Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to you when you reference natural selection separately from evolution.

But in answer to your question, yes we have seen new species form.

It’s clear you’ve only done the most superficial reading of this topic. If you’re really curious about how life on Earth got to its current level of biodiversity I urge you to look more deeply at the evidence. Maybe you don’t want to do more research and that’s fine, but you look silly coming in here and asking if anyone has seen new species form. Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when you clearly know little about the topic maybe it would behoove you to learn some more before you give us your opinions as if they’re facts.

I hate to be condescending–and I know right now I am–and I apologize. But you can’t come in here and say ID is right and evolution is wrong when you don’t have the facts straight. You appear to have no idea of the absolutely overwhelming support for the fact of evolution. [/quote]

Didn’t say either was right or wrong. Simply stated natural selection is a better model fit.

And by most definitions there has not been clear eveidence of new species in a natural setting.

Human forced changes can be seen in a laboratory environment by to most these do not qualify as a new species any more than vector insertion of gentypic pathaways through say e.coli.

Tumors, bacteria, plants do not offer support for the argument. They are more plastic and more suseptible to environmental shifts and can incorporate external DNA/RNA.

Natural selction can be viewed outside the evolution model, they are two separate ideas, although evolution depends on natural selection as a premise.

182

you don’t sound condescending when you only voicing an opinion.

183

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to you when you reference natural selection separately from evolution.

But in answer to your question, yes we have seen new species form.

It’s clear you’ve only done the most superficial reading of this topic. If you’re really curious about how life on Earth got to its current level of biodiversity I urge you to look more deeply at the evidence. Maybe you don’t want to do more research and that’s fine, but you look silly coming in here and asking if anyone has seen new species form. Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when you clearly know little about the topic maybe it would behoove you to learn some more before you give us your opinions as if they’re facts.

I hate to be condescending–and I know right now I am–and I apologize. But you can’t come in here and say ID is right and evolution is wrong when you don’t have the facts straight. You appear to have no idea of the absolutely overwhelming support for the fact of evolution.

Didn’t say either was right or wrong. Simply stated natural selection is a better model fit.

And by most definitions there has not been clear eveidence of new species in a natural setting.

Human forced changes can be seen in a laboratory environment by to most these do not qualify as a new species any more than vector insertion of gentypic pathaways through say e.coli.

Tumors, bacteria, plants do not offer support for the argument. They are more plastic and more suseptible to environmental shifts and can incorporate external DNA/RNA.

Natural selction can be viewed outside the evolution model, they are two separate ideas, although evolution depends on natural selection as a premise.

[/quote]

Yeah, I was kind of curious on the tumor thing to. That paragraph says “organism”. If it is a virus, it shouldn’t count as it’s not alive. If it is a bacteria of some sort it lends more weight to the argument. Like I said, I have more reading to do.

184

Can someone define species?

I believe too many things are defined as different species when they truly aren’t.

I support the definition by reproduction. At least for species that reproduce sexually.

185

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to you when you reference natural selection separately from evolution.

But in answer to your question, yes we have seen new species form.

It’s clear you’ve only done the most superficial reading of this topic. If you’re really curious about how life on Earth got to its current level of biodiversity I urge you to look more deeply at the evidence. Maybe you don’t want to do more research and that’s fine, but you look silly coming in here and asking if anyone has seen new species form. Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when you clearly know little about the topic maybe it would behoove you to learn some more before you give us your opinions as if they’re facts.

I hate to be condescending–and I know right now I am–and I apologize. But you can’t come in here and say ID is right and evolution is wrong when you don’t have the facts straight. You appear to have no idea of the absolutely overwhelming support for the fact of evolution.

Didn’t say either was right or wrong. Simply stated natural selection is a better model fit.

And by most definitions there has not been clear eveidence of new species in a natural setting.

Human forced changes can be seen in a laboratory environment by to most these do not qualify as a new species any more than vector insertion of gentypic pathaways through say e.coli.

Tumors, bacteria, plants do not offer support for the argument. They are more plastic and more suseptible to environmental shifts and can incorporate external DNA/RNA.

Natural selction can be viewed outside the evolution model, they are two separate ideas, although evolution depends on natural selection as a premise.
[/quote]

I don’t see why bacteria and plants don’t count. You’re artificially limiting the scope of the evidence. Lucky for you there are flies: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/all-hail-the-apple-maggot/ (sure this one isnt fully done speciating but we’re watching it happen as we speak)

as for finished speciation events: Some More Observed Speciation Events

what is your definition of evolution? How can you believe in natural selection (which is a mechanism of evolution) and not believe in evolution?

Honestly looks to me like you’re burying your head in the sand. “No that evidence doesn’t count its from plants…” while at the same time promulgating misconceptions about evolutionary science.

