And nothing says, "Intelligent" like making things up to look down on Christians.
Posted in response to Charles's post here:
It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.
"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.
In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.
What do you know is actually true about Evolution?
Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?
No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.
We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.
We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).
The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.
What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)
Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.