Quite obviously a test of our faith by God. Don't be fooled, lest ye burn in hell!

Oh, and, I'd like to see Bevets apologize this away. It's always amusing watching him flail about pointlessly.

what_now: Shouldn't he be astride, like a man????

Jesus was a woman, baby.

ArbitraryConstant: You know who else acknowledged the existence of beneficial mutations?

Wait, I know this. Darwin?

ArcadianRefugee: /translation: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Well, that is the ultimate argumentative tactic.

darkyn: Any science that cannot bear questioning and close scrutiny is not science.

Lies, slanderous lies. You quite obviously lack an understanding of the scientific method - disconfirming evidence is simply discarded when it runs up against a theory with the weight of God behind it.

CanadianCommie: if that isn't proof enough of the fallacy of ID, I don't know what else people need.

Brains.

bulldg4life: God decided to allow them to be more successful in the laboratory environment.

Exactly. All that happened was God showed them how He, in part, actually intelligently designed the world. It's not that hard to understand.

CanadianCommie: you'll learn something from it

You underestimate my boundless knowledge.

no, I think they have them

They certainly have them, but they certainly don't choose to exercise what having a brain entails, namely, rational thought. That they have access to the exact same evidence that those who believe in evolution do, but come to radically different conclusions, betray a ridiculous selection bias, namely that of religion. Anybody bringing in a religious selection bias to science is doomed to failure.

CanadianCommie: I meant that as a blanket statement, not necessarily directed at you :)

Heh, heh. I actually am interested in reading the blog, but I'm sitting in class trying to listen. I figure I can still half-listen while commenting on Fark, but reading anything remotely interesting or engrossing tends to lead to a complete blocking-out of the outside world, namely, my lecture.

They present a very selective position on a very selective set of evidence that uses a shaky foundation or a purposeful misunderstanding of the evidence.

That's what I mean. We all bring certain selection biases (both as to what we admit as evidence, either supporting or disconfirming and as to what theory we chose to endorse as true) with us when we attempt science, it's the duty of any real scientist to try and understand what their individual biases are so that they can be negated. Creationists (and the proponents of intelligent design, if we can call those different things) know full well they have certain overwhelming biases, but do nothing to overcome or negate these biases (and often use these same biases as additional proof for their theories). For this reason, above all others, I simply can't consider these alternative theories (to evolution) scientific in the least, or worthy of even the smallest amount of consideration.