Darwinian is bankrupt to provide detail explanation for their fairytale leaving them to resort to denial and misleading rhetoric against ID. They have ignored the scientific argument from Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross. Their argument centers on the comparison of top-down (ID/disparity precedes diversity) vs. bottom-up (Darwinian). The Cambrian Explosion where the major phyla (disparity) precedes the subphyla (diversity).
If you compare the 2 theories/explanations for the diversity of life, there is no empirical direct mechanism to support both theories. In the study of the origins of species we are dealing with historical science. In dealing with any historical science we need to collect the data and with open mind find the best explanation that fits that data and not some preconceived notion of how the data should fit. In this sense Darwinian evolution demands a bottom-up approach to fit this theory. The major forms must be preceded by the components that make up that form. It is what Dawkins calls the cumulative gradual selection. Darwinism gradualism requires a step by small incremental step that adds up to, for example the development of an eye.
It has been beyond credulity that Darwinists have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of so many for so long.
Comments on “Intelligent Design compared to Darwinism”
So, tell us: How does variety among species arise, under “intelligent design theory?”
If ID explains things better, start explaining.
And, where is the secret anthrax antidote research facility you guys have?
Yes I can further elaborate why ID is a better explanation but I doubt that you have the intellectual capacity or integrity to understand it, as it is evident by your response to this post
To demonstrate this point explain to me what does an anthrax antidote research facility have to do with macroevolution and the origins of species? 😀
Comments are closed.