![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
Udvikling eller intelligent design?
Det ultimative bevis.
Har man lyst til at læse mere om udvikling vs. intelligent design, kan man prøve denne her artikel: Intelligent Design or "No Model" Creationism: A Total Fraud and a Scam Why It Can't Qualify as Even a Pseudoscience.
Forfatteren stiller, sidst i artiklen, 24 spørgsmål til tilhængere af intelligent design - 24 eksempler på velkendte observationer, som er meget lette at forklare med udviklingslæren, men som slet ikke giver mening ud fra en "design-" eller skabelseslære - for eksempel:
16.) The more isolated an old island or group of old islands is, then the more likely it is to have a fair number of living or very recently extinct kinds of native flightless land birds with vestigial wings and which are (or were) found nowhere else in the world. (Because they couldn’t get there, such distant islands lack or lacked four-footed predators, so flightlessness for these birds was not a problem.) Since it is clear that certain of these islands (especially the volcanic ones) haven't always been there, then the flightless birds obviously haven't always been there either. The birds' ancestors had to have gotten to the islands somehow. But it would have been impossible for flightless birds to get to them. Thus the sort of place we might least expect to find flightless birds turns out to be the sort of place we are most likely to find them in the real world. Clearly, the ancestors of these birds flew to the islands, only to then evolve flightlessness. In the most extreme cases (such as dodos, kiwis, and moas) the entire organization of the bird, not merely the vestigial wings, reflects their flightless status. Creationists of all kinds simply avoid this problem.Intelligent design er, med Paulis ord, "not even wrong".
Via Langt fra Alfarvej.