Intelligent Design

[AAA]

I understand science better than you guaranteed. At least biology and chemistry. You don't understand science if you think that people with disagreements among how to interpret scientific evidence are not scientific people. If I disagree with string theory, can I not be a physicist? Disagreements among people who study science is how scientific views are critiqued, revised, and improved. If everyone who disagrees with the current consensus is not a scientist, then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist. Neither was Galileo, Lyell, Copernicus, Einstein, or even Darwin. YOU don't understand science if you think that you must agree with the scientific consensus to study science.

Of course you can disagree, but when you do, you have to make a reasoned, consistent argument, which involves displaying sufficient understanding of the subject. There are many, many examples of you misrepresenting evolution, science, the scientific community and evolutionary science. I refer you our exchange on page 49 and 50, wherein you misrepresent what evolution/evolutionary theory is:

I do understand it, and I think it is not the full explanation for life.

No one said it was, and no scientist would say that.

And you then go on to say:

Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

You accept the principles of evolution and then try to change what "evolution" means. Your definition of evolution is a vague, nebulous term that you apply liberally to suit your purposes.



And don't even get me started on the singularity.

Those aren't misrepresentations. Obviously we all know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. But the fact that they are related is not up for debate. My second statement was true. Tell me how information can be added to organisms? You actually think mutation is capable of helping the organisms.?