RESPONSE:

"The False Premise is from the Darwinists"

1. Everyone agrees that micro-evolution is settled science. Even Biblical Creationists agree. When Darwinists claim “evolution” is settled science, it is micro-evolution. That’s simply breeding a better Pomeranian for the dog show. If your blonde son marries a brunette bride and they give you a red-haired granddaughter, you have an example of micro-evolution at work. If they have a baby that is half- human and half-fish, you’ve got macro-evolution in fast-forward mode. But fast forward for billions of years, it’s a fantasy.

2. Macro-evolution (neo-Darwinian evolution) is flawed, unproven and is not empirical science. Macro-evolution says if nature breeds long enough, you’ll get a fish to turn into a lizard. It’s never happened. There is zero fossil record; nothing but conjecture to prove the “hypothesis”.

Intelligent Design does not postulate a God and is not about religion. It says the observed complexity of living systems looks remarkably like the designed systems we know for sure come from an intelligent designer (like Mr. Steinway’s pianos, or Mount Rushmore). It also points out how flawed macro-evolutionary theory fails to demonstrate scientifically the origins of these complex living structures. Intelligent Design is empirical science that goes where the evidence leads.

Darwinism begins with a premise of atheism. Atheism is a philosophical, metaphysical endeavor; it is not science. Science is not atheistic; it is empirical. Darwin began his concept of naturalistic explanations in order to refute religion with atheism. As such, Darwin’s work is based on flawed foundations. It is not pure science; it is metaphysics out to refute religion.

Ergo, a false debate.

1. 'Intelligent Design' Is a Placeholder for any Religion
2. The Origins of Life Do Not Depend on Darwin