It looks like at least some good is coming from that Expelled nonsense — namely the free press for figures like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers.
I’ll be totally honest with you: I have no idea who PZ Meyers is. Apparently he’s been on the forefront combating the ridiculous “Intelligent Design is science” movement, which is very commendable, but I already have high enough blood pressure without having to think about that crap, so I’ll been a bit out of that loop. If not for his getting expelled from Expelled I probably would never have known about him, so thanks for that, idiots that made Expelled!
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is a name I do know, and have a great deal of affection for. Dawkins is the author of the absolutely spectacular book The Selfish Gene, which explains the concept of evolution so thoroughly that even yours truly was able to understand it. A professor of mine from college, Dr. Milton Saier (who is spectacularly wacky) loaned it to me after I asked him a bunch of (what are now clear to me silly) questions about the evolution of single-celled organisms. A professor handing me a book off his own bookshelf and telling me “Here, I think you’ll find this interesting,” was by far the most college-y thing that happened to me, which I suppose is a very sad comment on my college years.
Since then, I’ve recommended The Selfish Gene to everyone who I’ve thought was even mildly interested in matters of evolution or science, and, given the upheaval in the blogosphere over this stupid Expelled movie, I think now is a good time to remind people who are interested in this topic to get themselves a copy of this wonderful book. After all, knowledge is the real weapon we use against Creationist dogma, and the more knowledge you possess the more clear the ridiculousness of ideas like those in Expelled become.
A Word About Dawkins’ Atheism
So here’s the other thing: Richard Dawkins is a notorious atheist, with his more famous book being titled The God Delusion. I realize that doesn’t fly with a lot of people, and it gives the Creationist crowd ammunition with which to dismiss the very intelligent and important things Dawkins says about evolution elsewhere. Sensible but religious folks who really don’t have a great grasp of the actual concept of evolution are then easily lead to believe that the choice is between their faith and Godlessness.
The study of evolution doesn’t actually have anything to do with the philosophical or theological matters of God (which is why Intelligent Design is not, and has nothing to do with, science) and as such The Selfish Gene focuses on the science. I honestly don’t recall any religious aspects showing up in The Selfish Gene, and if they did my mind must have quickly dismissed them. I do recall, however, that there is a lot of truly excellent discussion of evolution, and what exactly it is that’s driving it at a molecular and chemical level.
In reading the book you should expect to come away from it as a more educated person, not as a Godless one.
Great post! I’ve wondered before if Dawkins is hawkin’ his God Delusion book in part just to watch the religious wingnuts have conniption fits. I hope so.
Well you certainly do seem to have quite accurately sub-titled your blog as “the supremely self-righteous website of Nima Yousefi”. The self-righteousness of this particulr post is self-evident. . .
The basic concept of “Intelligent Design” is by no means “ridiculous” nor is it “crap”. There is actually fair bit of scientific evidence of various kinds that strongly suggests that the Universe is more likely to be the product of Intelligent Design than coming into being as a result of pure random chance. The “God Hypothesis” may not be necessary to purely secular science but it cannot be ruled out either. I do not see a huge difference between scientifically seeking evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer (as it were) and seeking evidence for the existence of alien intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.
Richard Dawkins may well have produced an excellent book about the concept of evolution in ‘The Selfish Gene’ but that does not mean that his narrow-minded views about religion are valid. After all, knowledge is the real weapon we use against Richard Dawkins’ fundamentalist atheist dogma, and the more knowledge one possesses about religion the more clear the ridiculousness of anti-religious ideas like those in ‘The God Delusion’ become. . .
The study of evolution actually does have something to do with the philosophical or theological matters of God if one believes in God or, more to the point, if God actually does exist and did actually create the Universe after engaging in what can be properly described as Intelligent Design. . . Any and all scientific facts tell us something about the mind of God if God exists. Intelligent Design has plenty to do with science if one does not arbitrarily rule out the “God hypothesis”. Many early scientists were believers who were seeking to know more about the proverbial “mind of God” via their research into the workings of the world and the Universe. Plenty of modern scientists, even if they are a minority within the scientific community, are still doing so. Even Albert Einstein is on record as stating that he wanted to know how God thinks via his scientific research into the makings of the Universe, he even strongly suggested Intelligent Design in the Universe by saying:
“I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details.”
“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”
“God does not play dice.”
Dear Robin,
You have no idea what you’re talking about. It would be nice if you did, but then this wouldn’t be the Internet.
