"World Traveler" wrote in message
. net...


In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is
no
point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that
I've
seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago.

That would not be an ID belief, that would be a Institute for Creation
Research position. There is a big difference.

Man and dinosaurs coexisted.

Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).

Noah's flood was worldwide.

That's a fundamental Bible teaching - not unique to ID or to followers of
Institute for Creation Research.

Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.

ICR again.

The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the
Bang,
. . . etc.

This is a fundamentalist position. Though fundamentalist are believers in
ID, they do not represent ID.


But -- there is fossil evidence that is more than 6,000 years old

ICR again - not an ID issue.

The "worldwide flood" has some obvious logical contradictions (e.g., when
the waters receded, where did they go??)

Hmmmmm. You can allow for long stretches of the imagination to accomodate a
scientific theory that is too big to comprehend, but you can't allow for a
world wide flood simply because you can't imagine where the water went?

How did Noah get the dinosaurs onto the ark (the rationale, Noah sought
out
juvenile dinosaurs!)

ICR again - not ID.

In comparison to the "Big Bang," which is supported by observation -- it's
disingenuous to ignore that arm of science because it doesn't account for
what was before the big bang, but insist on an intelligent designer,
without
worrying about who/what created the designer!

The big bang is not supported by observation. Recent observations via
Hubble have brought about new theories that conflict with big bang. No
matter though - once again you are confusing ICR and fundamentalists with
ID.


Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than
Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of
interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested
relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory,
Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to
understand the world around us.

You obviously do not understand ID. In your attempt to discredit by any
means, you've lumped several different religious beliefs under the heading
of ID. You have no compelling argument.


Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that
an
intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and everything
after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some converts.

ID does allow for exactly that. ID simply attempts to explain where it all
began. Why then the issue with it?


But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world
of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The
Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now
described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone
into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.

Better yet, since you brought it up - please explain how the principal of an
intelligent design conflicts with these.

--

-Mike-