Questions I would like Intelligent Design Proponents to Answer

[Wowbagger]

I call this a learning disability.

That might be the case, for many of them. Though, I would not necessarily throw that as a blanket statement over all of them.

This might be a good topic for a separate thread, if you would like to start one.

That may be true, however if one is advocating ID as a scientific theory, that forces the question of the existence of a creator to be a matter for scientific inquiry and discussion and would require evidence as would any other competing hypothesis.

The hypothesis of Evolution (that natural processes are sufficient) implies that intelligence is not necessary. It does not imply such higher intelligence could not exist.

I.D., on the other hand, implies that it must.

One has a better history of making discoveries, than the other.

I am considering asking a question related to this, but everything I come up with sounds weak.

Unfair question. What is applied in medical science is an understanding of natural selection, a part of evolutionary thinking that isn't disputed by IDers or even Young Earth Creationists.

Perhaps it could better to ask: What can be gained by adding ID into the mix, in medical research?

However, a lot of "macro-evolution", which ID specifically denies, is relevant to these fields, as well. Endangered species are examined (physically and behaviorally) with their common ancestors taken into consideration. And "new complex features" on animals, especially insects, are sometimes documented.

Also if all science had to have an practical application, we would have to throw away an awful lot of science.

I agree that it is not necessary for science to have a practical application.

But, if there are two competing "theories": One already happens to be way ahead of the curve on practical applications, and the other contributes nothing, you have to bring that up, somehow.

You might like the last question I contributed, about the thrill of discovery, better.

Probably because they aren't trying to solve any real scientific problem, but rather are attempting to find scientific problems that the Theory of Evolution can't solve. (Not much luck so far)

I am sure your answer is accurate. But, I would be curious to know what their answer is going to be. Just what problems do they think they are solving?!

Unfair question. Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't claiming that evolution is a hoax. It isn't even claimed to be a hoax by most Young Earth Creationists.

Perhaps you are right. I might not pose the question, like that, to someone like Michael Behe. Though, I might still be inclined to pose it to someone like Kent Hovind.

According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.

My point is that they do not even seem to think the question is important to answer, scientifically. Even though such evidence would be a profound clincher, if it was discovered.
If an ID was necessary, there should be some early, potentially testable, hypothesis about its nature. Assuming there is a real interest in doing science, right?

That is an easy question to answer: their whole "research program" consists of criticism of an empirical science.

I would still like to know how they would actually answer.

No, it may not.

Well, with all due respect, It could be wrong. Maybe God, himself, sculpted each individual fossil skeleton, for example. That idea, though not testable, is not ruled out by Evolution, if we are speaking in strict terms.

In another sense: It might be possible that Evolution via Natural Selection is merely an approximation, of some other, more fundamental process, yet to be discovered. It could be possible the Evolution will seem as quaint and outdated as miasma theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory_of_disease ), in the distant future. Miasma was a viable theory, that actually helped fight some diseases, until Germ Theory proved to be much more accurate.

Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution?

I specified NEW discoveries. Not re-hashes of stuff we already considered.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not a single ID believer seems to have come to the thread yet.

Seems Earthborn is at least attempting to reply from an ID believer's perspective.

 

[Earthborn]

Seems Earthborn is at least attempting to reply from an ID believer's perspective.

Not really. I am just attempting to reply from the perspective of someone interested in fair questions.

 

[Locutus]

"Can you explain why life forms look as though they were 'designed by committee'? Or, perhaps 'competing contractors'?" And we can give examples of what we mean.

I think is Dr Adequate's question, a very clever question, very well put. It is perhaps too clever for the average IDer, and you'd need a verifiable torrent of specific examples explained clearly for it to hit home, I'd think. Whilst the logic of the statement is flawless, I think that the whole anti-ID campaign needs a greater understanding of dialectic before the points really start to hit home and sink in. It's not enough to have facts, but say them in a way that leaves the opponent without intelligible response.

 

[Dr Adequate]

They would probably deny that they are trying to sell "magic". They would see this as a straw-man. We know better. But, I think the question is too easy to weasel out of.

Well, "supernatural processes", then.