No there isn’t. There is ZERO evidence the Universe is the product of pure random chance, and ZERO evidence that the Universe is the product of God. It is impossible — as in the exact opposite of possible — for you, me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God, and how that God did or did not create you, me, or anything else.
That evolution or science suggests that the Universe arose from “pure chance” is a lie. No biology class I ever had — and, as I included in my About page, I have a degree in this subject — has ever made any suggestion of who did or did not create the Universe. That is because, as I mentioned in my post, such a question is philosophical, not scientific.
There might be a reason why I included three paragraphs at the end of my post talking about the difference between Dawkins’ scientific writing and his anti-religious writing. Logic — that thing humans are expected to employ once in a while — would suggest that I did that for the express purpose of avoiding someone posting something like you just did.
That is your PHILOSOPHICAL belief. It is a nice one, that I’m sure will bring you lots of happiness in the future, but it has nothing to do with SCIENCE.
SCIENCE is solely concerned with the what and how.
PHILOSOPHY is the why.
Attempts to merge the two together are destructive to both.
And, let me just point out too, that to believe you can interpret The Will of God by looking at a microscope slide is incredible hubris, and nothing short of blasphemous. And this is coming from an admitted egomaniac with his own god-complex.
Actually it is obvious from your response that you have no idea what you’re talking about Nima. I challenge you to present evidence that supports your ridiculous assertion that, “It is impossible — as in the exact opposite of possible — for you, me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God, and how that God did or did not create you, me, or anything else.“ Please use logic — that thing humans are expected to employ once in a while — to conclusively demonstrate that it is impossible for anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God. I can assure that it is entirely possible to know whether or not God exists and that many people throughout human history have undergone different varieties of religious experiences that have made it absolutely clear to them that God exists. I dare say that your supremely self-righteous assertion that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists gives me good reason to describe you as a fundamentalist agnostic. . .
:That evolution or science suggests that the Universe arose from “pure chance” is a lie.
That may well be so but, if it is a lie, it is a lie told by other people, usually atheists. . . I certainly did not say that evolution or science suggests that the Universe arose from “pure chance”. Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say.
::Any and all scientific facts tell us something about the mind of God if God exists.
:That is your PHILOSOPHICAL belief. It is a nice one, that I’m sure will bring you lots of happiness in the future, but it has nothing to do with SCIENCE.
Actually it is pure logic Nima. It`s even a quite scientific assertion. Just as all art tells us something about the mind of the artist, whatever God created (assuming God created the Universe) tells us something about the mind of God.
:SCIENCE is solely concerned with the what and how.
You forgot where and when, to say nothing of who. . .
Science is very much concerned whith why as well. Scientist regularly present theories and hypotheses about why things happen. Do you really believe that Charles Darwin was not concerned about why creatures evolve?
:Attempts to merge the two together are destructive to both.
Tell that to Albert Einstein who, amongst other things. . . said -
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941 US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)
Believe me, if I have to choose between what Albert Einstein said and what an admitted egomaniac with his own god-complex says, Albert Einstein will win hands down every time. . . In any case plenty of other scientists or religious people will say pretty much the same thing in somewhat different words. There should be no conflict between good science and good religion, both are concerned with understanding the workings of this world.
:And, let me just point out too, that to believe you can interpret The Will of God by looking at a microscope slide is incredible hubris, and nothing short of blasphemous.
Tell that to any number of scientists, living or dead, who believe(d) that it is possible to learn something about the Creator by studying and interpreting the Creation.
Are you insane? If it was possible to know if there is a God then it wouldn’t be called FAITH.
And that is called FAITH. They had unique experiences that formed in their minds a belief. Facts are things that everyone can experience or witness. Fact and faith are different things.
If it wasn’t abundantly clear, I’m not a frickin’ atheist, and I’m not writing in support of atheism. That is why, in recommending Dawkins book I went out of my way to disassociate it from his other, atheist, writings. People who are atheists can do so on their own time.
No, he was talking about what conditions would lead to a evolutionary differentiation. That isn’t the same “why” as the one that involves God. Have you even read On Natural Selection? It’s very clear in that text what Darwin is talking about, and it isn’t what you’re suggesting.