186

[quote]valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:

I don’t see why bacteria and plants don’t count. You’re artificially limiting the scope of the evidence. Lucky for you there are flies: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/all-hail-the-apple-maggot/ (sure this one isnt fully done speciating but we’re watching it happen as we speak)

as for finished speciation events: Some More Observed Speciation Events

what is your definition of evolution? How can you believe in natural selection (which is a mechanism of evolution) and not believe in evolution?

Honestly looks to me like you’re burying your head in the sand. “No that evidence doesn’t count its from plants…” while at the same time promulgating misconceptions about evolutionary science.
[/quote]

Plasticity of the genome being one of the inherent characteristics of the species.

If you read the part of species being defined by ability to reporduce, explains the elimination of plants. anything that produce offspring is techincally the same species.

Flies, how you define a new species in flies,

what makes different different, what is your defining argument.

mine still holds true if you look at how I define species. can we produce offspring with apes. can cats breed with dogs, . but you are saying subspecies of flies can reproduce making more subspecies of flies.

plants the same.

187

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Honestly, there is zilch for evidence of macro evolution.

Have a look at the work of evolutionary genetics. By examining the observed rate of mutations, you can estimate the age of a common ancestor by counting the number of mutations that separate the genomes of the separate species. This provides an objective way to build the evolutionary history of plants, animals, fungi, etc.

It would be perfectly reasonable to think that the genetic similarity between species is due to the will of creator. Given the role of DNA, a creator would probably give similar DNA to similar animals.

So, it would be reasonable that all dogs has similar DNA. It could also be reasonable to assume that mammals would have common ‘design elements’ and common DNA. So, perhaps the observed DNA correlations are the result of intelligent design.

Does each theory give a testable hypothesis? I think so. First, there are many animals that are physically similar and that occupy a similar niche in their ecologies. (Wolves and Thylacines, aka Tasmanian wolves.)

I would expect a creator to devise optimal physical and genetic structures for a ecologic role. So this would give you an expectation that there would be a genetic correlation between animals based upon their ecologic niche.

With evolution, you would expect to find genetic correlations between animals where there is fossil evidence of a common ancestor. As the genomes of more species are cataloged, we can find out which theory has the better evidence.
[/quote]

So we already have the answer then. Plenty of examples of parallel evolution. This leads to species with wildly differing common ancestors filling the same ecological niche. Different DNA similar body plan. This supports evolution. A super all powerful god would just re-use the same DNA surely… Unless he really enjoys messing with humans heads. In that case I’d rather be in hell really.

188

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?

ball and socket joint very uncommon. [/quote]

What? It’s not uncommon at all.

189

[quote]valiance. wrote:
You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.[/quote]

I fully agree that we both (Or at least I) do not have enough information to make a truly intelligent argument full of valid point’s regarding the theory of evolution and how it may or may not compare to ID.

But there’s the catch, the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. ID is a religious concept. It is meant to fill in the gap’s that we can’t explain with science.

Also, on a personal note. I don’t take the bible literally. If you look at many of it’s ideas in abstract, they can relate quite well to historical references. But then again, if you look at anything in abstract, you can make it relate to whatever you’d like. =P

190

[quote]orion wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

If you really need top believe that, please continue to do that.

Once you are ready to open your mind:

http://www.talkorigins.org/ [/quote]

Once you are ready to get rid of your superiority complex, come back and talk to me.

I don’t need to believe anything. You need to believe your right.

191

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Here is a good breakdown of how chromosome numbers change
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.

I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.

[/quote]

Thanks for the read.

192

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.

That is a really good line right there.

LOL, I liked everything in his post except for that particular line.

[/quote]

Care to elaborate? I thought it made sense. From my current knowledge of evolution, the traits that are passed on through natural selection need to give the organism a higher chance of survival then organisms without those traits.

If this was akin to the photosynthesis example, then an organism would need to be more efficient at such a thing. This would be a small step, but it wouldn’t necessarily increase the rate of survival to a point where that gene pool would become dominant.

Though- I do see how if a very insignificant change, such as perhaps having a slightly higher lung capacity, could have an affect of allowing a higher chance of survival in extreme circumstances. If this make’s sense, I suppose the term baby steps would be relative.

193

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

You could claim that if you wanted, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up as a legitimate theory.

[/quote]

That’s why it was a question. =P

I didn’t know if there was any relevant evidence.

194

[quote]ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
[/quote]

In-case he ever got sideswiped ?

Lol. =D

195

Scientism has become a serious problem. It’s basically the beliefs that everything has to be clearly established by accepted mainstream research in order to be valid and that all mainstream science is unquestionably authoritative. Science is the new religion.