I'd like to hear how they answer that.

Actually, I messed up that response. I meant to respond like this: 'What if they say NO? How would that help anyone?'

Then I'd ask them the follow-up question: "How come you're so sure of that when you weasel your way out of answering every other question you're asked about the methods of, the motives of, and the constraints on the designers?"

---

Here's one: "Suppose some philanthropic millionaire was to offer you and your pals ten million dollars on the condition that instead of using it for lobbying and advertising and publishing propaganda and building creationist museums and holding mutually backslapping conferences, you instead spent it on actual scientific research? What would you do with it that might further your aims?"

 

[Earthborn]

The hypothesis of Evolution

The hypothesis of Evolution?

(that natural processes are sufficient) implies that intelligence is not necessary.

If natural processes are sufficient doesn't mean intelligence isn't necessary. "Intelligence" as usually understood is a natural process, and if it is necessary for evolution it may be the "intelligence" inherent in the process of evolution itself.

Perhaps it could better to ask: What can be gained by adding ID into the mix, in medical research?

Perhaps what is gained is a realisation that intervention by an "Intelligent Designer" is sometimes necessary to get the blasted pathogens to do what you want.

However, a lot of "macro-evolution", which ID specifically denies, is relevant to these fields, as well.

I don't think all IDers deny the possibility of macro-evolution, and I certainly don't think it ID necessitates it.

You might like the last question I contributed, about the thrill of discovery, better.

It's okay I guess...

I am sure your answer is accurate. But, I would be curious to know what their answer is going to be.

There is an ancient legend that says that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. The legend isn't true: questions you ask not for acquiring information because you already know the answer, but merely for getting a reaction or alternatively for claiming that another refuses to answer, are stupid questions.

Perhaps before you make a list of "questions I would like [fill in group] to answer" you should ask yourself: "What is it that can be gained from asking all these questions?"

Though, I might still be inclined to pose it to someone like Kent Hovind.

I wouldn't call Kent Hovind a proponent of Intelligent Design. He's a Young Earth Creationist. Make that: He's the stupid wing of Young Earth Creationism.

Well, with all due respect, It could be wrong. Maybe God, himself, sculpted each individual fossil skeleton, for example.

In that case, it would still be correct within the reality God created.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Earthborn
According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.

Wowbagger
My point is that they do not even seem to think the question is important to answer, scientifically. Even though such evidence would be a profound clincher, if it was discovered.
If an ID was necessary, there should be some early, potentially testable, hypothesis about its nature. Assuming there is a real interest in doing science, right?

Often, IDers claim that abiogenesis is not possible, using probabilistic arguments as a basis. You may feel that this question is not part of a scientific discussion of ID vs. evolution, but it certainly hinges on the question of a creator. Since a number of mechanisms have been postulated for abiogenesis (along with some compelling laboratory results), is it not logical to ask for similar indications of the alternative theory -- a creator vs. abiogenesis? There was a poster here some months ago that referred to a "supernatural*" event. How about some evidence of that?

*Maybe he said, "paranormal."

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I've got an idea. Let's ask them "What is Life? " or "What is the purpose Life?" or "What is Love?" or "What is Truth?"... By requiring them to answer philosophical conundrums that have baffled philosophers for -- well pretty much all of human history, we don't have to bothered by them again.

Purpose of life: To lead a Christlike life. Easy one.

What is life: The breath of God. Also easy.

What is love: God is love, and the love we feel is the pale reflection of that perfect Love. If I may say, not as myself, but as a proponent of ID: "Duh!"

See, the problem is that when all the answers boil down to, "God did it," and the Bible is the strict, unbending, literal, infallible and perfect word of The Almighty, philosophy is subject to the same kind of treatment as is science under the ministration of ID.

The point is to teach science in science class instead of... whatever it is that Intelligent Design promotes, right?

If you want philosophy of other than the natural sort, perhaps it would be better taught in a Philosophy class.

You haven't been paying attention to this thread, have you? The Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that no single out of place discovery would invalidate it.

