What annoys me about the smug nature of the "scientific" arguments against is that they assume, without demonstating, that Darwin's theory has fwer holes. It explains intra-species adaptations, and nothing else. But we're told to believe it explains everything. Let's hear Darwin's explanation of how life originated; where did the first, most primitive one-celled organism come from? Natural selection did it? A lightning bolt through "primordial soup"? Why does that belief have any more of a scientific basis than ID? What ID says is that there are too many coincidences to believe that things developed at random. For example, how does evolution explain the Cambrian Explosion? Punctuated equilibrium? That is about as strained an explanation for an observed phenomen as I've ever heard form a flat-earth society member. But you go right on thinking that you have all the answers, and we are just a bunch of semi-educated religious phonies.
International investigators to probe several cases of Syria chemical attacks (AP)
from the article: The absurdity of intelligent design
Tel Aviv Museum of Art director Suzanne Landau defends her organization's recent actions, and says she isn't afraid to resign if the culture minister tells her to censor something.02:21 13.02.16 | 0 comments