It’s obvious you’re not getting it, so let me spell it out for you one more time: science and religion are totally separate things. That’s it. If you want to use science to inform your religious beliefs go right ahead, but you CANNOT do the opposite. That is what the “Intelligent Design” movement is trying to do, and that is why the “Intelligent Design” movement is, and has rightly been called, a load of crap. You are free to believe in a God, or not, outside the purview of science.
I worked in a lab around Jews, atheists, Christians, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, and Buddhists (yes, we were a big lab) and yet the science we all generated and worked with was exactly the same. One’s personal religion does not, cannot, and should not intrude upon science.
In other words, keep it in your pants. The end.
Great point you made on “faith” as “faith” is clearly eroding within the religious community. Even they are attempting to use science to prove a god when in the past “faith” alone was enough. It is a sad state when one uses the tools of the enemy to fight the war. But to be honest, if Christianity is finally going to evolve
past the whole creation story, then I welcome it. I welcome it because they are being forced to adjust their beliefs to the facts. This is a victory for science, but is indeed baby steps. Hopefully, like religion in general, Intelligent Design will be forced to back track on their “beliefs” as well as science continues to dispel all their claims.
::I challenge you to present evidence that supports your ridiculous assertion that, “It is impossible — as in the exact opposite of possible — for you, me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God, and how that God did or did not create you, me, or anything else.“
:Are you insane?
Not at all but you are obviously quite ignorant when it comes to religion, as are most fundamentalist atheists or devout agnostics. In fact I have more respect for atheists than for agnostics who pretend that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. BTW I can
t help but notice that you failed miserably to present any actual evidence that supports your ridiculous assertion that, “It is impossible — as in the exact opposite of possible — for you, me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God, and how that God did or did not create you, me, or anything else.“ I guess thats par for the course for Nima. . .:If it was possible to know if there is a God then it wouldn’t be called FAITH.
But it is not always called faith Nima. As I already said. . . a fair number of people can claim to have direct personal experience of God in various ways. The fact of the matter is that plenty of atheists have a great deal of faith in the non-existence of God. I expect that is why some atheists happily refer to themselves as devout atheists. Be assured that for the prophets of the Bible and for Muhammed and other non-Biblical prophets it was not a question of faith but of profound personal experience of God. Even Carl Jung claimed to know that God exists when he was asked by a BBC radio interviewer if he believed in God. I and many other people have very good reason to claim to know that God exists and AFAIAC I am in good company even if we limit it only to Carl Gustav Jung.
::I can assure that it is entirely possible to know whether or not God exists and that many people throughout human history have undergone different varieties of religious experiences that have made it absolutely clear to them that God exists.
:And that is called FAITH. They had unique experiences that formed in their minds a belief.
Wrong. They and I had not so unique experiences that formed in our minds knowledge of God`s existence and experience of how God interacts with human beings in various ways. Our experiences are every bit as valid and real as other forms of human experience. I know that God exists as much as I know that anything else that I have experienced exists.
:Facts are things that everyone can experience or witness. Fact and faith are different things.
I agree that fact and faith are different things but not everyone can experience or witness all things. Not everyone has the kind of profound and direct personal experiences of God that I and other people have had. That does not mean that what we have experienced is not a fact.
:If it wasn’t abundantly clear, I’m not a frickin’ atheist, and I’m not writing in support of atheism.
Don`t worry Nima. It is abundamntly clear that you are a fundamentalist agnostic. I got that the first time you made that clear to me and everyone else reading this supremely self-righteous blog post of yours.
:That is why, in recommending Dawkins book I went out of my way to disassociate it from his other, atheist, writings. People who are atheists can do so on their own time.
Who else
s time would they do it on Nima? Other than Gods time of course.::Science is very much concerned whith why as well. Scientist regularly present theories and hypotheses about why things happen. Do you really believe that Charles Darwin was not concerned about why creatures evolve?
:No, he was talking about what conditions would lead to a evolutionary differentiation. That isn’t the same “why” as the one that involves God.
I didn
t suggest that is was the same “why” as the one that involves God Nima. Dont twist my words. It remains a “why” amnd there are many other “whies” that scientists attempt to answer. So why exclude the “why” that involves God? Scientists try to determine if alien life forms exists so why do most (but by no means all. . .) scientists refuse to try to determine whether or not the most impressive life form of the Universe exists?:Have you even read On Natural Selection? It’s very clear in that text what Darwin is talking about, and it isn’t what you’re suggesting.
I am only suggesting that Charles Darwin was interested why creatures evolve as much as if or how they evolve. He was of course interested in various other scientific whies.