196

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:

I don’t see why bacteria and plants don’t count. You’re artificially limiting the scope of the evidence. Lucky for you there are flies: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/all-hail-the-apple-maggot/ (sure this one isnt fully done speciating but we’re watching it happen as we speak)

as for finished speciation events: Some More Observed Speciation Events

what is your definition of evolution? How can you believe in natural selection (which is a mechanism of evolution) and not believe in evolution?

Honestly looks to me like you’re burying your head in the sand. “No that evidence doesn’t count its from plants…” while at the same time promulgating misconceptions about evolutionary science.

Plasticity of the genome being one of the inherent characteristics of the species.

If you read the part of species being defined by ability to reporduce, explains the elimination of plants. anything that produce offspring is techincally the same species.

Flies, how you define a new species in flies,

what makes different different, what is your defining argument.

mine still holds true if you look at how I define species. can we produce offspring with apes. can cats breed with dogs, . but you are saying subspecies of flies can reproduce making more subspecies of flies.

plants the same.[/quote]

the flies are BECOMING new species. they aren’t yet. But they’re getting there and we’re watching it happen. The breeding populations are separating and there will be a point where they cannot interbreed anymore. At that point they will be separate species.

Though the biological species concept is problematic for some plants it is by no means problematic for all of them. For example:

Unable to breed i.e. new species, even by the BSC (which is not the only species concept).

See here for more: Observed Instances of Speciation

It’s easiest to demonstrate macroevolution on flies and bacteria and some plants because of the ease of controlling their breeding and their short generation times. If you want to see speciation in elephants you’d better plan to live a looong time. In other words if you reject the evidence simply because it’s not from humans or whatever you favorite species is, you’re ignoring the evidence. (and we’ve even seen speciation in mice)

Also consider how recently we’ve come to accept the theory of evolution. We haven’t been looking for evidence all that long. Hell, we just got the first grips on how DNA worked a mere 50 years ago with Watson and Crick. The longer we look the more evidence for evolution we’ll find.

Now I’m just wondering how you’re going to explain away the speciation we’ve seen in mice…

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
valiance. wrote:
You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

I fully agree that we both (Or at least I) do not have enough information to make a truly intelligent argument full of valid point’s regarding the theory of evolution and how it may or may not compare to ID.

But there’s the catch, the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. ID is a religious concept. It is meant to fill in the gap’s that we can’t explain with science.

Also, on a personal note. I don’t take the bible literally. If you look at many of it’s ideas in abstract, they can relate quite well to historical references. But then again, if you look at anything in abstract, you can make it relate to whatever you’d like. =P[/quote]

I applaud your humility there. I must admit to ignorance as well–though I’m a Biology BS–I also have to consult the experts when it comes to this stuff. I don’t know anything about apple maggot flies or blood clotting factors offhand.

ID is a religious theory, but it likes to masquerade as a scientific theory. If it was left as a religious belief I’d have less problem with it–though it’d still be incorrect.

I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe, or sparked the creation of life on Earth. What I do have a problem with is the idea that God created us in just about the same forms were are now aside from a few changes here and there along the way. The evidence just doesn’t support that idea.

Occam’s Razor: Biologists aren’t mad for evolutionary theory because of some complex atheist plot to take over the world; they’re mad for evolutionary theory because it works.

Challenging the idea of evolution now is like insisting on the existence of the luminiferous aether.

But remember Darwin’s ideas didn’t start out unchallenged, they’ve gone through testing and vetting over the decades, and they are falsifiable. Rabbit fossils in precambrian strata would destroy the theory of evolution as we know it.

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Science is the new religion.[/quote]
Yeah, only with factual validity.

197

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
orion wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

If you really need top believe that, please continue to do that.

Once you are ready to open your mind:

Once you are ready to get rid of your superiority complex, come back and talk to me.

I don’t need to believe anything. You need to believe your right. [/quote]

Look, I actually took the time to look into the ET, you clearly didn´t.

I really cannot rehash the same fallacious arguments I have seen posted over and over and over again.

Look at that website and get at least your most erroneous assumptions out of the way and then we can talk.

And I do not need to believe that I am right, I only need to believe that I am not so desperate to come to a conclusion that I ignore information that is at my fingertip.

And you know what?

As long as that is the case I am superior to you, at least when it comes to the ET.

And again:

198

Good post Valiance. We certainly need some more people with science backgrounds leading the discussion.

Makkun

199

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Scientism has become a serious problem. It’s basically the beliefs that everything has to be clearly established by accepted mainstream research in order to be valid and that all mainstream science is unquestionably authoritative. Science is the new religion.[/quote]

In the end the belief that things happen for a reason and a certain amount of trust towards experts is infinitely superior to “God made it so”.

200

To reject evolution one has to reject most of geology, too. I wonder how IDers explain rock strata containing different fossils. They do have an explanation, do they?