Evolution VS. Intelligent Design Debate Here to Stay

Originally posted by apw100
Ok, what we are arguing here is how LIFE has developed on earth, not how the universe was created. The answer to that question is most likely well beyond our human comprehension.
On the other hand, how life diversified on the small bit of rock we call earth is a question that we can probably answer through scientific methods. Remember, this isnt an argument about whether god exists, that is a completely different topic. All we are discussing is how life has managed to multiply and become so diverse. If evolution is true, then that has no bearing on whether there is a god or not. It just means that the book of Genesis was not a literal history of the universe. Big deal.
This same type of debate was happening when Christians were debating scientists about whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. Now everybody accepts that as true, yet many still believe in god.

I understand the debate. Now maybe I am incorrect in assuming that the universe was created before the earth, which was created before life on earth, and that since intelligence design as it is called on this thread is associated with (life) creation in the Bible which first addresses that Heaven and earth, they were part and parcel and life came after the earth which came after the universe. I was also of the assumption that intelligent design was attributable to the omnioptent being in gen. 1:1:27. I don't know why, I guess I missed the lectures that discussed intelligent design as it pertains to Gen 1:11 1:21 1:24 and 1:26 only.

Perhaps I fast forwarded to the core issue too quickly. I'll await the arrival to the universe, and sorry.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Realistically, there isn't [a debate]. Evolution has evidence, Creationism of any type simply does not.

Yes there is a debate, realistcally, between the clergy and the scientists, regardless of how one looks at it.

Contradictory ideas can not be one and the same. Evolution states that these processes can occur without any supernatural interference, IDiocy states that they could not.

Only if you hold fast to one or the other being absolute. As you can see from my first post, I do not. Perhaps idiocy sways one to a particular side only? Evolution currently may very well state that, but that statement is a mere 77 years old at best. At one time it was also held to be true that the sun revolved around the earth. I think the challenger to that won.

The pope rather clearly has come out in favour of evolution being real and a literal interpretation of the bible as being uncessary.

Well, you disagree with my statement only to the extent that you claim he favours evolution. I did not interpret his (complete) address to that extent.

What challenge? The only 'challenge' I am aware of is 'inflation' over a more 'catclysmic' big bang. What challenge are you talking about?

Your response appears to provide an answer. And in the event that this goes off on a tangent, I highlight "challenge."

]

The debate is here to stay, but it is a debate between two dogmas. The two concepts--not theories--are completely compatible.

Regard the following from
The Urantial Book:

Paper 36

Paper 57

Paper 58

Paper 65

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Evolution + Unblind chance = Intelligent Design

Well, since you are saying 'unblind chance', shouldn't the 'unblind chance' be the intelligent design? I mean, why are you saying that there is 'intelligently guided chance'?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Nygdan

Realistically, there isn't [a debate]. Evolution has evidence, Creationism of any type simply does not.

Yes there is a debate, realistcally, between the clergy and the scientists, regardless of how one looks at it.

Contradictory ideas can not be one and the same. Evolution states that these processes can occur without any supernatural interference, IDiocy states that they could not.

Only if you hold fast to one or the other being absolute.

Absolute? No. But evolution is a theory that is supported by the evidence at hand and scientifically/logically framed. Intelligent Design is neither, which is fine, but it claims to be both, which is not fine.

As you can see from my first post, I do not. Perhaps idiocy sways one to a particular side only?
IntelligentDesign-ocy, ID-iocy

Evolution currently may very well state that, but that statement is a mere 77 years old at best.

Darwin published his theory in 1865 or thereabouts, and had been communicating with other naturalists about it for years before that. Its over a hundred years old, and has been vigourously tested. Time and time again it has stood up to those tests. It may very well be overturned tommorrow. Problem is, the way ID is set-up, it can't be overturned.

think the challenger to that won.

Because of the evidence. If other evidence had been found to refute G's theory, or the predictions of his theory weren't met, then things woudl be different.

What challenge? The only 'challenge' I am aware of is 'inflation' over a more 'catclysmic' big bang. What challenge are you talking about?

