Paul Nelson in Oslo, Norway — the latest

I too am impressed with Paul's answers, and the anger and ignorance expressed in the questions. Maybe now I know why my ancestors left Norway. Rude

dodgingcars I think this is the main argument against ID. The others are simply variations of this one. The branding as religion is derived from the need for an unevolved intelligence as a first cause. The theory that this "Matrix" world is really going on in a massive computer somewhere in the future was published in New Scientist a few years ago. The existence of such speculation infers that this objection should not exclude ID from consideration on principle. I enjoyed Paul's light hearted respones to the many ANGRY posts. It is interesting how much "anti God" passion is directed against ID. Hey. Don't shoot the messengers! idnet.com.au

Paul handled those questions very well. If you read the questions in there, you'll notice that the main problem Darwinists had was with the implications, not with the science behind ID. I did a small survey, and I think I can put the questions in diferent groups: 1. "ID is not science/testable/falsifiable!" 2. "ID is religion bkz the Designer can only be God, and we don't want that!" 3. "ID is junk science!" 4. "Who designed the Designer?!!! Mats

It's interesting to see how many of the (apparently anti-ID) questions asked of Paul seem to lack an understanding of what ID is or repeat the tired arguments (Who created the creator?) we've heard a million times. dodgingcars