Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[Dr Gregg]

And to the OP or any evolution deniers, stop quoting DArwin. Darwin had trouble with many things because he didn't know about heredity, genes, the age of the earth, and didn't have an extensive fossil record. He based his theory on observation of living things, and 120+ years of science after Darwin has just strengthened his theory and filled in gaps that Darwin had no way of knowing. So its stupid to question evolution because of something Darwin said over 100 years ago. The thousand and thousands of journals supporting evolution that has come since him, with all the technological advances like DNA sequencing and the genomes of many organisms being sequence, supports evolution.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Ummm...no its not

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase.

Interesting logic.

Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

I regard ID (not IDC or Creationism) as a logical response to the evidence. Not faith based, but evidentiary.

Regarding the Cambrian, there have been various answers to no pre-cambrian fossils to speak of, but the prime evidences of 'design' are design inferences in biologic systems.

But regardless, I agree with 52nd St. ID IS gaining ground. Not necessarily with working scientists, however, for obvious reasons. But of the new generation of 'rational thinkers', i.e. skeptics of the current NDE synthesis.

Rational thinking may be moving in a new direction, that of truly analyzing data objectively, rather than as being instructed to in a classroom. Or becoming a fan of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richie Dawkins. And regarding the holy holy Darwinian Dogma, does a tenured PhD prof necessarily hold-these-truths to be self-evident? Meaning the ones being proferred? Remember, s/he may have been 'indoctrinated' in a like way.

So what may alter instructional methods in today's world? The Internet, self study, and most important of all, rational thot.

I couldn't help noticing that all responses to Mr. 52 were negative, and that the first commenter equated ID with Republican idiots. That may be true in some cases, but regarding ID support, the majority would primarily consist of the ones with a religious agenda. True rational thinkers like myself, a staunch liberal, have found that the evidence points to cosmic intervention in bio designs, but I'm open to any new evidences that might contravene my stance, and am willing to address any presented here.

So whether it's the Omni Hotel or Club '21', 52nd Street rocks!

proof you have no idea what you are talking about. Calling ID believers "rational thinkers" but not scientist is about one of the dumbest things anyone can possibly state.

 

[Dr Gregg]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

• seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

• cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.
  
  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

To begin to understand irreducible complexity, Google 'webvision' and 'retina'.

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

• Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

Sorry, Irreducible complexity has been refuted time and time again. There are all varying stages of the complex eye all throughout the natural world. Just being able to detect some light would be beneficial to an organism as the eye developed. Each step making the eye more precise leading to more benefits,. and we can see these stages in living things today.

It's an argument that comes from dishonest people trying to push their religious beliefs and don't know anything about biology and evolution