Intelligent Design explains many follies

You know, I don't believe I would hire an electrical engineer, or any other technical professional, that contested the theory of evolution. Just as I wouldn't hire a flat-earth cartographer, or have my air conditioner fixed by someone who cleaved to the phlogiston model. Some positions are so at odds with factual evidence that one simply has to question the technical competency of such an adherent, particularly in other fields that mandate familiarity with reality. (I'd hire a flat-earth creationist painter to paint my garage, for instance.)

I'm sure that's great for you. My knowledge of evolution has landed me six-figure employment in a variety of positions in my field (computational protenomics) for several decades, now.As far as you know. I mean, hell, it's not like someone could fabricate a fictitous degree and employment history on the internet. Honestly, who's ever heard of such an outlandish idea? Ah, yes. The threats. Always the sign of a truly insightful intellect.

"Shear" arrogance? Every time you make these fraudulent boasts about your income and your technical proficiency, the manner in which you boast about it consistently puts your claim to the lie.

That's a fairly empty boast, since you don't have a public email address on your profile.At any rate, what would that prove to me? Your side is pretty famous for resume fraud, like that kid who just recently got canned at NASA after he drew attention to himself for telling astrophysicists and cosmologists three times his age that they had to call the Big Bang a "theory". Turned out that he had claimed on his resume a fair number of degrees that he didn't actually have.Why should I expect any better from you than from your intellectual peers?

You're the one making the claim; you first. It's off-topic, anyway.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-28-2006 09:08 AM

Why does the spark have to know? I don't understand this line of reasoning, and you've consistently ignored posts where you've been asked to explain and where your implicit assumptions have been unpacked and refuted.Are you just having a hard time with the idea of "discussion", or what?

Sorry. The whole thing was infantile.

The theory of evolution is a model that describes the history and diversity of life on Earth, not "the cause of intricately complex existence", whatever that is.Evolution is a theory of biology; an explanation of why life on Earth is the way it is and how it was in the past, too. It's not a model of the universe or an explanation of the meaning of existence. It's just a model that biologists use. I don't see how what you've just written proves that "ID is the best and most reasonable answer." Your debating tactic seems to be to assert that life is "complex", whatever that means, and then assert that that proves that ID is reasonable.That doesn't make any sense to me. An argument that proves ID is the most reasonable explanation would, for instance, provide a measure for how to judge which theories are more reasonable than other theories, and then apply that measure to ID and evolution and show how how ID wins out. Simply asserting that ID is more reasonable than evolution merely demonstrates that you don't know how to judge what is reasonable and what is not.

I think the mainstream ID movement would largely disagree with you there, but that's your problem. Granting your premise for a minute, what do believers in ID do when we observe gradual changes in the DNA causing speciation over time?