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.

“To deny that a rock is 300 million years old is to deny the process that got us to that understanding. Since this process of inquiry is our best tool for succeeding in the world, its denial is a grave threat to our future prosperity. Far from making us stronger, faith cripples us because it takes away our greatest advantage: our ability to question, to learn, to adapt and, therefore, to live.”

“Honesty is difficult. It requires heroic efforts of introspection and self-awareness. This honest portrayal of reality is at the heart of the conflict between science and religion. While science is a natural response to reality, religion demands that we distrust our senses and our intellect, instead relying on a supernatural explanation. In this way, faith robs us of the best tool we have for learning about our world and understanding our true position within it. Religions, especially fundamentalist religions, get stuck because they are based on an immovable, unchangeable, unquestionable authority. But without doubt and questioning, there is no way to acknowledge, much less correct for errors.”

Excerpts from a great article by Lauren Becker.

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 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.

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).