:It’s obvious you’re not getting it, so let me spell it out for you one more time: science and religion are totally separate things. That’s it. If you want to use science to inform your religious beliefs go right ahead, but you CANNOT do the opposite.
You are mistaken again Nima. It is true that it is much easier to integrate established scientific knowledge with religion than the flip side of that coin but it is entirely possible to have religious beliefs, or indeed the knowledge imparted by religious experience, inform at least some aspects of science. Indeed religious experiences of various kinds can be scientifically investigated even though most scientists choose not to do so.
:That is what the “Intelligent Design” movement is trying to do, and that is why the “Intelligent Design” movement is, and has rightly been called, a load of crap. You are free to believe in a God, or not, outside the purview of science.
Intelligent Design, as a basic concept, is by no means a load of crap. Some versions of Intelligent Design may be highly questionable but the same can be said about a good number of highly questionable claims or theoriers made by scientists. Can you say “cold fusion” Nima? Quite frankly, if I set my mind to it, I could come up with plentry of examples of “bad science” than could be justifiably described as crap or reidiculous or idiotic etc., including a fair number of recent examples. Just because there is “bad science” doesn`t mean that all science is bad. The same principle applies to religion and Intelligent Design. . .
:I worked in a lab around Jews, atheists, Christians, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, and Buddhists (yes, we were a big lab) and yet the science we all generated and worked with was exactly the same. One’s personal religion does not, cannot, and should not intrude upon science.
Actually it can and does, and sometimes it even leads to some interesting discoveries. Let me remind you that many of the early scientists were believers and their religious beliefs most certainly informed their science.
:In other words, keep it in your pants.
Keep what in my pants Nima?
:The end.
Not really. . .
I’m going to stop you right here, because that’s twice now you’ve claimed to know what my religious beliefs are and twice that you’ve been wrong. If you’re going to post in my comments and then refrain from trying to tell me who I am or what I believe, especially if you’re going to be so profoundly wrong.
Moving on…
If you think you have evidence that God exists then I highly recommend you call up every major news outlet you can find and tell them about it, because, if real, you’d immediately be an international hero. I’ll tell you what, I’d buy you dinner in a five-star restaurant myself, provided you had time to go given that everyone on the planet would be showering you with affection. Of course, you don’t have an proof of God’s existence (beyond what you may have in your heart), because it doesn’t exist. That is the point of faith.
And I am suggesting that if you want to talk about these things and not sound like a doofus that you go and get a copy of On Natural Selection and The Selfish Gene and read them. That’s sort of the entire point of my post — that people who want to learn about what they’re talking about can go and get the material and learn about the subject. As I said, The Selfish Gene was not, to my recollection, overtly anti-religion, and so you can feel confident that in reading it you’d walk away simply with more knowledge in your head.
I’m going to do something crazy here and go out on a limb and assume that maybe you just don’t really understand what these words actually mean. “Intelligent Design” is not the concept that there is a God that created everything. ID is the belief that scientists should be using religion as the basis for their conclusions. That is why I was very clear in separating philosophy (there is a God) from science (bacteria can be transformed). ID is not science. It can never be proven or disproved. If you believe a magic butterfly created the Universe by farting there is no way to counter that with facts. You try — prove to me that a magic butterfly didn’t create the Universe by farting. Explain to me what experiments I’d do. You write up that grant proposal and let me know how that turns out.
Let me illuminate your ignorance and tell you that many CURRENT scientists are believers, many very devoutly so. This is yet another profoundly ignorant thing that I would expect someone who doesn’t actually know what goes on in the field of science to say.
The reality is these scientists of faith do not let their beliefs interfere with the deduction of facts, any more than Newton attributed gravity to the force of God’s will. You might believe gravity is God’s will that we be held to the Earth, but that’s not a scientific statement — it is, and I’m pretty tired of pointing this out — a matter of faith, not fact.
:I’m going to stop you right here, because that’s twice now you’ve claimed to know what my religious beliefs are and twice that you’ve been wrong.
Actually I have not been wrong about your religious beliefs Nima. My description of your religious beliefs is based on statements that you have made in your comments here, an understanding of the meaning of the word “agnostic” and the use of logic. Look up the meaning of the word “agnostic” in a dictionary and you will see that an agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. I can only be wrong about your religious beliefs if you have misrepresented your religious beliefs in your own over-the-top statement -
“It is impossible — as in the exact opposite of possible — for you, me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God, and how that God did or did not create you, me, or anything else.”
