o.k. so a judge just made it law that creationism cannot be taught in school science class. the intelligent design position has been found, by the judge, to be creationism in diguise.evolution_debate;
what i don`t understand is why there are only two sides being adressed in this arguement. if one visits www.lloydpye.com for a moment and looks at the list of questions about human dna and the suppositions of evolution from apes, it becomes obvious to those with a mind focused on answers, that niether creationism or evolution explain the human species.
a third hypothesis is needed here, on which is examined at the above website. it is called interventionism and it works like this;
for whatever reason, an advanced species came here from space and genetically engineered us. i don`t know why and don`t feel the need to speculate. what i see from all the data and supposition from the dawinists is that we couldn`t have become what we are from what ever else is here now or was in the past. there are no missing links and no way to show that sophisticated biological devices like the human eye could have evolved.....
lloyd pye does the arguement well at his site, which i linked above, and i highly recommend more that a cursory glance at his work. he is a pioneer and gets little support in the sea of academia and clergy because his evidence doesn`t support thier position.
it`s not evolution or creationism in the bilical sense that made us. it was the hand of a technological mechanism. a mechanism in the hands of a species, not more intellegent than us, but able to bring a superior technology to bear on living tissue.