I didn't know how else to put it without writing a whole paper on the subject. I meant human remainS: Large human populations in the Precambrian; Towns and cities below the CT boundary; Dinosaurs' fossils with the mostly-digested remains of a family of four and maybe an partly eaten TV dinner.

Evolution is science, and is hence open to revision based on new data and new interpretations of old data. The prize goes to the theory that has the most convincing proof behind it.

Either that, or the speed of light is still Roemer's 1676AD 2.14x10⁸m/s.

It isn't? I don't think I understand what you are arguing here.

I can explain anything by saying, "God made it that way."

Why are the fossils stratified? God and Noah's flood put them there in that order as they settled out of the water. Why are oceanic fossils found in, say, Indiana (lots and LOTS of limestone): God created them right where they are for man's use.

Like that.

Explaining isn't science. Finding answers is science. As soon as the finding is over, it stops being science and turns into history.

Meaningless.

So... You mean that the speed of light actually IS 2.14x10⁸m/s?

If it's science, it's open to revision, as above. If it's not open to revision, it's not science. Part of the scientific method is gathering data to support, revise, or falsify your theory.

If all you're doing is saying, "ok - but the 2.14x10⁸m/s is still correct, because our meters have changed length over the years," you're just explaining. ID thinks that, as long as it can explain all the questions, it's good science. All it's really doing is piling untestable hypothesis on top of untestable hypothesis, all of which boil down to, "God did it."

No, it may not.

Then it isn't science, either, but history. Teach it there.

If the theory is still being investigated and revised, THEN it's science, and can still spin off in new and exciting directions as soon as some Kansas farmboy trips over some oddly shaped thing sticking out of a field and tells someone over at the University about it.

Intelligent Design may be right, but that does not make the theory of evolution wrong.

Absolutely, but science isn't about Right or Wrong, either. It's about interpretation of the laws and mechanisms which cause natural events, as we know them today.

If it were about Right and Wrong, then all true science would have to admit that it's probably wrong. In six decades, we've gone from some guys tweaking two pieces of fissile materials with screwdrivers to determine critical masses to the CERN Large Hadron Collider and Japan's Large Helical Device.

That's a lot of disproven, "facts," in a pretty short time.

(Heck: I even call them the Three Guidelines of Thermodynamics, because I still remember being taught the separate laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass that E=MC² put the lie to. [I was born in 1951, but we had old textbooks in school.])

So, facts are more fun than opinions! REAL facts are rare, slippery, and volatile while opinions are common, solid, frigid, and unmoving.

I want evolution taught in the science classes of the schools my tax dollars support because it is a complete and valid demonstration of science. I don't really care if it's right or wrong. No one will ever jump up in a movie theater and yell, "(this person/these persons are DYING) / (there is a bomb/several bombs in the theater)... is there a Evolutionary Paleontologist in the house?!?!?" (They won't yell, "is there a COBOL/C/FoxPro/Pascal programmer in the house," either, but I'm actually Ok with that.)

What I'm interested in is that the students for whose education I'm paying are being taught SCIENCE in science class, and ID's not it.

Now, lets go out there, collide some Hadrons, overturn some old facts, and develop some new ones! Lets make sure that we're educating the folks that are coming up to take over the search, too.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I'm sorry, Wowbagger, but you've turned this thread from being about defense of intelligent design to being about meeting your approval with 'stump-the-ID-er' questions. You aren't discussing the actual topic so much as taking a literal interpretation of your own thread title, claiming the position of arbitor of what questions are worthy of asking a proponent of intelligent design.

What makes you the only one capable of asking a proper question of an ID-er? Let's dispense with the I-Am-The-Decider hat and get back to ridding the world of woo, shall we? Focus.

 

[Earthborn]

See, the problem is that when all the answers boil down to, "God did it," and the Bible is the strict, unbending, literal, infallible and perfect word of The Almighty, philosophy is subject to the same kind of treatment as is science under the ministration of ID.

If you want to argue against something it would help if you knew what it was you are arguing against. ID does not require biblical literalism.

I didn't know how else to put it without writing a whole paper on the subject. I meant human remainS: Large human populations in the Precambrian; Towns and cities below the CT boundary; Dinosaurs' fossils with the mostly-digested remains of a family of four and maybe an partly eaten TV dinner.