Your response appears to provide an answer. And in the event that this goes off on a tangent, I highlight "challenge."
Ok, so you are talking about inflation. Inflation is a refinement and modification of the original big bang theory. These changes and modifications occured because the evidence warranted it. No evidence suggests the ID is correct. No evidence suggests that Evolution is wrong either. I would be interested if you knew of any for either case.

grady philpott
The two concepts--not theories--are completely compatible.

Mr. Philpott, this point has been discussed before, ID is clearly not a scientific theory nor a dogma. Evolution is a theory and is well supported by the evidence. They are also not compatible in anyway. Why did you post a statement that has already been made and has already been countered, without address the counter? And what does the Book of Urantia have to do with it? Could you post a specific portion that you feel addresses the questions?

How do you debate a troll who ignores specific information and is concerned wholly with their generalities, arrogance, and ignorance? You don't, he's a troll.

Originally posted by Nygdan

grady philpott
The two concepts--not theories--are completely compatible.

Mr. Philpott, this point has been discussed before, ID is clearly not a scientific theory nor a dogma. Evolution is a theory and is well supported by the evidence. They are also not compatible in anyway. Why did you post a statement that has already been made and has already been countered, without address the counter? And what does the Book of Urantia have to do with it? Could you post a specific portion that you feel addresses the questions?

Gee, I'm sorry I didn't follow the protocol, sir. I posted the above papers from the UB because they deal directly with the synthesis of intelligent design and evolution (lower case). Why don't you read the account in the papers I have included and answer your own question.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Intelligent Design (upper case), but I know that evolution is not proven. There is much to support it and the evidence is compelling, perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt. The dynamics of evolution are not completely understood and the theory has undergone much revision just in my lifetime.

The UB is a book that offers much in the way of alternative views of some common dilemmas and finds common ground for many a seemingly insurmontable disagreement.

You may choose to read the material or you may choose not to read it, but I will continue to post links to those portions of the book which are relevant to the discussions I run across, as someone will find the contents interesting, at the very least.

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
ee, I'm sorry I didn't follow the protocol, sir.

I didn't pretend to claim that you were disobeying some set of rules. I simply didn't and don't understand why you would state something that others have stated and that others have questioned. No one seems to have responded to my own and others comments on why ID and Evolution are entirely uncompatible and contradictory, and I would like to know what was wrong with mine and others reasoning if it was.

Why don't you read the account in the papers I have included and answer your own question.

Becauase it makes more sense for someone who is familiar with the texts to provide some sort of introduction and the like for people who aren't familiar with it. I'll definitely read it if you are willing to discuss it tho. Often why people post like that they are less interested in discussion and more interesting in evangelizing, whether its for Genesis, the koran, maos little red book or a presidential campaign. I'll definitely read it since you apparently are willing to critically discuss some of it.

I will continue to post links

I am certainly not suggesting that you stop posting them, merely suggesting that it would be more fruitful to quote particualarly enlightening portions of it or an explanation of some of its 'best arguements' and whatnot.

Evolution and ID are completely compatible. It's Natural Selection as the cause of evolution as opposed to ID as the cause of evolution that are incompatible.

Any system evolves. All that means is that things change with time.

Charles Darwin �It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank clothed of many plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the bushes, and various insects flitting about, and worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and yet dependent on each other in so complex a manner have all been produced by laws acting around us thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.� The first thought of Evolution.

Creation is taught in several schools in America. It is taught in secondary classes that teach religion to students who wish to learn about religion through an educative mean. But the creationists have also been getting creation taught in science classes. Several schools in Georgia teach creation as a science, not religion. This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.

A creationist has led a war on science for over 30 years, his name is Dwayne Gish. He has gotten creation taught as science in Georgia after losing in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas. Russell Brock led the war in Georgia. He believes it is right to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, created in six days, flood happened explaining the Grand Canyon (more on this later) and that Evolution is as scientific as turning lead into gold. This of course is wrong, Evolution is a science. Yes it is the Theory of Evolution, but one must take note that Theory in science does not mean guess, shot in the dark, acid trip gone bad, or anything else creationists make it seem to be. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. This was also discredited in the bible. Theory in science means a Hypothesis leading to tests, discussions, and debate.

