BobAliceEve writes:
RAZD writes:
If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?
Please substitute the word evolution for the word design (both places, of course) then give some examples? Since I don't understand what design is but do understand what evolution is, the explanation will be easier for me to understand from the evolution perspective.
RAZD will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's talking about the way that creationism/ID proponents tend to focus on examples that are suggestive of good design, while ignoring the many examples which (if designed) would suggest a poor, incompetent, capricious, or malicious Designer. The statement makes more sense if you follow the link he provided to the
Silly Design Institute thread.
It doesn't really work if you just substitute the word "evolution," because evolutionary theory fits with the evidence (as it is evidence-based).
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
