"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us."

I hope people can cope with their automatic associations and think photographically. This creationist vs. evolutionist banter is just laughable.

Indeed, this is a photo site, not a religious one. That was true until the attacks began on the host. When a challenge topic is "sexy," should we protest that this is a photo site, not a cheesecake site? "Ferraris" -- nope, not an auto site. "City of La Habana?" Nope, not a travel site. Cockpits? No, not about aviation. Etc.

Further, while it is true that there are many religious assertions that are, or appear to be, incorrect. Does it necessarily follow that all aspects of all religions are invalidated? Shall we apply the same logic to the sciences? Oops. In the end, there is no real conflict between science and religion. Scientific study is man's attempt to answer the question, "How?" Religious study is man's attempt to answer the question, "Why?" Both are important questions that warrant serious consideration.

In the meantime, why don't we let the host present a topic for interpretation, without the bickering.

Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word.

Saying that something is incorrect and why is not an attack, that is my point.
If I had a firm belief that 2+2=8 and posted it publicly then someone posted that it in fact =4 would you jump to my aid then?
I doubt it, yet it's essentially the same.
There is no connection though between your hypocritical comment and the ones you were addressing, other than you were addressing them. The hypocrisy was firmly contained within all that you stated yourself.

On your second point, all I can say is that I am flattered. I am flattered first, because you find my hypocrisy amazing. I thought it rather ordinary really, even mundane, and bordering on the obvious. So the fact that you find it amazing is more of a compliment than I expected. More important though, you obviously get the connection between my comment and the ones to which it was addressed. And to the extent that you recognize that it is an unkind and unnecessary way to speak to perfect strangers with whom you may disagree, you may actually get the point. As I wrote it, I thought of it as parody, not hypocrisy, but either way it is nice to know that the rhetorical parallel did not get lost in the shuffle.

H-m-m-m-, I'm not quite sure how you reach your first conclusion, about not personally attacking anyone. If, by that, you mean there was no individualized attack on a single named individual, and if you somehow disallow consideration of the challenge host, who seems to have been the target of some rather mean-spirited comments, then perhaps you may justify that conclusion. I am rather of the opinion that insulting words or actions are personal when they are intended to be taken personally; in which case, insulting large groups of people, rather that isolated individuals is not an easy way to disallow responsibility for one's comments or actions.

Mr Woodruff,

Neither Noble nor Changer actually personally attacked anybody (except maybe for the part where Noble insinuated that religious folk are uneducated) unlike yourself, neither did they use "a most insulting manner" in the slightest.

Like it or not this is a public forum, you are open to criticism if you use it, just as you yourself are able to criticize in return. Deeming anything above criticism is incredibly dangerous.

Are you aware of the amazing hypocrisy in your second paragraph?

Mr. Noble&Changer, Your self-congratulatory narrow mindedness is your own business, until you show the bad manners to hijack a challenge thread to promote your own religious/non-religious views in a most insulting manner. No one, including this challenge host, has opined, required, or promoted your acceptance of their belief system; therefore, common courtesy should be enough for you to be similarly respectful to others.

Your apparent need to publicly demean total strangers in a pathetic attempt to bolster your own confidence in your chosen philosophical position suggests a sense of vulnerability that is just sad.

Yeah, I'd have to boycott this challenge. Intelligent design is a concept that belongs in the trash can.

OldArrow said: "The craziest about this Challenge is that it is so enormously wide open to all kinds of belief, and thus, expression."

You did not read the Challenge carefully. It asks for submissions that "prove" (FNG303's own words) a very narrow belief in what is commonly referred to by its proponents as "Intelligent Design". I see nothing "wide open to all kinds of belief" about that.

The craziest about this Challenge is that it is so enormously wide open to all kinds of belief, and thus, expression... and yet it seems to confront the believers in most prominent tripstones of human existence.
To me, this theme requires neither scientific nor religious prods. It provokes some of our private answers to our private, rock-basic existential questions. Frankly, I can't wait to see all those visual presentations. This is one of the themes that insist on careful thinking before one enters.
I just wish there were more with the same requirement. :)

FNG303 - I take my hat off to you as an artist for creating chaos; but although I might admire your skill, I still wouldn't be sorry to see the back of you and your challenges. The level of craziness on these forums is high enough naturally without you ratcheting it up a notch or two with your artfully-crafted challenge themes...

A great, finally a challenge I can post my photos of children in Somalia being slowly eaten by a flesh eating virus.

@ Christian Jacob

Evolution doesn't require any guiding intelligence, all that's needed is an imperfect DNA replication system and survival pressures. I'm sure you can't deny the existence of those two things.

In fact, it's even impossible NOT to have evolution if those two things exist.

Bwah, humbug.
Evolution is a far more elegant and difficult ( = > needing way more intelligence) way to create things than the drudgery of designing an everchanging array of different parasites and bugs (there are far more of them as of the pretty, pretty flowers, you know?), every single kind for itself.

Those proponents of ID just want to drag down God's intelligence down to their level of understanding, a rather insulting believe, if you think about it.
(great, now bible thumpers and extreme atheists will be angry...)

Schmegg, buddy, there's room for all of us here. Intolerance is an ugly point of view no matter what direction the attacks are headed, and it does nothing to promote any kind of meaningful dialog (or imagery). One of my continuing disappointments in the forums around here is the willingness of folks to launch personal attacks against other people just because they disagree on some technical triviality. Similarly, what we have here is simply a conceptual launching point for a photo challenge; nothing about this requires that we attack the person who posted it. Really, respectfully, don't you think it's time to switch to decaf?

" The conclusions one draws are personal, but the opportunity to capture some of these wonders in images seems a worthy challenge for any photographer."

Yep, no doubt the world is a wonderful place! That is for sure! Unfortunately, in this challenge, the "conclusion one draws" from this has already been fixed by the subject of the challenge.

I'd rather, as you say, have people draw their own conclusions from my images. Not have them already pre-defined.

I'd have thought a better title for exactly the same challenge would have been ... "The wonderful world around us", or such.

Geez folks, lighten up. I, for one, think this is a fine topic for a challenge, and that has nothing to do with what I believe about our collective place in the Universe. There are limitless opportunities to be awestruck by the beauty, complexity, and elegance of the world around us. The conclusions one draws are personal, but the opportunity to capture some of these wonders in images seems a worthy challenge for any photographer. Those who disagree certainly have the right to quietly choose not to participate.

And the next challenge shall be ...
"Unicorns in the wild"

Think I'll skip on the "Overwhelming proof of something that is not provable" challenge personally. It'll be easier to find a unicorn methinks. :-)

Believe what you want. But if Kelvin were alive today and was shown nuclear physics he would revise his age of the Earth to billions of years before tea time.

like the D600 for example !