There is nothing wrong with religion being taught at home or at church or even as a secondary class, but to teach it in a science class as fact, well, in the USA we pay taxes to fund things like schools. Now, the schools have to be run by a certain set of laws, also known as the constitution. Now in the constitution, it says that there shall be freedom of religion for state. Meaning, that something that is funded by the people through taxes shall not teach religion. Now this deal we made means we don�t have religion in school, church doesn�t have magic tricks during service.

Now Evolution has not been proven 100%. It has, but the creationists came up with a new arguement. "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not the rest." Why is that? They are shown prrof they are wrong so they twist the facts to "prove" they are right. It is a science. Science will prove something or other, but it takes time. How many centuries did it take for the Theory of Round Earth to be proved? The theory of sun in center to be proven? It took many years, was discredited by the bible, but we know those theories are correct for studies were done, tests done, discussion, debate, so forth. Of course, even if it is proven there will still be tests, experiments, and more debates. Gravity is a known fact. But they still study the effects of gravity on certain objects. Anti gravity tests, how strong it can be (black holes ring a bell?) and many other tests are done with gravity. All the laws and effects of gravity have not been proven or tested or realized. But does this mean gravity does not exist? One can not prove all of it 100%, and with the creationists argument, it would mean Gravity does not exist.

Creationists want Evolution to be proven, and until then they want creation to be taught in schools either with evolution or without it. In areas that creation is taught the biology books have little intros in the front of the book saying �Evolution is a theory, not fact. And should be critically considered.� They don�t include an intro stating the fact that intelligent design isn�t validated by any science, we just made it up. They throw out all the science behind it because it has not been proven 100%. They claim that the bible is an accurate historical book and that anyone with historical background believes this. This of course is not true. The main argument is that it defies all logic and probability that there was not a master plan. They have no proof of this, but this is one of the statements they make. They try to convince people that creation is a science, which it isn�t. So they repackage the name and change it to �intelligent design� to make it sound scientific. Well god isn�t a science. �I choose to use the term intelligent design because it takes out the philosophical and religious setting.� Creationist. They try to pass religion as science by creating a scientific sounding name. �Isn�t it a great idea to teach both and let the children decide? Let them and the parents consider both options and let them choose what they want to believe. Wouldn�t that be a wonderful thing?� Russell Brock. What this leaves out is the fact school is for teaching, not religion.

Thankfully, reason has come through in some areas of Georgia. In one county a man has gotten the ACLU in a lawsuit to try to keep religion out of public schools. Now the ACLU isn�t the best choice for this, I sure as hell wouldn�t have picked them. But for once in the past 10 years the ACLU are doing something right in my opinion. Religion is not allowed in public schools, and any attempts to allow it in should be fought. They are still in court last I heard. �To deny that this whole argument is not about religion is ludicrous to me. It is spin, when someone says intelligent design is science and is based on god, that�s religion.� Sellman, guy who brought the ACLU into the fight.

Now one can vote on whether or not intelligent design is science or religion. But it isn�t science no matter what you vote. We can all take a vote on whether or not Drew Carey is human or not. If the majority vote he is a mongoose, does it mean he is? No, just like voting intelligent design is a science, it doesn�t truly mean it is a science.

Now, back to the leader of the modern creation movement, Dwayne Gish. He is the senior vice president of the Institute of Creation Research. He believes� �To have all the scientific evidence that evolutionists believe that can prove evolution, have that presented to our students. Then take all the evidence creation scientist have that prove, that DEMANDS creation is fact, and let them decide.� Dwayne Gish. Gee, sounds like someone isn�t bias at all, does it? He has been fighting for creation and against evolution for almost as long as it has been around. But during this time we have founda million pieces of biological evidence including genetics. We have found millions of astronomical evidence that gives us the age of the Earth and the universe. Millions of pieces of geological evidence like transitional fossils and �missing link� fossils of past animals and animals of today, like dogs, cats, horses, bears, and so forth. Dwayne heads ICR, Institute of Creation Research, a California conservative religious group with a strict focus to prove what they believe with whatever amount of double talk and twisted evidence they can create. They state that Evolution is not science and neither is creation. �Neither creation or evolution are scientific. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and creation is no more religious than evolution.� Dwayne Gish. Only one little problem, evolution comes from science, creation comes from god, and god is not a science. Dr. Eugene Scott of the National Center for Science Education � It would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute among scientists about evolution took place for it isn�t. You see school districts all over this country wrestling with the problem of what to teach. Evolution, creation, both, or neither. It seems to come up when peoples religious views need to take the bible literally are offended when evolution is taught in the classroom.� Dwayne Gish explains that him and his people do not want to bring religion into the classroom but evidence that proves a theistic supernatural origin to humans, life, and the planet. One little problem, supernatural, like god, is not a science.

