I am trying to speak to the laymen friend, not formally address a room of my peers. I gave only a brief overview that was designed not to spoon feed a man like the church might but stimulate general interest that you could elaborate on yourself if it interested you. If you have a need for truth, you will investigate the claims. Otherwise, just dismiss them and I am sorry if I wasted your time or offended you.I read quite well thank you. This statement from your treatice refutes your assertion that, and I quote ""religion" had nothing to do with it". I quote you again, "Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest." It appears that Christianity has everything to do with your position. I quote this additional statement as further evidence, since you felt the need to exclude a differing "creation" story: "Really, it seems like a no-brainer and there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts and laws, unless you believe the Norse legend of creation which involves a hungry giant and a big cow and lots of fire and some other weird stuff like that. (lol)"
I will anticipate your response and preempt with my statement that Christianity is fine and dandy and I applaud your faith, but don't say your position has nothing to do with religion when it clearly does as evidenced by your own words quoted above. It undermines your credibility.
I stand by my assertion that "intelligent design" if you will, IS NOT A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You are free to believe it or not. My discussion has nothing to do with that. It simply does not meet scientific muster. You can quote as many branches of science as you wish, but you offered ZERO data to support any scientific conclusion in your treatice. Statements such as the following quotations from your article are not evidence. In fact, they appear to me to be questions, not answers:
"How else can you explain order and design?"
"How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay?"
"Would you really gamble on odds like that?"
If you are a scientist as you claim, I am at a loss to understand how the preceeding statements would pass muster of any sort in your field of scientific endeavor.
And yes, I used the word religion in the article but your missing my point. I am not pushing a specific agenda or church or asking for money or giving you some funky doctrine to follow! Maybe I was too vague when I said 'religion' and just assumed we were on the same wave. Again, I am not here to offend, convert or whatever. Just being sincere and honest about a few truths I found that I shared for no other reason but that.