None of which would invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is science, and is hence open to revision based on new data and new interpretations of old data.

Revision does not equal falsification. You were talking about designing experiments that would invalidate a theory.

I can explain anything by saying, "God made it that way."

You have a strange understanding of the word "explain".

Explaining isn't science. Finding answers is science. As soon as the finding is over, it stops being science and turns into history.

History is a science and there is something called History of Science. Also, you mentioned teaching science in schools; I hope you realise that most of the science taught in schools is historical science. Science that has been proven to such a degree that it is no longer up for debate.

Part of the scientific method is gathering data to support, revise, or falsify your theory.

Another part is settling scientific controversies, recognising facts and building on already established explanatory foundations.

If the theory is still being investigated and revised, THEN it's science, and can still spin off in new and exciting directions as soon as some Kansas farmboy trips over some oddly shaped thing sticking out of a field and tells someone over at the University about it.

Nobody is investigating and revising the theory of a spherical Earth in a way that can still spin off in new and exciting directions. It has a few minor revisions here and there within Eratosthenes' margins of error. It is still science.

So, facts are more fun than opinions!

That's just your opinion.

REAL facts are rare, slippery, and volatile while opinions are common, solid, frigid, and unmoving.

... while scientists often try to find the things that are common to all things, and the solid and unmoving rules everything obeys.

What I'm interested in is that the students for whose education I'm paying are being taught SCIENCE in science class, and ID's not it.

Now, lets go out there, collide some Hadrons, overturn some old facts, and develop some new ones! Lets make sure that we're educating the folks that are coming up to take over the search, too.

Apparently you want to "teach the controversy" instead of teaching the long established facts.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm sorry, Wowbagger, but you've turned this thread from being about defense of intelligent design to being about meeting your approval with 'stump-the-ID-er' questions.

I should probably explain that I am attempting to collect questions, the best of which will be used elsewhere, in a few other forums (where IDers are more prevalent). And, perhaps an article of my own.

Anyone can ask any IDers any questions they want. I do not claim to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a good question. I am only judging questions for use in my own purposes.

Sorry if that was not clear, before.

Not a single ID believer seems to have come to the thread yet.

I was not expecting any to show up here. I am collecting questions to be used, elsewhere. As noted above.

It is perhaps too clever for the average IDer,

See, that would make it problematic. I would like everyone to easily comprehend the question. But, a few good examples could do that, probably.

Well, "supernatural processes", then.

Same thing. Most of the "scientific"-sounding ones will just deny their deductions are "supernatural".

I'd like to hear how they answer that.

You can always ask them, yourself.

Then I'd ask them the follow-up question: "How come you're so sure of that when you weasel your way out of answering every other question you're asked about the methods of, the motives of, and the constraints on the designers?"

So, that would be nice if your intention is to trap them into making contradictions.

Not sure I would go that route, myself. It seems kinda low.

Here's one: "Suppose some philanthropic millionaire was to offer you and your pals ten million dollars on the condition that instead of using it for lobbying and advertising and publishing propaganda and building creationist museums and holding mutually backslapping conferences, you instead spent it on actual scientific research? What would you do with it that might further your aims?"

Over a year ago, I asked a similar question, I called "Uncle Benny, the Hypothetical Benefactor": ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102255 ) The challenge was to appeal to a benefactor who could offer millions of dollars of funding to someone, but first you had to convince him your study would lead to better natural resource management or understanding of diseases.

Yes, I also asked it to some folks who are ID proponents, too. And, no, they never gave any satisfactory answers, yet. But, I was able to give a bunch that involved Evolutionary theory.

I like The Benny method better, because it does seem to be a stumper.

If you already presume they are getting the money, in the scenario, of course they will find a way to spend it! (Maybe they will look really closely at some paramecium, and decide that its parts could not come about through chance.)

I asked Graham Watkins, a parapsychologist, what he would do with the $1 million dollars, if he ever won it from Randi (fat chance, but this was hypothetical). And, his answer boiled down to just doing the same things he always did, only more so. And, maybe with fancier-looking equipment. He had no theories to work with.
I expect ID would answer the same way, but they can probably make it sound reasonable. So, it is not much of a stumper.