:If you’re going to post in my comments and then refrain from trying to tell me who I am or what I believe, especially if you’re going to be so profoundly wrong.
That’s funny because I can make the same claim about you with much more justification, I do happen to know that God exists and I know from profound personal experience of God that God has certain attributes and capabilities. I know some aspects of the mind of God. You yourself are profoundly wrong when you brazenly assert that it is impossible for me, or anyone to know if there is or isn’t a God. I can assure you that there are many living human beings who can very justifiably claim to know that God exists as a result of profound personal experiences of God. I myself have undergone a revelatory religious experience of God that is comparable to those claimed by Biblical prophets. Be assured that the Biblical prophets and other prophets such as Mohammed did not believe in God or have faith in God’s existence, they knew from direct and profound personal experience of God that God exists.
:Moving on…
You’re not going anywhere Nima. . .
:If you think you have evidence that God exists then I highly recommend you call up every major news outlet you can find and tell them about it, because, if real, you’d immediately be an international hero.
Been there. Done that. Major news outlets are intensely allergic to claims of profound revelatory experiences of God, and it is almost impossible to get them to responsibly report them to the public.
:I’ll tell you what, I’d buy you dinner in a five-star restaurant myself, provided you had time to go given that everyone on the planet would be showering you with affection.
Just like everyone showered all the other prophets with affection Nima?
:Of course, you don’t have an proof of God’s existence (beyond what you may have in your heart), because it doesn’t exist. That is the point of faith.
I never claimed to have absolute proof of God’s existence but, in terms of the revelatory religious experience that I underwent and in terms of some of the information that was conveyed to my via that experience of God I do have strong evidence for the existence of God.
:And I am suggesting that if you want to talk about these things and not sound like a doofus that you go and get a copy of On Natural Selection and The Selfish Gene and read them.
I don’t need to do that to be right about Charles Darwin and many other scientists being concerned with why in addition to what and how etc.
:That’s sort of the entire point of my post — that people who want to learn about what they’re talking about can go and get the material and learn about the subject.
It seems that you have a fair bit of learning to do when it comes to God and religion Nima. You might want to pay heed to your own advice. I dare say that Richard Dawkins would be well advised to heed your advice when it comes to talking about religion. . .
:As I said, The Selfish Gene was not, to my recollection, overtly anti-religion, and so you can feel confident that in reading it you’d walk away simply with more knowledge in your head.
I am sure that I would but I would be more inclined to read ‘The God Delusion’ and then point out all of Richard Dawkins ridiculous asssertions about religion and God believing people that can be properly described as crap. . .
::Intelligent Design, as a basic concept
:I’m going to do something crazy here and go out on a limb and assume that maybe you just don’t really understand what these words actually mean.
I think it’s the other way around Nima. Maybe you don’t know what “basic concept” means. . .
:“Intelligent Design” is not the concept that there is a God that created everything. ID is the belief that scientists should be using religion as the basis for their conclusions.
Wrong. “Intelligent Design” as a “basic concept” is the concept that something, indeed anything. . . has been designed with intelligence. The term “Intelligent Design” can be, and is, commonly applied to the concept that there is a God that designed and created the Universe. Some people have co-opted the term “Intelligent Design”, or redefined it to narrow its meaning, but as a “basic concept” it only means that something had been intelligently designed.
:That is why I was very clear in separating philosophy (there is a God) from science (bacteria can be transformed). ID is not science. It can never be proven or disproved.
You are quite mistaken (dare I say profoundly wrong?) in asserting that it can never be proven or disproved that God exists, or that the Universe is the product of Intelligent Design. That assertion is a strong agnostic position.
:If you believe a magic butterfly created the Universe by farting there is no way to counter that with facts.
Sounds a lot like the Big Bang to me. Must have been quite a butterfly fart. . . It seems to me that one could search for residual evidence of the butterfly fart just as scientists seek and find residual evidence of the Big Bang. I suppose one might even be able to search for the magic butterfly itself if it was believed to be immortal or at least capable of living for some billions of years.
:You try — prove to me that a magic butterfly didn’t create the Universe by farting.
