Scientists Presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin

Finally this garbage will be thrown out completely and thoroughly in the coming decades. I am sad to see how limited some of our species are in their scope of intellectual discovery. God is but not here on earth our planet is nearing extinction.

Thats not really fair. There are unlimited "possibilities" of which your God is only one of along with Zeus, The FSM and the teapot orbiting jupiter. All are possible but just extremely unlikely. Evolution however fits very well all known eveidence and is very probably the answer to where we came from. You have to get your head around the fact that existance and non existance of things aren't a 50-50 probability.

I agree that many problems seem insurmountable, but there are many examples of seemingly insurmountable problems that science eventually does solve. The mapping of the human genome: In 1990, when it was proposed, it seemed nearly impossible. By 2003 it cost $3x10^8 to sequence one person's,
2007: $1x10^6 2007,
start of '08: $60000,
now: $10,000
and only $5000 by the end of 2008.
Look at flying to the moon, or flying at all, the atom, computers, etc.
We just need patience, not a designer.

There is no alternative to evolution by natural selection so far. ID would count if there was any actual ID research being done. As-is, it cannot be a scientific "theory" because it is not a testable model (unless we witness God actually making a "design", or find his signature on one), and it doesn't make predictions of future observations. If someone starts making experiments that verify ID I'll pay attention. So far they just explain unfinished research by invoking "God".. err "designer".

I will say that yes, everything must be explained by natural law, unless you can prove that the supernatural exists.. But if you proved that it existed, then I would argue that it is natural.
I don't believe in magic, or superstition, I don't believe in miracles, or prayers. I don't believe in ghosts, or souls. There is simply no evidence to verifies their existence. Nor are they required to explain any existing phenomena. They are simply failed hypotheses.

how do you know it's the christian god and not the muslim god or even perhaps many gods? and even if you were to show that there was a first cause, which i do not disagree w/ since every thing has a reason, how do you know what you say you know of this god? the bible? that's not reliable. my point is that if there is a god or gods, no one would have the understanding of this being or beings. even thing they think they have (bible, etc.) now is merely speculation and nothing more.

That is a great answer except you used too many absolutes. We do have an idea how life started, certain things look highly improbable, not impossible, and last of all, its not that no other explaination is possible, its that no other given explaination is reasonable.

Not all of us Bible thumpers insist that the Bible says the earth is 7000 years old or the evolution is not a possible explanation. On the other hand, many scientists argue a supernatural explanation for anything is impossible, not from scientific discovery but from philosophical naturalism. These people are as close-minded to other possibilities as young earth creationists.

You can have the same question leveled at you. What caused the matter, energy, natural laws, and information that started the natural process. Experience tells us that things have causes, so what's your explanation for the cause of everything? Or is it just perhaps magic matter? Or magic chance? Magic randomness? Magic something from nothing?

Two answers. First awesome is right, you don't have to know all about Gutzon Borglum to know that someone sculpted Mt. Rushmore.

Second, if you examine the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, you will see that they address this very issue. The nature of the Christian God is that he is a self-existent being, who has always been and does not need a cause. All theories lead us back to the necessity of a first cause, but naturalistic theory does not provide it.

Summary of naturalistic arguments. Things look designed but they cannot be. We have no idea how life originated naturally or how certain structures evolved, but it must be a natural process. Certain things look impossible naturalistically and mathematically, but that is just because we don't know enough yet. Sometime in the future we will figure out how it happened naturally because it must have happened naturally. No other explanation is possible, so it must have happened naturally!

I used to be a young earth creationist, but the data simply did not support it, so I shifted positions. I am open to naturalistic explanations, but these challenges to evolution and origin of life problems seem to be insurmountable at the moment. The best current evidence then leads me to conclude an explanation outside our currently known universe. If evidence to the contrary someday comes to light, I might change my mind, but simply saying we will know someday is a statement of faith.

I think the most interesting thing Behe said was that he went his entire academic career without evolution ever being challenged or any other option even being presented.

My question for you is whether all processes must be explained by natural law? If so, is that a scientific statement or a philosophical statement? You see I am open to evolution and natural processes as an explanation (as were most of the scientists in this video), but I am not convinced that all things must be explained naturally. It is this preconception that I makes me so wary of scientists who do not give this type of theory at least a fair hearing.

"we know at present that there is no naturalistic cause that produces information"

Those that use this argument try to say that evolution requires the information content of DNA to increase. But they can never explain how to measure this information content. If it cannot be measured, how can they claim that it is increasing, or being produced?

Evolution has been observed to occur in real time, it clearly doesn't require the intervention of an intelligent agency.

I'm +FAVing this video, but not because I agree with it.
I would rate it well too (Rating isn't just about whether or not you agree with the message of the video), but rating is disabled...