Creationists will try to sound scientific, but they fail. They will go through the journals and books and notes and nit-pick every single last detail. If they found one word in anything about evolution is misspelled or wrong, they say throw out everything. There is a problem with this. Unlike religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving. Science once believed the Earth was flat. But then they found evidence leaning towards a non-flat Earth. So they did tests, changed views, changed ideas, and after a few hundred years of research and being killed by the church, proved that the Earth was round. The same is true with Evolution. Creation was believed to be correct. Then scientists started seeing things wrong with it. For those who think Darwin was the first to think of evolution you are wrong. Greeks came up with the conclusion that some land animals and sea animals are related. They came up with a theory that had animals such as horses, lions, bears, rodents, so forth, as coming from species that lived in the water. In fact, the horse created a new legend of the Greek gods with the creation of the horse being that of Posident.

The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of the bible) But science does not work that way. If one little piece of the evolution puzzle doesn�t fit then throw the whole thing out. But science, as said, does not work like this. Dr. Ron Mattsen, Professor of Biology at Kenenthshaw State, Kennethshaw, Georgia �Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. We have to start with ideas that can to be tested. And there is always the possibility that conclusions we draw could be wrong. That is not the case with creation. They are saying that they are right and we are wrong but have no data to back this up.�

Bob Carroll, Professor of Philosophy, Sacramento City College. �Creation science is an Oxymoron. The real question is why are they trying to pretend they are a science when they aren�t. The real reason is they have a different agenda and that is to destroy science. They know they can�t do that from without but must do so from within. Basically terrorize it.� But Dwayne Gish says he has scientific evidence, the Grand Canyon. �The Grand Canyon is a very interesting geological object. Now if that canyon, possibly, was cut by the release of enormous amount of water from lakes to the north that were dammed and then broke through and cut the canyon in a matter of a few days.� We all know that is bs, but that is what he says is fact and wants taught, is being taught, in some schools and the public. But what he is referring to is the big flood of Noah that made him make a boat and get 2 of every animal on it. As anyone who knows about genetics will tell you that is impossible! Inbreeding would have killed off the population after about the 3rd-4th generation. Also, no boat built could hold two of every animal. It would also need aquariums to save all the fish, dolphins, and whales. Why? Well, if all the water mixed then saltwater would become too fresh and freshwater would become to salty meaning every fish/mammal that lives in fresh or salt water would be killed. But there are millions of fish and mammals in the waters to prove that they weren�t all killed off by a sudden mix of fresh and salt water. So no flood, no Noah, no proof. Gish believes a single flood made the Grand Canyon and a single boat saved every damn animal on Earth.

Back to Dr. Eugene Scott. �Scientists hear this and just go wow. This is just amazing! Nobody thinks these people could possibly hold these ideas seriously. The Grand Canyon is granite, shale, and really hard rock, about 5,000 feet of it. You won�t cut this very hard rock with just a single flood.� Another claim by creationists is that the depth of fossils is only deep enough to have existed for thousands of years. They say that if evolution is correct, then there should be evidence of older fossils in the rock. Also, if there was all this evolution, then were are the transitional fossils? There are none. But there are! Homo Erectus ring a bell? Or Lucy? Gish just doesn�t look at the facts that we have. Dwayne lives in the margin of science, but he keeps the margins as wide as possible. Dr. Eugene Scott again. �What we do in science is find an explanation that work. The idea that we had common ancestors works. That is why scientists accept evolution. Creationists will say evolution is about chance, and how can anything have happened due to chance. But evolution is farthest from chance possible. Evolution is the survival of the fittest and that means not chance, but survival ratio, is how evolution works.� Brock admits he doesn�t know what�s going on. �Let�s just make one thing clear, I�m not a scientist.� He also tries to quote Isaac Newton and that Isaac Newton said there had to be a god, but he lived in the days of tyranny by the church where if you said something against the bible, you were killed. I�d say there has to be a god if the opposite meant death by torture. Brock also says that Darwin in his later years said that evolution was wrong, he was wrong. There has been no proof, no reason, and no facts sustaining this myth. This myth is right up there with the exploding toilet and duck quack has no echo. Darwin was a very serious scientist. He was convinced that evolution had happened and that his theory explained it. Remember that the fact that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun is theories.

