not mine). Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.

First part of this statement. Wrong. To quote Wikipedia’s excellent summary: “Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain why it occurs. Studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists by the mid-nineteenth century that species changed over time. However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin’s work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution within the scientific community”

Firstly, there are thousands of scientists who work in the field of evolutionary science who profess to be religious - christians, muslims etc. Their work is to be respected even if many, including me, don’t respect their religious beliefs. I have no problem with these scientists but creationists (I.Ders) do. It can only be assumed that these christian scientists (for example) are regarded as really atheists by the I.Ders. I’m sure that they would strongly object to this - and quite rightly so. Here’s one who is.

What gives these people the right to label scientific study a ‘belief’? Well, because they believe in I.D presumably!
Again, I have no problem with what they believe - but don’t pretend that it is science. It isn’t and no amount of lying about it will make it so.

Any scientific theory has to go through the same rigorous study process to become classified as a ‘theory’.
Again, Wikipedia has a good summary of a scientific theory. Here’s an extract:
“In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession.

A difference in usage of the word “fact” contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of “theory.” An appreciation of the various meanings of “fact” and “knowledge” can help to clarify an understanding of the meanings of “theory.”

Ok - so please show us all the observations, testable evidence for the theory of Intelligent Design. We would love to see some - but there is just the usual stony silence from them after they have finished ‘disproving’ the theory of evolution. Fine, so you believe you have disproved and discredited it - so what alternative do you offer the scientific community and the world in general?

And thus endeth the lesson ID Chapter 1 Lie 1. More to come on this… stay tuned for the next post.

After watching the Nova series about the Dover trial I was struck by how clearly the explanation for the differing numbers of chromosomes in apes and humans was presented. I did some searching and found this interesting video of a self-professed roman catholic biologist explaining the process very clearly. His comments at the end of the video are very revealing and also bemusing as well - how can religious scientists reconcile what they believe with scientific knowledge?

And here’s one of them. Sure, maybe not in the same league as Dawkins, but that’s being picky. The observations and arguments are great. I wish I could be so eloquent - and this atheist is so young! Sigh…

You know what really blows my mind about Creationists/IDers?

I trawl the ‘net researching and often just plain exploring. I often wish there was an educated theist to be found that can postulate a convincing argument in support of his or her beliefs - if only to challenge the free-thinkers a little.

I never really expect to ever find any, but well, it’s worth continuing the quest!

I am a huge fan of Billy Connolly, but even he is (was? hopefully he’s aged even more irreverently now) sometimes a bit soft on poking the stick at religions and their stupidness.
Edit 9/1/08: He sure has aged more irreverently.
Now, Ricky Gervais has little or no regard for pandering to the fairytale believers.

“Testing the mental capabilities of chimps tells us important things about our own capacity. What we often find is that antecedents of human behavior and reasoning exist in chimps in a more primitive form, suggesting that we humans have elaborated on the mental abilities of the common ancestor we shared with chimps, rather than developing totally new capacities.

As promised, I found the YouTube posting with an excerpt from the excellent Richard Dawkin’s documentary ‘The God Delusion’. This is all that’s really needed to expose the ‘intelligent design theory’ as a complete fraud.

Just found this on Richard Dawkin’s site :
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is proud to announce that it is now offering all 5 hours of Richard Dawkins’ 1991 Royal Institution Lectures for Children titled “Growing Up in the Universe” for free online! Click here to watch:
http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

And it may turn out to be one of the things that plays an important part in the end of religion eventually.

A search for anti-evolution websites will yield hundreds - if not thousands - of them out there.

Most have one thing in common: the shameless regurgitation of the same set of lies and half-truths (apart from the contributors obvious lack of education).