Are people who believe in Intelligent Design ignorant fools who wish to fill our schools with nonsense?

They really don’t have a clue. Every year, new ways in which life could have originated pop into existence, get media coverage, and then fade away. As Dr. Robert Hazen (a member of ISSOL, International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, and very critical of Intelligent Design) admitted in a lecture in 2005: “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began.

It’s as if we are trying to assemble a huge jigsaw puzzle. We have a few pieces clumped together here and there, but most of the puzzle pieces are missing. How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history” (The Origins of Life).

And he admitted to that in his book as well (Genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origins). Did you know, if you pick up a high-school textbook, there is no hint of woeful ignorance as to the origin of life. They sure didn’t tell us that in school.

The truth is, the Miller-Urey experiment (they always put in the textbooks) is not even close. In February of 2011, John Horgan (a science writer for Scientific American) had an article called: Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began.

In it, he said, “Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.” Why are they stumped? There’s the chicken-and-egg paradox of the DNA needing proteins and proteins needing DNA.

There’s the instability of RNA. There’s the chirality problem. You have to deal with hydrolysis.

You have to explain the origin of the genetic code. And so on and so forth. You can find guys like Dr. George Whitesides, a prominent professor of Harvard University and an expert on chemical evolution, who will openly say that he has no idea how life could have gotten started knowing all the chemistry he knows (and you are going to be hard-pressed to find someone on the planet who knows more chemistry than he knows).

Evolution News and Views website was commenting on Harry Lonsdale’s “Origin of Life Challenge” that he gave in 2012 and said, “It’s so poorly understood that one of Lonsdale’s referees, astrobiologist Chris McKay from NASA’s Ames Research Center, commented, ‘The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem.’ What? Didn't Darwin propose a warm little pond?

Didn’t Oparin propose coacervates? Didn’t Miller propose spark discharges? Didn’t Sidney Fox propose microspheres?

Didn't Gilbert propose an RNA World? . .

. 150 years of work has not produced a consensus on how even to approach the problem? Shocking” (Millions to Chase a Myth).

The fact is, we have never found anything that goes against the law of biogenesis, that life only comes from life. The evidence strongly points to an Author of Life. That is why Francis Crick (one of the co-discoverers of DNA) thought that life on earth might have been the result of “directed panspermia” (that life was “seeded” on earth by aliens).

Of course, that just shifts the problem to another solar system or galaxy—how did life begin there? Some people ask, “What about Dr. Craig Venter’s work—didn’t he create artificial life in 2010?” If you get beyond the popular media article titles, you will discover that he really didn’t do very much.

First of all, keep in mind that it took about 15 years, around $40 million, and some very intelligent scientists. What they did was synthetically copy the DNA from one bacteria (adding a few watermarks), and then inserted it in another (already existing) bacteria and got that bacteria to read it. That’s pretty cool, but as it’s been said, this is simply intelligently designed plagiarism.

William What you did is called "elephant hurling." You need to look it up and quit doing it. It's not helpful.

Oooookay. Let's clear out the nonsense claims here about what others believe, and get down to the basics. What we know, scientifically (that is, by a careful process of systematic observation of the real world, equipped with rules that allow people to challenge conclusions as long as they can back up their challenges with equally systematic observations) is this: that all the forms of life we have observed share a common ancestry.

Different species (as well as higher taxonomic groupings) differ because they have evolved and become genetically distinct. The evidence for this is overwhelming, especially since we discovered how to analyze genetic codes; if it were not true, there would not only necessarily be an intelligent designer, but also that designer would have to be working harder to fabricate evidence of common descent that merely to produce the different species. What we do NOT know is how the first living ancestors, the ones from whom all life is descended, appeared.

Several experiments with organic chemistry have produced evidence of intriguing possibilities, but none have yet produced life entirely from non-living materials. Nor, if they did so, would there be any proof that the same sequence of chemical events led to our ancestors. We know roughly (with limited detail) from paleontological research many of the developments that led to the appearance of our species.

We know that we can fully explain them by the processes which drive evolution, such as natural selection and genetic drift. What we do NOT know is that there is not an intelligence somehow driving this process. You are free to believe in that, just as a gambler is free to believe that his success at a game is somehow divinely ordained, even though the casino can verify that it occurred in strict obedience to laws of chance.

Events which occur according to statistical laws are entirely explainable without the notion of divine intervention, but they are with equal validity explainable with that notion; the only thing you can't claim is that you can prove they didn't obey statistical laws (and that therefore the divine intervention must have occurred). So the notion of intelligent design is entirely valid--AS LONG as you don't claim it in any way refutes the scientific observation of the nature of the process. Make that claim, and you're adding a new claim about your intelligent designer, too: that he is the Father of Lies.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.