Let me explain why I don't believe in evolution. Evolution says that it's survival of the fittest, the strong survive and the weak go the way of the Dodo, the problem I have with that is, why are there still weak species? why are there still puny plants? I know science can give answers but the problem with those answers is that humans are the only creatures to ever cause another species to go extinct, apparently it's only survival of the fittest to us, if a species is not strong enough, we kill it off.
Second: have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.
look at it this way. If all the atoms in the moon where to all start spinning in the same direction at the same time, the moon would actualy leave it's orbit around the earth. However, the odds of this happing are almost zero, because there are so many millions upon trillions of atoms in the moon it is impossible. it is mathematically possible but it will never happen
Creationism has been proven wrong, as you said evolution does occur (even if only in small amounts) so it has been abandoned by all but the most hardcore christians and now it has been modified to ID. The difference between ID and evolution is that evolution has made and still makes predictions which were able to be disproven but were actually proven right. Creationism made a prediction (that evolution does not occur) but was wrong, ID (saying that evolution does occur but specitation does not occur) has not yet been tested and shown to be right so it is not yet a theory. Furthermore the logic and maths used to hypothesise ID have been proven to either be circular logic or just plain wrong, bringing into question whether it can even be called a hypothesis.
The problem with this, is that while evolution can be observed, we can't observe one species changing into another, and until we can, there is no evidence whatsoever that says they do.
Science starts from nothing and builds up, it is not biased as it makes no prior assumptions about anything, there is absolutely nothing to be biased towards aside from individual peoples biases which defer widely. This means that when a scientific hypothesis is made it is being tested for truth by people who think it is true and it is being tested for falseity by others. If there is a dispute between a reasonably large number of scientists, each commenting about their relevant field of speciality (i.e. no theologans or lawyers disscussing biology like ID's founders) then there is reason to doubt the theory, there is almost no dispute within science over evolution and creationism, if there was a reason to doubt evolution (which by the way is more concrete than our current theory of gravity) or the tiniest bit of evidence against it then it would be presented by science. Scientists don't want to prove religion wrong, in fact early science was very friendly with religion and trust me when i say there are plently of religious scientists, but most scientists value logical conjecture over belief and speculation which is why this is only an issue within religion, education and politics and not science itself.
That would be true except that, while science it's self may be unbiased, scientist aren't (they are only human after all) it's just human nature to see things the way you want them to be. Scientists don't disagree with eachother on ID-evolution because a god is not something that can't be explained by logic, which is what science is based on.
thank you for making my point.... this arguement is flawed because every scientist in whatever field was making a conspiracy would have to be lying (with religion on the other hand most never see any evidence for what they preach) meaning that some of my long time friends would already be a part of the lie.
When I say religion I don't mean the dictionary definition, I mean just the basic idea. I am not saying science is realy some sort of secret cult, what I mean is, science is a religion (or, like one any way) because like I said before, nothing can be proved (hmm, maybe I should stop using that word, as it seems to create confusion, whene I say proved, I don't mean it in the scientific sense, I mean it as showing something to be truth or fact) to say that something has been shown by science to be "proved" means it is truth, and since nothing can be proved, it is simply a matter of belief.
we already disscussed the proof issue and you know that my use of the word proof basically refers to a large amount of solid evidence towards and little solid evidence against an idea. In this way the occurence of evolution and natural selection is proven, it hasn't just failed to be disproven it has made precise predictions or experiments which have been proven true. The creation of new species (a different prediction to it just occuring) from this process however has not been tested outside of the insect world, and even there few experiments have been conducted.
So, basicly by that definition, proof is, like I said, nothing more than belief (logicaly backed belief, but belief none the less) which is the core of every religion.
Have you ever stoped to think, that, just because creatinism may be wrong, that doesn't mean evolution is right?.
P.S I like you signature, by the way.