It would be more important to hit them at a more fundamental level: Where is the drive to find new discoveries?

The hypothesis of Evolution?

Sorry. I think I meant Theory. Good catch.

If natural processes are sufficient doesn't mean intelligence isn't necessary. "Intelligence" as usually understood is a natural process, and if it is necessary for evolution it may be the "intelligence" inherent in the process of evolution itself.

That is a different usage of the word Intelligence than what I was referring to.
My usage involved Intelligence somehow being special to higher life forms, and NOT being understood as a purely natural process.

Perhaps what is gained is a realisation that intervention by an "Intelligent Designer" is sometimes necessary to get the blasted pathogens to do what you want.

Hmmm... I guess in some cases, even if we could anticipate what their answers are going to be, it would be just too delicious to see them give the answer, than to not ask the question.

I don't think all IDers deny the possibility of macro-evolution, and I certainly don't think it ID necessitates it.

In my experience, it seems most of them do. Unless that changed, recently.

Perhaps before you make a list of "questions I would like [fill in group] to answer" you should ask yourself: "What is it that can be gained from asking all these questions?"

I would like to throttle the minds of ID followers, a little. Do what I can to try to force them to think about their position, in comparison to their "enemy".

That goes mostly for the types of folks who will be reading the answers, and not merely for the folks who will be presented with the questions.

I wouldn't call Kent Hovind a proponent of Intelligent Design. He's a Young Earth Creationist.

Which is why he claims Evolution is all a hoax.

Since a number of mechanisms have been postulated for abiogenesis (along with some compelling laboratory results), is it not logical to ask for similar indications of the alternative theory -- a creator vs. abiogenesis?

One of my questions asks for evidence of the Designer. But, we can expand on it: What possible mechanisms would the Designer use? And, where is the evidence he used them?

Though, I suspect that will be too easy: We humans are manipulating life forms, even at the genetic level now. Someday we will probably have the power to create life forms from scratch. Why couldn't the Designer use those same methods? So, we are back to asking for evidence of the exact Designer.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Same thing. Most of the "scientific"-sounding ones will just deny their deductions are "supernatural".

Will they say that the data suggest that the designers were not supernatural?

So, that would be nice if your intention is to trap them into making contradictions.

They would be free to answer the question. If they could.

Not sure I would go that route, myself. It seems kinda low.

So pour me a cup of hemlock.

Over a year ago, I asked a similar question, I called "Uncle Benny, the Hypothetical Benefactor": ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102255 ) The challenge was to appeal to a benefactor who could offer millions of dollars of funding to someone, but first you had to convince him your study would lead to better natural resource management or understanding of diseases.

That's rather a stringent condition: could a paleontologist point to anything?

If you already presume they are getting the money, in the scenario, of course they will find a way to spend it!

The question is, what on?

I have a vague memory that this has already happened. The Templeton Foundation or someone gave them money, so they held a couple of conferences. So the Templeton people said: "Hey, this is going great! Can we fund your research ... ?"

Sound of crickets heard.

(Maybe they will look really closely at some paramecium ...

For what?

... and decide that its parts could not come about through chance.)

They can decide that for free.

What I want to see is some sort of research program.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Some comments and suggestions on the first few questions:

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?

This is approaching the most important, to me, aspect of the debate. I would like to see this question framed more broadly, something like:

In what areas has I.D. been shown to have superior predictive power as a scientific theory to that of Evolution? Specifically, what experimental results or technological advances have been achieved as a result of the predictions of I.D. which could not have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?

Without having previously established that the answer to your first question is "Not in any practical way," and that the answer to mine is "None, and none, respectively," these two questions could fall foul of accusations of the complex question fallacy. It's important to establish (with its proponents, at least) that I.D. is of no practical use as a scientific theory, before going on to discuss why it's of no practical use.

Dave

 

[Wowbagger]

That's rather a stringent condition: could a paleontologist point to anything?

