I admit I did not read the entire article. I read the beginning. Which i commented on. it is false. I looked through and at the end and found no formal Citations. IF these are noble prize winners then they would understand the importance of citation. And I cannot properly verify there information without them.


Without citation there is no reason to think they didn't make all this shit up.

and yes of course i am under the influence of this bias. I go to the website thinking it will be wrong and look to confirm this. And IT wasn't very hard.

It is an intelligently written essay. But not as an argument to battle atheists but to confirm believers.

The entire essay is based on a false premise that evolution is removed from science!!!!

it is very tactful, the writer looks to remove evolution from science. Show that it is based in faith, thus equating it to religious faith.
Very smart

Look to what i said before, it still stands.

I will reiterate
First line ??just as creationism is a philosophy, so is evolutionism.? Wrong
Second line ??Neither one is observable or repeatable? The writer makes these two practices the definition of science. It is not

Do I need to go any further? I don??t need to read any further, as the first two lines are wrong and are intended to mislead, I can assume an article based on these two premises will also be wrong and misleading.

and no, i do not think that it is wrong because it is on a religious website. but obviously I will suspect it is biased.

do you understand the importance of the peer review process.
it means someone who is much better informed and educated than us on this specific topic. reads the article and if it has merit it will be published. No articles have been published for intelligent design. This is why it is not allowed in the curriculum of american schools.

As well testimonials are not proof and shouldn??t be regarded as evidence for anything. Even if this testimony comes from a well regarded source. If this person is not representing the views of the majority of people in the field they are misleading you. I am not saying this is what they are doing but I will not trust this article because it c
but wrong.