A splendid video about evolution

If you mean biology, then certainly, but ID acts more of a interpretative philosophical framework, I would have thought?

Darwinism is a complete joke in the sense that there's no actual science to be found ~ it itself is just an interpretation of biology. The joke is that Darwinists frame their views as hard science, when they don't act anything like the rest of the other fields of biology. It's not even biology, really.

If you could elaborate on this I'd be thankful.

I'm far more willing to accept Cosmic Fine Tuning, but ID at the evolutionary level always leaves me less convinced.

Oh I agree about ID, that is a specific claim that needs hard evidence showing clear interventions in the evolutionary chain across time.

The word 'interventions' implies a quite narrow interpretation of the terms intelligent and design. Well, it's probably just me, I don't have a 'standardised' view of what  these things are supposed to mean, for example I don't have any conventional take on the meaning of the word God.

But in general my position has echoes of Professor Sir Fred Hoyle's dislike of the 'big bang' - a term he coined as a way of expressing disdain and his own alternative was the 'steady state' theory.

Yes, the creation of the universe and the nature of life within it are separate topics. But where they have a commonality for me is that I see things as continuous, so that if for example intelligent design is taking place it is because intelligence is ubiquitous and part of the universe, not something outside or separate from it.

If you could elaborate on this I'd be thankful.

I'm far more willing to accept Cosmic Fine Tuning, but ID at the evolutionary level always leaves me less convinced.

Well... I'm not convinced anything evolved in a Darwinian sense, or even by intelligence/s guiding the process.

The fossil record just doesn't show any evidence of the transitional forms needed for evolution.

The Cambrian Explosion is another but problem for Darwinism ~ so they either entirely ignore it, or redefine it.

Mind you ~ micro-evolution, as it were, has been shown time and again to happen, but never has there been any actual cases of macro-evolution.

Cosmic Fine Tuning can still be a thing, though ~ and I think it is, given how just right the Earth's state is for the flourishing of life, along with where it is distance-wise from the Sun.

The word 'interventions' implies a quite narrow interpretation of the terms intelligent and design. Well, it's probably just me, I don't have a 'standardised' view of what  these things are supposed to mean, for example I don't have any conventional take on the meaning of the word God.

But in general my position has echoes of Professor Sir Fred Hoyle's dislike of the 'big bang' - a term he coined as a way of expressing disdain and his own alternative was the 'steady state' theory.

Yes, the creation of the universe and the nature of life within it are separate topics. But where they have a commonality for me is that I see things as continuous, so that if for example intelligent design is taking place it is because intelligence is ubiquitous and part of the universe, not something outside or separate from it.

If I understand them correctly, Christians who publicly denounce ID see the entire chain of evolution as guided by the Divine.

IIRC Sheldrake believes in something like this, a teleology that does not require the kind of pointed, specific interventions ID claims to have discovered.

Perhaps we need a term that is more specific than "Intelligent Design" that refers only to the belief of demonstrable interventions of an otherwise seemingly mechanistic process?

The fossil record just doesn't show any evidence of the transitional forms needed for evolution.

No evidence or no proof?

I can understand the claim there is no hard proof of transitional forms, but I think saying no evidence at all seems too harsh?

No evidence or no proof?

I can understand the claim there is no hard proof of transitional forms, but I think saying no evidence at all seems too harsh?

Well... the Darwinian kind at least has no merit to speak of. The fossil record simply doesn't support their claims.

But, if there were evidence of intervention and guidance by intelligence/s, what exactly should we be even looking for? How would we know what to even begin looking for?

As far as I can see ~ with the Cambrian Explosion as an example ~ the intelligence/s seem to create new forms, and then leave them to their own devices. Maybe it's why we can just discover an entirely new species that was never known of before?

Intervention in the existence of a current species, though... not sure there's any known evidence for it.

The subject is a vague one, alas.

If I understand them correctly, Christians who publicly denounce ID see the entire chain of evolution as guided by the Divine.

IIRC Sheldrake believes in something like this, a teleology that does not require the kind of pointed, specific interventions ID claims to have discovered.

Perhaps we need a term that is more specific than "Intelligent Design" that refers only to the belief of demonstrable interventions of an otherwise seemingly mechanistic process?

Wait, where does ID claim to have evidence of specific interventions?

Isn't that the claim of Creationism in support of Darwinian evolution + Godly guidance , not ID?

Well... the Darwinian kind at least has no merit to speak of. The fossil record simply doesn't support their claims.

Even when you look at something like the evolution of turtles, you don't see anything suggestive of transitional forms?

I get that the timetables here are in question for some of the fossils, so I am not claiming this is a definitive case.

It just seems far too strict a claim to say there's ZERO evidence of transitional forms. Why are so many biologists so easily fooled then?

Wait, where does ID claim to have evidence of specific interventions?

Isn't that the claim of Creationism in support of Darwinian evolution + Godly guidance , not ID?

The ID movement, as per my understanding, believes there are critical examples of an intelligence intervening to produce complex forms like the eyeball.

Even when you look at something like the evolution of turtles, you don't see anything suggestive of transitional forms?

Is there any hard evidence that turtles have undergone macro-evolution? Any evidence by Darwinians of transitional forms?

I get that the timetables here are in question for some of the fossils, so I am not claiming this is a definitive case.

It just seems far too strict a claim to say there's ZERO evidence of transitional forms. Why are so many biologists so easily fooled then?

Because they're taught in biology classes that Darwinist evolution is undisputed fact, so it is so often never questioned.

No hard science need be presented when it's drilled into them that it's just true.