You speak as though the ToE is this very straightforward, factually complete and indisputable theory that only the ignorant do not subscribe to. That’s rather arrogant and presumptuous. If you were as learned as you portray yourself to be, you’d realize it is a complex theory with thousands of parts….many of which are still being studied and tested. I have studied, researched, and analyzed gobs of information and am still far from convinced the ToE provides an indisputable means of explaining how life evolved to its current state…..and I am far from alone. There are MANY people, including well educated people in the sciences who share my view.
Care to name some of those well educated persons who share your view?
The TOE is the best explanation we have to date. Do you have anything other than godidit?
If you understood the scientific method you would know why TOE is continual being studied. If science had ALL the answers it would have stopped (Dara O'Brien).
There is no dispute that evolution occurred. There may be arguments on various theories of the mechanism by which evolution occurred.
You are trying to sell a bill of goods based on your “faith” that abiogenesis (or panspermia) occurred, that we all share a common ancestor, and that lizard-to-snake type speciation events occurred….and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other problems with the ToE. When some of these deep trenches are filled with something of substance, then you may have reason to start leasing billboard space.
How things started is not completely understood. But that has nothing to do with the accepted fact that evolution did occur.
What deep trenches are you speaking of? The ones you mentioned sure aren't. How would you like to explain vestigial limbs on snakes? God screwed up?
Why are you so concerned about this perceived ignorance anyway? If we’re all going to perish into nothingness, what difference does it make if we die ignorant of something like the ToE?
Personally, I am concerned about the dishonest manner in which creationists are trying to dis science and get godidit on equal footing in science class.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.
Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).
Although ID proponents insist that it is a viable alternative to evolution, they are vague as to when and where an intelligent entity intervened and they contend that evolution is mostly wrong while offering no alternative to common descent.
A critical component of intelligent design is Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity. Is does not hold up in a court of law or in the court of scientific opinion.
Although, Behe doesn’t claim that a particular deity intervened in the course of earth history, it is clear his agenda is a Christian one. Behe is affiliated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). He is a senior fellow of the CRSC. The director of CRSC has stated that the goals of the institute are to “promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.”
Since the Supreme Court had ruled that creationism is religion, and therefore not to be taught in school, creationist repackaged creationism as intelligent design. To see their agenda, read The Wedge Document as reprinted by the National Center for Science Education:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Since the failure to get ID or creationism in school, creationists have tried different tactics, using their wedge approach. This is from The National Science Center for Education website (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/116):
Although in the 1990s IDC advocates had encouraged the teaching of ID in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution, in the early 2000s they shifted their strategy. IDCs currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier.
Not only are the leaders of the Intelligent Design Creationists dishonest, they are not very intelligent. All these attempts are doomed to failure and will fade away in the clear light of science and reason. As science continues to strip away the myths and superstitions of past ages, and paint over man’s ignorance with the bright colors of knowledge and understanding, the image of an intelligent designer fades and disappears into the background.
Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”
Creationists could take their cue from Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, former leader of the National Human Genome Research Institute and current director of the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian that rejects Intelligent Design.
Collins works within the scientific community apparently with no religious agenda or conflicting interests: In October 2009, shortly after his nomination as NIH director, Collins stated in an interview in the New York Times, “I have made it clear that I have no religious agenda for the N.I.H., and I think the vast majority of scientists have been reassured by that and have moved on.” [Harris, Gardiner (October 6, 2009). "For N.I.H. Chief, Issues of Identity and Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.]
From Wikipedia - Francis Collins: In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.