<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intelligent Design video dissected</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quietatheist.com/index.php/2010/01/intelligent-design-video-dissected/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quietatheist.com/index.php/2010/01/intelligent-design-video-dissected/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:05:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Slugsie</title>
		<link>http://www.quietatheist.com/index.php/2010/01/intelligent-design-video-dissected/comment-page-1/#comment-5959</link>
		<dc:creator>Slugsie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quietatheist.com/?p=361#comment-5959</guid>
		<description>Um, are you serious? The video titled &#039;Darwinism Debunked&#039; isn&#039;t trying to disprove evolution? Seems like a very odd choice of title if that wasn&#039;t the case.

ID &lt;b&gt;isn&#039;t&lt;/b&gt; considered a theory by anyone with any scientific credibility, and please tell me you understand what &#039;theory&#039; means in a scientific context. Hint, it is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a guess.

Lastly, the ideas of evolution and ID do not work well together. Evolution has scientific evidence plus predictive ability (which is a fundamentally important requirement for science) whereas ID has no ideas nor predictive ability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, are you serious? The video titled &#8216;Darwinism Debunked&#8217; isn&#8217;t trying to disprove evolution? Seems like a very odd choice of title if that wasn&#8217;t the case.</p>
<p>ID <b>isn&#8217;t</b> considered a theory by anyone with any scientific credibility, and please tell me you understand what &#8216;theory&#8217; means in a scientific context. Hint, it is <b>not</b> a guess.</p>
<p>Lastly, the ideas of evolution and ID do not work well together. Evolution has scientific evidence plus predictive ability (which is a fundamentally important requirement for science) whereas ID has no ideas nor predictive ability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mlbs</title>
		<link>http://www.quietatheist.com/index.php/2010/01/intelligent-design-video-dissected/comment-page-1/#comment-5954</link>
		<dc:creator>mlbs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quietatheist.com/?p=361#comment-5954</guid>
		<description>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the video. The purpose is not to disprove evolution and natural selection, just that it has gaps. Intelligent design is considered a theory for a reason, much the same as the theory of evolution. The ideas of ID and evolution actually work quite well together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the video. The purpose is not to disprove evolution and natural selection, just that it has gaps. Intelligent design is considered a theory for a reason, much the same as the theory of evolution. The ideas of ID and evolution actually work quite well together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

