Why does it so frighten the dogmatic preachers of "science"?
As far as I can tell, the "intelligent design" people think that evolution just isn't a closed book. We don't have empirical proof that people evolved from monkeys.
I feel perfectly entitled to so characterize evolution. This seems to be the only way evolutionists can deal with their own popular description of "intelligent design". They say it simply boils down to Creationism, which is dismissed out of hand as moronic drivel.
In fact, the idea that God created things doesn't sit well with some of them. Somehow these few elitists feel so vastly superior to the majority of the rest of the world, where a belief in divine presence and influence prevails.
I think it amounts to little more than intellectual snobbery.
A few areas where us moronic "creationists" can still amuse ourselves at the expense of the evangelical evolutionists.
I have the most fun with recipes for "primordial soup".
For more than 50 years disciples of Miller and Urey have been striving to produce a single molecule of protein. Without much success.
Miller's experiments were supposed to emulate some imagined conditions in a primitive world that might have caused amino acids to form and spontaneously organize into a protein, which would of course then instantly fold itself up into an amoeba. From there it is just a short leap to monkeys and humans.
Miller's simple lab experiment quickly yielded numerous amino-acids and related compounds, but nothing very interesting has ever happened after that, in spite of endless convoluted variations and permutations. Apparently you invariably end up with a flask full of overcooked dilute amino acids, not even nice for hot lunch on a chilly day.
This is problematic because it leaves the evolutionists without a foundation to stand on. Tracing the origins of life through the "fossil record" and back to nowhere leaves one with a terribly unsatisfied feeling. And it leaves us with one area where evolution science lacks empirical evidence to accomodate any of the currently popular theoretical models for the origins of life.
Miller's experimental designs are also problematic, since he knows exactly what reagents are required to sweeten the pot for the production of amino acids. His methodology is to start there and work backwards, rather than attempting to deduce actual primordial conditions and duplicate them. While this approach might give the best chance for accomplishing his goal of spontaneous protein synthesis, there is little evidence to indicate that such conditions ever existed in the "primordial soup" world.
All this effort expended to try to produce a few proteins. And meanwhile, the simplest organisms on earth do it without the slightest fuss.