'Intelligent design' supporters ready for Dawkins - Video

"...you are fundamentalist atheists..." <br> What about Christians who accept evolution? <br><br> "So far, abiogenesis researchers can not even reproduce a protein from base chemical [sic]..." And creationists have utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of the being required for their belief. On the other hand, chemicals *do* exist, so...which is more likely to be correct? "Darwinism...predicts that all live [sic] evolved from a single celled organism...The Cambrium [sic] explosion falsified this." Really? How? "It predicts a slow steady evolution." Evolution is evolution, and in the final analysis fast or slow makes no difference. "Species appear fully formed, and then disappear from the fossil record with no net evolution..." They disappear because they went extinct. (How do you square that with ID, by the way?) As for showing no "net evolution", they most certainly do show evolution, but feel free to prove otherwise by falsifying all the research on fossils. "...preposterous idea of Punctuated Equilibrium." I'm not saying it's true, but why is it "preposterous"? Explain if you can. "Darwinism is unfalsifiable..." Not if you find a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian. "Recent discoveries shows that most non coding DNA plays crucial roles in regulating gene expression." What "crucial roles" does it play? I ask because even real scientists are still learning just what and how much part some junk DNA may play. And how exactly did creationists - I'm sorry, ID researchers - make this discovery? What research did they do that led them there? "It seems that ID is a better paradigm to understand DNA than Darwinism." Understand? And how did they gain this amazing understanding? Prayer? Wild guesses don’t count as understanding. "Hmm, so, a bad theory that is materialistic is more "Scientific" than a good theory which allows a divine foot in the door?" ID creationism doesn’t explain anything at all. How does that make it a good theory?

So nice to see that creationism isn't just a problem in the US. ...or if you're a glass half empty person; So sad to see the vast numbers of people who don't understand simple scientific concepts. (like the definition of a theory)

You poor Darwinists. The real reason why you are up in arms, is because you are fundamentalist atheists, and ID threaten your prophet. "There is no God, and Darwin is its prophet." Ok, seriously though. Let's consider ID vs Darwinism as a science. (Which, by the way, is not mutually exclusive) 1) A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable: ID will be falsified once it has been demonstrated that a natural pathway exists from base chemicals to the first cell. So far, abiogenesis researchers can not even reproduce a protein from base chemical, and the precious little they could reproduce, required intelligent interference as a key ingredient. Darwinism - It predicts that all live evolved from a single celled organism. It did not: The Cambrium explosion falsified this. It predicts a slow steady evolution. The fossil record falsified this: Species appear fully formed, and then disappear from the fossil record with no net evolution, forcing Stephan Gould to invent the preposterous idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. I can go on and on, but the basic point is this: Darwinism is unfalsifiable, as there is NOTHING that is cast in stone. 2) A theory needs to make predictions: ID predicted that most of the genome will have function. Darwinism predicted that most of the genome is evolutionary junk. (This is an argument from ignorance, by the way.) ID win. Recent discoveries shows that most non coding DNA plays crucial roles in regulating gene expression. It seems that ID is a better paradigm to understand DNA than Darwinism. "Biochemists need to constantly remind themselves that what they see has evolved, and not designed." Sounds a bit like the fundamentalist priest who did not want to look through Galileo's demonic telescope. Doctrine before fact. Why? "Because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". Hmm, so, a bad theory that is materialistic is more "Scientific" than a good theory which allows a divine foot in the door? That sounds like bad science to me.