What does nature have to say about all of this swirling controversy around evolution, intelligent design and creationism. These are a war of words and ideologies immersed in accusations about motives and agendas. It feels more like a political campaign vying for votes than a scientific debate. This is the object of my concern, why don’t we listen to nature? After all, isn’t the subject the origins of nature? If nature is the subject shouldn’t we consult nature for evidence instead of quoting people and laws? Everyone should look at the trees, the flowers, outer space, DNA, our immune system, the instincts of animals, the interdependence of systems within species and they with their environment. This is what I talk most about in "Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature". This is where I believe all discussions should center – the object of the discussion – nature.

To discuss how many scientists believe it and how long it has been taught is drifting. We Also unrelated are flying accusations that if you adhere to one theory it is not science but religion and argue about church and state issues.

Those agreeing with Intelligent Design are accused of having certain motives. Oh my goodness, motives? We aren’t just reading people’s minds, we are seeing the reason for their thoughts? Now evolutionists are getting mystical. Censorship, religion, name-calling, accusations, reading minds and motives . . . What are we talking about again? Oh yeah, nature.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FILTER

Here is my point: We still haven’t really examined whether evolution or Intelligent Design have been adequately scrutinized through the scientific method filter. I can barely see the primary subject anymore.

Well I know for a fact that science is not the teacher of nature but the student. The best and brightest of all our scientists have the technology of nature in their grasp but the complex genius of 99.99% of it escapes them anyway. We all agree on this. If nature is so infinitely smarter than man why would anyone, especially scientists, say there is no intelligence greater than man? We are surrounded and engulfed with evidence to the contrary every second of every day.

Want some examples? My book is filled with them but your world has waaaay more.

Just a little hinting with one example; DNA dictates the design but who dictates DNA? Who decided bones weren’t good enough and they should have marrow and blood with red blood cells and white blood cells and a heart with an electrical impulse utilizing lungs to provide oxygen that plants provide in abundance when they do the 70-stage process of photosynthesis using the sun and water provided by rain clouds blown by wind moving ocean-evaporated and de-salted water?

IGNORING EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ARGUE

Yeah, everybody stop talking and arguing. Let’s look at nature. Let’s listen to nature. Let nature give evidence on it own behalf. We have eyes [thanks to nature] we have brains [thanks to nature] we can choose [how do communicate to DNA to begin giving freedom of choice to a species?] let’s get to the heart of the subject - nature.

UNQUALIFIED TO ASK QUESTIONS

I resent the idea of being told that I am not qualified to evaluate evidence and make a decision. Can you imagine a scientist on trial for spreading false rumors and yelling at jurors that they are not qualified? That was done to a state school board in Kansas.

I may not be a professional football player but I know a fumble when I see one. I may not be a good cook but I still spit out food that tastes bad. I think I know bad science when I see it too.

If I ask “Why is there not a single species giving birth to a brand new species that never existed before and becomes a new and thriving species?” I will be accused of religious motives and obviously too dumb to see the truth of evolution. If I am a scientist with the same question I will be mocked and tagged for not agreeing with my peers.

Aren’t journalists noticing the redundancy of quotes from the evolutionists? “There is no controversy”

“It doesn’t belong in science class”

“Evolution has stood the test of time”. 

When evolutionists say “Science must be provable or falsifiable. We cannot do that with Intelligent Design so it doesn’t belong in science”. OK, I may sound like a 2^nd grader but while they are pointing they have 3 fingers pointing back.

Here are some questions I would like to see journalists and the public ask  the Darwinian evolutionists:

• What experiments have you done proving how explosions create order?
• What experiments have you done proving how a life is made from non-living material?
• What experiments have you done proving how a species spontaneously gives birth to an entirely new successful species?
• What experiments have you done proving how matter organizes itself over time instead of deteriorating over time?
• What experiments have you done proving how all extinct animals did not cease to exist but evolved into other species?
• What experiments have you done proving how major mutations do not produce sterility and deformities?
• What experiments have you done proving why we should ignore the abundant evidence proving evolution is contrary to provable science?
• If mankind’s greatest minds are attempting to duplicate working systems in nature, how is this grounds that nature has no intelligence?
• What solid evidence can you give us proving things un-provable ought to be called scientific?
• Why should the American people believe scientific opinion instead of scientific evidence?

Something else that really gets me is how scientists agree that together man knows less than 1% of all knowledge or the secrets of nature. OK so how can they simultaneously claim with certainty about the unknown 99+% having absolutely no intelligence? Seems like somebody is afraid of possibilities.

I will soon do a simple entry about how obvious it is that Intelligent Design can be proven scientifically, contrary to the swirling of words to the contrary.
             I will also try to make entries more often. I do appreciate each of you who has made a comment. Thank you.