Wouldn’t it be far more scientific to seek evidence that supported your hypothesis that a magic butterfly did create the Universe by farting? Don’t scientists sometimes come up with various hypotheses and then seek evidence as to whether or not a particular hypothesis is valid or not? Why should scientists not be allowed to seek evidence in support of the God hypothesis or Intelligent Design if they chose to do so? Be assured that I have seen evidence of scientists coming up with far more bizarre and inane hypotheses than the fairly reasonable hypothesis that the Universe is the product of an Intelligent Designer aka the Great Architect of the Universe aka God aka Allah or any number of other names.
:Explain to me what experiments I’d do.
Look for residual evidence of the Big Butterfly Fart just like scientists look for residual evidence of the Big Bang. Look for the magic butterfly itself. BTW Just How big is this magical butterfly you are talking about?
:You write up that grant proposal and let me know how that turns out.
Why would I write up a grant proposal for something I don’t believe in Nima? I do believe that one could write up a grant proposal for seeking evidence of Intelligent Design and that some respectable foundations might even bestow the grant. I could be mistaken but I have some reason to believe that some such grants have already been bestowed upon individuals or organizations.
:The reality is these scientists of faith do not let their beliefs interfere with the deduction of facts, any more than Newton attributed gravity to the force of God’s will.
Are you quite sure that he didn’t? Are you quite sure that other scientists of faith have not attributed other scientific facts to God’s will? In any case, assuming what you say is true, why couldn’t scientists of faith (or not. . .) investigate the hypothesis that the Universe is the product of Intelligent Design without letting their beliefs interfere with the deduction of facts?
:You might believe gravity is God’s will that we be held to the Earth, but that’s not a scientific statement — it is, and I’m pretty tired of pointing this out — a matter of faith, not fact.
Actually, if God exists, it is a matter of fact that it is God’s will that we be held to the Earth by gravity. If it was not God’s will we wouldn’t be held to the Earth by gravity would we? That is one of the points that I have been making. Assuming that God exists, every scientific fact tells us something about the mind of God or will of God.
You know what’s so amazingly awesome about this one sentence right here? I, the expert in me, am telling you that you, a person who has never met me, is factually wrong about something personal to me, and you’re arguing me with about that. I think that pretty much sums up this entire discussion.
But no, I am not an agnostic. I have said, over and over again, that there is no proof of God, but, I have also talked, over and over again, about faith and the difference therein. I’m not going to go over the difference between “knowing” and “believing” with you again, and quite frankly, my faith is absolutely none of your business, anymore than yours is mine.
In any case, I made it very clear that I wasn’t going to tolerate you telling me what I do or don’t believe, and therefore you will not be posting here any more. This is my site, and if you can’t follow the rules you aren’t welcome here.
Robin,
This thread is a bit old, but hopefully you’re still getting updates.
You’ve astutely pointed out that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a Christian god. It is also impossible to prove the existence of any god (Odin, Ra, Zeus, Shiva), and in fact impossible to ever prove any negative statement. Your argument here is based on a logical fallacy called “burden of proof,” wherein the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an argument – the person making a statement rather than the person questioning it.
Second, you repeatedly say that there is “a fair bit of scientific evidence of various kinds” to support “Intelligent Design,” yet you provide none. When pressed, you still do not provide any evidence, but rather claim that “any number of scientists,” believe that it is “possible to learn something about the Creator by studying and interpreting the Creation.” Here you’ve actually created a lovely synthesis of two different logical fallacies: one is called “appealing to authority,” which is what you’re doing when you cite unnamed “scientists” who we should of course take the word of. Your citation of Jung’s theist leanings is also an appeal to authority. The other fallacy here is called “begging the question,” better known as circular reasoning, where you assume your effect in stating your cause. You say that people can observe the work of a god through their scientific observations, yet the very ability to observe the work of a god in this way depends on the assumption that god in fact exists.
After all that, you still provide no actual scientific evidence, at any point, ever, throughout this entire exchange, to suggest that Intelligent Design is a viable explanation for anything. Anecdotes and logical trickery, but not a scrap of evidence. There are volumes of evidence for evolution; The Origin of Species and The Selfish Gene, which Nina mentioned earlier, are a good place to start.
Finally, you make another appeal to authority by REPEATEDLY portraying Einstein as a devout theist. Let me quote from a recently-uncovered letter of his, written in 1954 to his friend Eric Gutkind: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
In sum: you are entitled to your faith if you wish, but do not pretend that it belongs in the realm of scientific inquiry. If you want to make this kind of assertion, you need evidence. You have none.