I believe you can observe micro evolution in a laboratory. I don't think you can observe micro creation though.
so if you see a sandcastle on the beach, and no one is around, do you: A) think, "Hey, someone made a sandcastle" or B) "Look how that sand just grouped together all by itself" If you look at sand at the shore for a while, you will probably see some clump together, but that doesn't prove to me that no created the sandcastle. I agree with whoever said that this argument is equivalent to beating your head against a wall.
Apparently, evolution dissenters can't get any more play on the BBS than they can in the university system. From what I understand about the movie, they're focused on the fact (or call it "theory" if you want) that anyone within the scientific community that critiques the validity of evolution is ostracized. I have a sister, a sister-in-law, and a brother-in-law who are biologists (and evolutionists) who confirm this is true. You cannot operate in the industry if you don't actively support the theory. Whether evolution is true or not, this isn't a good way to operate. Dissenters should not be censored or ostracized. You can disprove their work or debate their logic. But, the plain refusal to associate isn't very scientific. If, somehow, evolution is wrong, won't we wish that the scientific community was listening to the people who were telling them it doesn't make sense? I think the other question of Intelligent Design is an unfortunate distraction. ID could be completely wrong and it wouldn't make shunning evolution dissenters okay.
Evolution "dissenters" such as the Discovery Institute are shunned off the bat because they refuse to work under the auspices of the scientific method. They're working off the a priori assumption that an intelligent designer created life, instead of testing a hypothesis based on empirical evidence.
You know, I just don't get why some of you even debate this stuff. Any rational, marginally educated human being understands that creationism is fantasy. Very few of the "religious minded" people I know believe in creationism. Those who do, practice religious "versions" out of the mainstream, or have a difficult time separating the "literal interpretation" of the bible into reality. I attended 12 years of Catholic schools and was never taught creationism, I was taught evolution. Here's a big hint, most of the bible stories are literary allegory.
A theory that says "God is the answer" is not a theory that deserves to be discussed by academics. ID/Creationism proponents are ostracized for a good reason; it has no scientific merit. There is absolutely no way to falsify intelligent design with new evidence because the basic logic is "God made it all happen," unlike say the laws of physics, which have been rewritten several times over the past few centuries due to new evidence contradicting old theories. In fact the theory evolution is "evolving" as more data is uncovered. There is no temporal evidence which can contradict "God made it happen," therefore ID is NOT science and should never be considered on equal footing with evolution.
To be fair Intelligent Design could be the work of the universe itself (but that's not why so many people embrace the idea). Is the universe itself self aware? Is there a shared consciousness? Has consciousness existed before the formation of life on Earth? Perhaps randomness is only a perception.
micro evolution is not the same as macro evolution (what is taught as the facts of origins in public schools)
Actually there are at least four different issues. First, Creation by God is not a scientific verifiable answer to origins and should not be presented as a scientific discipline. It is by faith based upon a belief in the integrity of the Bible account. Second, evolution is a premis that scientists use to explain certain evidences interpreted according to the premis. It is not a law in the sense that physics has certain 'laws' Third, There is no science of intellgent design, at least as I understand it is debated. The science is origins or geology or biology. The introduction of science that recognizes design and the introduction of intelligence in these other disciplines is being studied. The study of evidence for design and intelligence in biology and the other scientific disciplines has resulted in theories that intelligence and design were necessary to these sciences. Thus the obvious slant developed towards a 'god' or 'designer'. Fourth, The work of science is to challenge, research and experiment to learn or evolve the scientific disciplines and those scientists who are working on the evidences for design and intelligence are simply challenging the classical evolutionary views of randomness and chance. That is all. Either it was random and independent or it cause and intellect. Evolution presumes there is no intelligent cause for life. Fine. There are hundreds of very respected scientists who are investigating the evidences for design in scientific disciplines. If you believe in evolution, don't get worked up over the scientific process.
No, but saying that all of the millions of people who do believe in creation are either not rational or poorly educated is.
I saw an advance screening in mid-February. I do believe in Creationism, and I do believe in Evolution. I do not think they are incompatable. The Bible states that a Day of God is like 1,000 of our days. Plus, Darwin (a fairly religious person himself) never attempted to postulate how life began. Nowhere in his theory does he cover the beginning of life, only the origins of different species. I think that scientists and christians that discount the other theory without even looking at the arguments are doing themselves a disservice. The entire premise of the film was to find out if scientists are truly discriminated against if they suggest alternate theories to evolution. The film interviews scientists who have lost their jobs, grants, and tenure for as little as mentioning the word "intellegent design", or even writing a blog on a website that discusses intellegent design. Many feel that they can't even bring it up without recourse. Hence, many in the scientific community are silenced in their opinions on the subject leading to a type of censorship in the scientific community. I think it was very interesting how Dawkins, the author of "The God Delusion" said that it was impossible that God created life. Yet later in the film, he says it is possible that Alien's came down and seeded the earth with life. How is this theory more acceptable than ID? I thought it was an interesting piece. It wasn't about how which theory is more correct than the other, but more along the lines that Scientists who have differing opinions shouldn't be shunned so drastically. To be fair, the documentary even poked fun at the Discovery institute.