Why does Dwayne hate science? Him and his people believe science has brought on materialistic atheism. Dwayne Gish. �The kids are in the classrooms sitting before these PHD professors and are told that everything began with some hypothetical big bang and out of that everything has evolved. Now, they say Well, who needs god? He doesn�t exist and if there is no god then there is no one to whom I am responsible.� In other words, if someone thinks that the christian god doesn�t exist they will go out killing and raping and stealing and just doing whatever they want because they don�t fear the all mighty powerful people in the clouds. This of course is false, many people don�t believe in the christian god. They are called Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, Druids, and atheists. Except for the fundamentalist Moslems, no killing, raping, stealing, doing whatever they feel like because they don�t worry about punishment. �We would like to reverse the situation of today. Today there is legalized porn, legalized abortion, legalized gambling, tremendous drug problem, and much more.� Dwayne Gish. I know, no christian has ever looked at porn, gambled, or did a drug, it is all those heathens out there that do them. NOT!

Now, why is religion taught in schools? Why do people believe in creation? Why do people believe in something with no facts or proof? Why do you believe it?

Just one last thing. Here is how evolution compares to creation. This is a good way to tell the difference between good science and non-science. Good science changes, it begins with observation, as we learn more we can come up with Hypothesis, then move on to tests which eventually lead to discussion and debate.
Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing those who disagree. Whether or not creation or �intelligent design� sounds good doesn�t matter, it just isn�t science! Know what�s funny? There is a group that believes the exact same thing that Dwayne and Russell do, just one small twist, their higher being is an alien, not god. They are called Raelians. The creationists say the Raelians are nuts, but they believe the exact same thing.

Here is a link to Dwayne's site. www.icr.org...

Since people don't use boolean search for other discussions already on this subject, here is my whole freaking arguement I started a few months ago.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Often why people post like that they are less interested in discussion and more interesting in evangelizing, whether its for Genesis, the koran, maos little red book or a presidential campaign. I'll definitely read it since you apparently are willing to critically discuss some of it.


I am certainly not suggesting that you stop posting them, merely suggesting that it would be more fruitful to quote particualarly enlightening portions of it or an explanation of some of its 'best arguements' and whatnot.

The reason I don't usually provide comments when I post from the UB is that I don't want to evangelize and when one comes to understand the UB, the more one understands that there really is nothing to evangelize, but people are so conditioned by the evagelical religions that they often recoil at the very suggestion of such.

The truth is that I cannot argue for the UB one way or the other. The facts presented therein are beyond empiricism. What I am drawn to in the UB is that among all of these facts and explanations, there is much that rings so true as to give credence to the empirically unavailable aspects. The UB shows that one can accept evolution and God without contradiction and it does so in ways that I had not seen in other's contributions.

Certainly, I am not an expert on the book itself or in the matters of evolution or creationism or intelligent design. I don't bother to argue with people things of which I have no proof or of which I have no personal knowledge, so the book really speaks for itself far better than I ever could. Also, when I try to quote from it, the quotes tend to exceed the limits of acceptability and therefore, I simply post links to the pertinent papers

I would like to hear your comments.

[edit on 04/10/1 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Ut
Evolution and ID are completely compatible. It's Natural Selection as the cause of evolution as opposed to ID as the cause of evolution that are incompatible.

