November 15, 2005

Challenge to IDers/Creationists

You people want ID taught alongside evolution in science class. Actually, you really don't want evolution taught in schools I believe. Fine. Go for it.
I'd like to know what an ID science text looks like. I hope it isn't just a bunch of pages that pokes holes in evolution. That just isn't right, evolution isn't about poking a hole in ID theory. Is the ID science text book going to be a one page book with 3 words "God did it"? Just wondering.

Here is the challenge. Forget about evolution, you people think it didn't happen or you even know it didn't happen. What I want to see is YOUR theory of ID. How old is the earth? How old is man? Were there dinosaurs? When did the dinosaurs die out? I already know you think that man hasn't changed (evolved), that is a gimme.

Oh one more thing, if you say the earth is less than 10,000 years old as is man, I'd like to see the scientific research that proves this. I'd also like to see your scientific research about dinosaurs. Like I said forget about evolution science, you know it is hogwash. I'm looking for ID scientific results. Surely you can provide me with some.


  1. if you want to see an ID textbook, why not buy the one that is actually being debated in Dover (of the book title even being mentioned)?

    "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins"

    Indeed, there is a "Search Inside This Book" feature, such that you can even read some of the book before buying it. (I did neither, as of the time of this comment.)

    Without taking a stance one way or another on ID, your second statement is similar to one I've seen bandied about that ID is not science because it only discusses the flaws of another theory. I am unconvinced by this, for by analogy, proofs that certain problems are not computable (by a Turing machine) are similarly not computer science, and this is not so.

  2. No need to read the book. I read the comments by readers. Just as I suspected this comment sums it up "This book engages in simple false alternative negative argumentation against evolutionary theory and provides no positive arguments in support of intelligent design."
    ID has no scientic theory attached to it, it only looks for holes in evolution by using faulty scientific logic.
    Thanks for the links though.