@OnlyTrueGod What I'm saying is that this will be a temporary trend.

@OnlyTrueGod If you think an answer isn't so good, and that you could give a better answer, the best thing is to write your own answer. That's much better than trying to get other people to say what you think they should have said instead of saying what they said.

The StackExchange sites are designed to encourage multiple answers, and then to cause the best answers to rise to the top, and the worst to sink to the bottom, through the voting system. If you think someone's answer isn't very good, you can downvote it and help the system work the way it's supposed to.

Just be sure you're downvoting it, not because you disagree with the doctrines involved, but because it doesn't give a good answer to the question asked.

@Matthew 'Nuff said.

@Matthew Intelligent Design is a specific "theory" (in quotes because it's not a scientific theory) that is basically creationism in a different dress. It posits that God directed the development of life, and that natural processes by themselves could not have done so, because life is too complex and intricate for that, etc.

I would suggest that instead, God created a spiritual universe and a physical universe that had embedded in them the laws and processes that made it possible for them to produce life. God sustained that life from within, but did not need to micro-manage it, because God had given the created universe the capacity to produce life by its own means and methods.

For a more detailed (but still not rigorous) presentation of this idea, see: "God: Puppetmaster or Manager of the Universe?"

@Matthew @ペガサスSeiya For a more general piece on how God created the universe, see: "How did God Create the Universe? Was the World Really Created in Six Days?"

And see also: "Containers for God"

@LeeWoofenden Comments don't have to be made because you are trying to get other people to say what you think should be in the answer. It's to point out obvious problems or questions related to the answer.

@OnlyTrueGod If that's your goal, you should probably just write your own answer.

@LeeWoofenden Look at this post meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work There are 3 reasons for comments. 1. Request clarification from the author 2. Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post

@LeeWoofenden A primary purpose of comments is constructive criticism. Of course, one person might hear something and explode in anger, another might hear it and say 'Ya, that might be a good question to address in the answer.' YMMV.

@LeeWoofenden We tend to have thin-skinned people who don't take kindly to criticism around these parts. But criticism is part-and-parcel of writing answers or questions on SE. Some people even go so far as to say "I won't respond to any criticisms in comments." That's up to them, but the purpose of comments is to provide a venue for criticisms.

@ペガサスSeiya That is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. If you were walking through a park and came across bush that was clearly shaped like a horse, you certainly wouldn't conclude that it "just happened" to grow that way. The causal adequacy of ID is to produce specified complexity from raw materials is clearly demonstrated. The causal adequacy of intelligence-free processes to do likewise, isn't. That is what needs to be shown.

@LeeWoofenden Ah, yes, the usual Materialist response to ID. How is it that you, allegedly a Christian, are defending a view that denies the necessity of God and, at best, distances God from His Creation? (And how can you call God Human if it's an accident that we look the way we do?)

@LeeWoofenden, BTW, which part of Luke 3 is fictional? And how do you know?