Usually people use evolution similarly to natural selection, when in reality, as you mention, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution primarily occurs. Natural Selection and ID are defintiely incompatible and contradictory, I agree. However, I would go further, and saying that Evolution and ID are also incompatible, at least insofar as Science and Religion are incompatible (that is, they operate in completey different realms)

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Ut
Evolution and ID are completely compatible. It's Natural Selection as the cause of evolution as opposed to ID as the cause of evolution that are incompatible.

Usually people use evolution similarly to natural selection, when in reality, as you mention, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution primarily occurs. Natural Selection and ID are defintiely incompatible and contradictory, I agree. However, I would go further, and saying that Evolution and ID are also incompatible, at least insofar as Science and Religion are incompatible (that is, they operate in completey different realms)

Oh, I agree. But so long as people are nit picking...

Really, religion has no place nor need of a place in the scientific realm. "Creation science" is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Evolution + Unblind chance = Intelligent Design

Well, since you are saying 'unblind chance', shouldn't the 'unblind chance' be the intelligent design? I mean, why are you saying that there is 'intelligently guided chance'?

UNBLIND chance is chance that knows what it wants. I throw 100 Positive monopole magnets, into 100 negative monopole magnets, and all 100 connect. The inherent drive to order and to complexity, attraction and repulsion is unblind chance. Think of it like this: The destination is known, it is only mapping out the journey, but there is no map, this is the holy grail of evolution.

Frankly, I think it is an absolutely rubbish and a laughable concept that mere dust becomes an intelligent being by chance.

Originally posted by Indigo_ChildFrankly, I think it is an absolutely rubbish and a laughable concept that mere dust becomes an intelligent being by chance.

You are well within your rights to believe that. But that's not a scientific statement, and so shouldn't be compared to a scientific theory.

Science works under the assumption that there is no controlling creator. When you're doing science, you have to check your personal or spiritual beliefs at the door.

The issue of whether a creator exists or not is one for philosophers and theologins, and so is irrelavent. If this being, assume one exists, can interfere with goings on of the universe at will, or has predestined everything to work in an arbetrary manner set to its liking, then science is meaningless and not worth fighting against. If this being has not layed out some sort of plan for the universe, then spiritual theories, "creation science", or religious dogma isn't worth defending.

You can't debate beliefs. You either believe in orthodox creationism, creation science, ID, or none of the above. Trying to "debate" which is right, with each side using their own criteria of rightness, leads to petty squabbles and flame wars. I can't be the only one that finds that to be a meaningless waste of resources, can I?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
UNBLIND chance is chance that knows what it wants.

By no definition of chance is that 'chance'. And, as i asked initially, even if one pretends that 'unblind chance' can exist, where is the evidence that it does?

I throw 100 Positive monopole magnets, into 100 negative monopole magnets, and all 100 connect. The inherent drive to order and to complexity, attraction and repulsion is unblind chance.

its not chance, they are magnets, they are going to arrange in that way. Are you also saying that magnets are intelligent, or that they are put together in this formation by an intelligence?

The destination is known, it is only mapping out the journey, but there is no map, this is the holy grail of evolution.

Actually, if anything you have it backwards. Evolution doesn't know what the endgoal is. Populations are variable in all sorts of directions for all sorts of things. Sometimes a particular trend in variation is advantageous. The individuals with that advantage produce more offspring than the others, eventually the population comes to resmble those advantageous types.

a laughable concept that mere dust becomes an intelligent being by chance.

Well, evolution doesn't say that. Evolution doesn't operate 'soley by chance'. The source of the variations in a population are mutations, and mutations tend to be more or less random yes, but when natural selection is involved, things aren't happening 'randomly', 'selection pressure' is invovled. But its nonsensical to say its 'directed by an intelligence'. Its no more acting under intelligent influence than say a ball rolling down a hill.

And even if you think its 'laughable', are you able to demonstrate why its incorrect? Doesn't look like it.

Damn it people, it isn't chance! Read my post and you will know. And as someone just said about 2 posts after mine, "creation science" is an oxymoron, also stated in my post. Read it and learn. I have scientists telling the people the truth, not me saying it, but actual scientists that work for a living as scientists and study such things. It is a great read if you don't have ADD.