I can come up with a few general ideas:

There could be controversy over how much of an impact a certain nutrient has on bone health. I will call it "Nutrient X", since I do not have any specific one in mind, at the moment. A paleontologist could figure out that bones where (and when) Nutrient X was sparse show one set of characteristics, and bones where Nutrient X was plentiful show another set of characteristics. Perhaps both extremes are detrimental in some way, and they can establish an optimal balance based on the data set that they manage to (literally) dig up.

Also, from an environmental perspective, I am sure there could be tons of stuff we can learn about the Earth's environmental history, by studying the fossils of ancient life forms. Though, specific examples fail me, at the moment. I could probably ask a few paleontologists for ideas.

They can decide that for free.

Ah, but at least they would be doing actual lab work for a change, something we accuse them of not doing. And, that would sound reasonable to the sorts who follow them.

In what areas has I.D. been shown to have superior predictive power as a scientific theory to that of Evolution? Specifically, what experimental results or technological advances have been achieved as a result of the predictions of I.D. which could not have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

I like it!

Without having previously established that the answer to your first question

I think I will take the "all a hoax" question out. I am convinced that they will see it as a straw-man accusation.
Or, I might reword it differently, at least.

 

[Myriad]

Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?

This line of inquiry is my favorite. It addresses what is supposed to be the very focus of "ID theory": identifying the typical characteristics of designed things, in order to be able to examine things of unknown origin for evidence of design. While most of the other questions are variations of "Why isn't ID more like other sciences?" this question amounts to, why is ID not only failing to achieve, but failing to even attempt, its own claimed core mission? Why is it so easy to point out obvious characteristics of designed things that ID proponents have utterly ignored? (Not only maker labels and replaceable parts, but also safety warning labels, functional specificity of component parts, and lateral reuse of complex functional subunits across different lines of development, such as the computer CPUs in sewing machines and cars.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Wowbagger]

This line of inquiry is my favorite.

Was it you who once posted a long list of these things? I have no time to go hunting for the specific post, right now.

But, whoever did, I think that was an initial inspiration for that line of inquiry.

 

[FramerDave]

Coming in late, so maybe I'm just repeating what others have said...

Science is self-correcting. There are many examples in the history of science of theories once considered true that were later replaced by new theories as new information becomes available. Give some examples of the same from the field of ID.

Science has predictive powers. Assuming ID is scientifically valid, it should likewise be able to be used to make predictions about the natural world. Give some examples from the field of ID.

 

[Myriad]

Was it you who once posted a long list of these things? I have no time to go hunting for the specific post, right now.

But, whoever did, I think that was an initial inspiration for that line of inquiry.

I did post some posts along those lines, so it was likely me, but I wouldn't presume to claim I'm the only one ever to have thought of those issues or posted about them here.

Repsectfully,
Myriad

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd like 'em to 'splain endogenous retroviruses.

~~ Paul

 

[Perpetual Student]

For me scientific evidence for a creator is paramount. Perhaps that is so because of my own personal development and experiences over the years.
As a child (raised in a religious christian home), I rejected religion (god, a creator, etc.) through a personal thought process before I had any knowledge of evolution. Later when I learned about evolution, theories about the formation of stars, planets, galaxies it reinforced the views I had already established. Let's remember there were atheists many centuries before Darwin and Galileo -- going back to ancient Greece, if not earlier.
So, in my view, if one were to argue the case for ID, since ID requires a creator, establishing the existence of a creator is the first order of business. We cannot go on to discuss nuances of the fossil record or genetic evidence, etc. without first discussing the question of evidence for a deity or creator.
Religious people generally point to the christian bible, a book written by ignorant (by modern standards) peasants, shaman and other delusional characters. We are then asked to accept this book as having some relevance to scientific discussion regarding our origins and nature. This is where the discussion begins.
I will not put ID and evolution on an equal footing for discussion. As I said, the first order of business is to establish the existence (or fiction) of the designer. This discussion should be about their scriptures and the alternative (scientific cosmological evidence), in my view. I generally begin with the point that if we need a creator to explain the universe, then we need a creator to explain the creator. Since this leads us to an infinite regression of needed creators, let's just cut the whole need chain short and simply accept the universe.