Ah, this is the emperor’s clothes. It sounds humble. It sounds almost enlightened but the result is masses of perfectly intelligent people rejecting their own powers of reason and observation in deference to “the experts”.

I may not be a plumber, but I know a leak when I see one.

I may not be a scientist, but I know the difference between proof and “just trust me”.

I don’t like it when salesmen tell me to trust them instead of answering me and I don’t like it when politicians do it and I don’t like it when scientists do it.

There are many things I do not understand but this is not a reason to accept things contrary to what we see. If a car salesman tells me the used car is in perfect shape and to ignore the oil puddle underneath and on the engine block I tend to doubt the word of the salesman.

Every single living thing we all know of has offspring and that offspring is the same species. All of my dogs had puppies. All of my cats had kittens. All of my fish had baby fish. Same with hamsters. Same with everything. Then the experts say “Ha. Don’t believe it. Every species that exists has come from completely different species and not one different species but many different species.”

I am supposed to bow in humility to this questions because electrons are complex?

I don’t think so.

Now to avoid a philosophical argument, a truly scientific argument would present evidence – not how many scientists agree on something or how old a theory is. That is the old sales talk. Who cares what Einstein said. Who cares what college some scientist went to or how many degrees he has.  It is irrelevant to the plain question on the table about species – just answer the question. No deep discussions about other things or why I am too ignorant to pursue the matter. Just answer the question.

The pattern I keep seeing is when something plain and simple undermines the credibility of evolutionary ideas, the challenge is never answered. Instead the person is accused of being religious or they are told they are not qualified – but many simple science question remains unaddressed. This is what I did in my book but in the background of celebrating the ingenuity in nature.

My book is ten years worth of enjoyable observations in nature that seem to point to genius engineering and invention. That is just honesty. It is not a scientific challenge or an argument, but like a child’s honest question – it remains honest.

Man is the student of nature because nature remains far superior in wisdom. Man can make a glass eye. Man can make astro-turf. All of science is primitive in comparison to the sublime genius of nature.

My observations are not ignorant. The evidence of genius in nature is not scarce. I will not submit to some elitist mentality that scoffs at honest questions. And frankly, I think real scientists love questions … they don’t mock them. I think real scientists love proof far more than censoring challenges. I think real scientists are always ready to jump ship from one theory to stronger theory if there is more evidence. It is intellectual suicide to defend a theory that continues failing to find evidence or answers to plain questions and must resort to tactical answers rather than plain answers.

I do appreciate your comments and you taking the time.

I am thankful for you comments so I can display how very intelligent people can embrace ideas that are irrational. You have concluded that the idea of Intelligent Design has no proof, no evidence, no work, no tests as though intelligent design is some foolish blind notion. Since you have a Phd, this is an example of why scientists must be taken to task.

Without researching the work of scientists with multiple degrees [some whom have endorsed my book], you conclude publicly there is zero evidence for Intelligent Design. This without research.

You have not read my book, you have not considered my own 10 years worth of PLAIN observation and work and evidence. Yes, evidence and logic.

Wow, an incredibly bold conclusion without research that can be easily proven wrong. I am afraid you are victim of believing the experts. I, and many like me, on the other hand, have considered evolution and considered creationism and considered Intelligent Design and absolutely willing to believe whichever one has the most evidence –

By consideration and research, I have reached a conclusion different than yours, which I believe is based mainly on believing others.  

I am not going to stop asking my simple questions until I get honest answers. In these past 10 [actually 12 years] years; the lack of direct answers has led me to the rational conclusion that the answers may not exist to scientifically support the major pillars of assumption for evolution.

Science is not a majority vote election for what is true. Real science is presenting evidence.

If I was 30 years younger I would invite you to show me evidence but I’ve already been doing that for more than 30 years and Daryl, the evidence is missing. The main assumptions of evolution are not only lacking evidence, most are genuinely contrary to the evidence.

So in conclusion – yes I do believe scientists should provide proof to the public for what they declare is scientifically true and yes I do believe my common sense has great value.

I don’t disagree with everything you said. There will be many complexities in science that are difficult to grasp. But I can learn plumbing and I can learn science and so can anybody.