My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Tell me, do they ever do what actual scientists do, such as seeking evidence against their own theories? Well, this is amazing arrogance on the part of cdesignists. Frankly, I know of no other "scientific" theory which brazenly incorporates its own positive assessment of itself inside itself, such as saying "is the best explanation". See what sort of Google hits you get when you search "scientific theory" AND "best explained by": virtually all of them refer to intelligent design.An actual scientific theory is, at its best, not contradicted by nonconforming evidence, and would be subject to revision or elimination if such actively-sought evidence were found (as opposed to outright ignored).

So you admit that some variation happens. Since any degree of biological variation (given sufficient time) is compatible with the theory of evolution, your question makes no sense. How does this help intelligent design, which makes the stronger (and so far unsubstantiated) claim that variation goes only yea far and no farther? Where is the evidence that such boundaries exist, or have always existed? You totally missed the point here (not surprising). Unlike the so-called "theory of Intelligent design", the theory of evolution does not include any such statement that it itself is the best explanation for biological diversity. It simply details the various mechanisms involved and will stand or fall or be subsequently modified on the evidence, nothing more. How does "producing after their own kind" differentiate intelligent design from evolution? This happens in evolution, too.Really, if your only goal in life is to denigrate a theory which you (admittedly) take no trouble to even learn about, you are succeeding admirably. How about sticking a bit closer to the subject, for a change? Which version of "I Hate Evolution" would you prefer to be taught in schools: Intelligent Design^TM, or Creationism^TM?

In my opinion, the beauty of most genuine scientific explanations is that they are, on the surface, counterintuitive. In other words, you would not have expected it to be this way. Creationist/designist explanations utterly lack this interesting property, mostly due to their overt reliance on appeals to incredulity.Science is all about challenging our preconceptions about how we think the world works; and, as often happens, those preconceptions turn out to be completely wrong. Creationist/designist so-called "science" does nothing of the sort, since it consists of nothing but preconceptions and the desperate desire to hold on to them in the face of any and all evidence that might go against them. In other words, cdesignists have fallen so deeply in love with their own "theory" that falsifiability (a critical requirement of the scientific method) goes out the window.This is why I brought up those points (messages 200 & 207) to Chuck77 regarding the Official Definition of The Theory of Intelligent Design^TM; namely that (1) cdesignists are loathe to search for evidence that would falsify their so-called "theory", prefering to search for confirming evidence only, thus explicitly relying on confirmation bias; and (2) the love that cdesignists hold for their "theory" by explicitly stating "is best explained by" smack in the middle of their Official Definition. I was genuinely hoping that Chuck77 would honestly respond to these two specific points. However, by going completely off-topic, he has utterly failed to do so. Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix