Evolution takes more faith than what?
Frank J
more faith to believe in evolution..." line. But do you know the rest
of the line - i.e. what exactly it is that supposedly takes less
faith to "believe in" than evolution? Don't worry, I couldn't
recall either, so I had some fun with Google. In general, the
statements were constructed as follows:
"(I)t takes more faith to believe in evolution... (optional
qualifier)...than to believe (in)....."
Below is a list of what the author thinks (or wants the reader to
think) requires less faith than evolution. Where stated, the author's
evolution qualifiers precede the answer in (parentheses). In a few
cases, there was no specific answer, so "nothing specified" appears
in [square brackets]. The number of "hits", if > 1, found in ~30
minutes of Googling, follows each entry:
creation 22
intelligent design 9
creationism 9
God 8
[nothing specified] 4
a Creator 4
Christianity 3
a God 2
special creation 2
The Bible 2
Biblical Creation
divine creation
ID or creation
creation science
a literal 6 day creation
a creator God
a supernatural creator
our meticulous, loving Creator
God and the biblical account of creation
God's Word
that God created all things
that God created universe
a God who can create with just His Word
a God who can create the heavens and the earth with just his Word
The Christian God & creation
God's word the Holy Bible
to admit there is a Creator
the creator who made us all, yes, even our little buddy the Bombardier
Beetle
than to see the natural order as indicating a Creator
that In the Beginning, God created the heavens and earth
that an all powerful God made everything
that God spoke the universe into existence in the span of six days
that there was a Creator
(nonsense)...thousands of historical records that support a
creationists view
(and no God)...creation of the human race by "intelligent design"
(or atheism)...Christ
(or that life could form by accident)...that there was an intelligence
behind it all
(or the Big Bang)...creationism
(or Scientology for that matter)...creationism
(cock and bull stories)...the simply realization of God's Almighty
creation of the world.
that Michael Moore is sane
----------------
I'm no fan of Moore but the last entry is still my favorite.
I know what you are thinking. Everyone learns the first part by rote,
then finishes it with whatever words tickle their fancy. If there truly
were a promising potential scientific alternative to evolution, one
would think that there would be some consistency instead of the
embarrassingly confused cacophony of answers. The most popular answer,
though in fewer than 1 in 4 entries, is the hopelessly ambiguous and
scientifically meaningless "creation." That and most other answers
were not mutually exclusive with evolution, and thus display a gross
misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.
Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
Since "ID" was tied for second most popular answer (with
creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly
religious answers with which it is intimately connected through such a
popular sound bite.
Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
creationism" chant. Tell us with which of the above answers you agree
or disagree. Don't just say "they all take faith," but state
specifically which of those answers you think really do require * less
* faith than evolution (not your "Darwinism" caricature) and which
do not.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1156203201.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> You have all heard the endlessly (& mindlessly) parroted "it takes
> more faith to believe in evolution..." line. But do you know the rest
> of the line - i.e. what exactly it is that supposedly takes less
> faith to "believe in" than evolution? Don't worry, I couldn't
> recall either, so I had some fun with Google. In general, the
> statements were constructed as follows:
>
> "(I)t takes more faith to believe in evolution... (optional
> qualifier)...than to believe (in)....."
>
> Below is a list of what the author thinks (or wants the reader to
> think) requires less faith than evolution. Where stated, the author's
> evolution qualifiers precede the answer in (parentheses). In a few
> cases, there was no specific answer, so "nothing specified" appears
> in [square brackets]. The number of "hits", if > 1, found in ~30
> minutes of Googling, follows each entry:
>
> creation 22
>
> intelligent design 9
>
I want to nominate as a POTM for two reasons.
1. It involves actual data collection and analysis (i.e science)
rather that the recitation of textbook learning we usually
find in a POTM.
2. I am no fan of Moore either.
Nashton
Yes, I agree. It's also a lot like the ToE.
Utterly useless and much ado about essentially nothing.
--
Nicolas
"And, heaving alljawbreakical expressions out of Sare Isaac's universal
of specious aristmystic unsaid, A is for Anna like L is for liv."
Finnegans Wake (293)
".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
Bill Wayne
> --
> Nicolas
>
Bill
Tiktaalik
Nashtyone babbled:
Data collection, analysis, science. Exactly like the ToE.
>
> Utterly useless and much ado about essentially nothing.
An excellent summing up of your earthly existence.
>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas
Retarded rubbish removed.
Cornelius.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
>
wf3h
Nashton wrote:
> >
>
> Yes, I agree. It's also a lot like the ToE.
>
> Utterly useless and much ado about essentially nothing.
>
>
>
> --
except, of course, the truth...
Marc
I would say it is not.
For a PoTM to be in the vote it *must* be correctly seconded.
(This message is not such a one - nasht0n is welcome to
reply to the nomination with a proper such reply if that is what
his intention was... for the moment, such a reply is lacking)
I am a fan of Moore and hope that he does a film on
Ann Coulter and the ID movement some day soon.
(signed) marc
.
bullpup
"Nashton" <nan...@nb.ca> wrote in message
news:risGg.57193$pu3.6...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Then why are you afraid of it?
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
bullpup
"Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156207519....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It could be, if nashty-poop could count to "two".
Boikat
T Pagano
The fact that neoDarwinism is the only theory available and acceptable
to the naturalistic worldview does not necessarily make it also
"promising." It's acceptablility to the atheistic world view also
doesn't divert the creationist accusation that its acceptance requires
greater faith than the belief in the existence of a sole omnipotent
intelligent designer. Why is this so?
First problem is that Frank J is under the delusion that the
"prehistorical" evolutionary if-so stories like the purported
emergence and development of the eye and the avian wing are
empirically testable. Surely he jests.
Evolutionary theory is comprised of an historical conjecture (common
descent) and a conjectured biological mechanism (random mutations
coupled to natural selection). The historical claim of common
descent attempts to reconstruct unique non recurring events and is
therefore outside the direct competence of science. The atheist---on
faith alone----holds that the neoDarwinian mechanism can underwrite
the unique and untestable historical claim.
FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
stasis not transformism.
THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
FOURTH, artifical selection and mutation experiments have never
demonstrated the emergence of novelty.
FIFTH, atheists haven't a solitary clue how this is possible even in
principle.
LASTLY, the Gould-Eldredge camp agrees that this is a significant and
UNSOLVED problem.
Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
emergence and development of novelty.
>>>> one
>> >> would think that there would be some consistency instead of the
>> >> embarrassingly confused cacophony of answers. The most popular answer,
>> >> though in fewer than 1 in 4 entries, is the hopelessly ambiguous and
>> >> scientifically meaningless "creation." That and most other answers
>> >> were not mutually exclusive with evolution, and thus display a gross
>> >> misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.
I've summarized briefly above the morrass that requires atheists to
have a hefty helping of faith to wash down evolutionism. This also
failed to address the failed and stagnant theory of abiogenesis. This
failure and stagnation is undisputed.
>> >>
>> >> Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
>> >> scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
>> >> Since "ID" was tied for second most popular answer (with
>> >> creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly
>> >> religious answers with which it is intimately connected through such a
>> >> popular sound bite.
>> >>
>> >> Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
>> >> creationism" chant.
This is simple:
Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
Creationism. Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory (as
evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
causation of a specific observable object. Creationism takes as an
initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
test for design not presume it. Creationism presumes the exist of a
supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
intelligent agents as a class. ID theory's use of information theory
and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
Creationism.
ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical. On the other
hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
Lee Oswald Ving
ihlke2plaei9htgp9...@4ax.com:
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
You've been around T.O. to know that is simply not true. There's no wiggle
room left, Pagano; in addition to being the worst, most pompous windbag
we've seen, you're just a petty liar.
And you just couldn't resist changing the thread title, could you?
Addiction is an ugly thing to witness.
Joshua Zelinsky
Seconding. I agree with both 1 and 2, although 2 should not be a cause
for a POTM which should stay on topic. So really seconding just for 1.
Joshua Zelinsky
Mark Iredell
Man, it *is* addicting. POTM upthread seconded.
Steven J.
you don't mean "it's" (the possessive is "its," _sans_ apostrophe).
>
> First problem is that Frank J is under the delusion that the
> "prehistorical" evolutionary if-so stories like the purported
> emergence and development of the eye and the avian wing are
> empirically testable. Surely he jests.
>
empirically untestable? I would have inserted the word "unobserved"
past events, but I don't see that observation makes a difference.
After all, witnesses can lie, or err, or be misunderstood; any attempt
to interpret witness testimony depends on an assessment of the (unique
and unobserved) state of mind of the alleged witness. If you do not
hold to such extreme epistomological nihilism, why should evolutionary
theory be different from other theories about the past (if you do hold
to such extreme epistomological nihilism, please petition your local
government to fire all arson and homicide investigators)?
Second, theories about the evolution of the avian wing can be tested
against discoveries of fossils, genes, and developmental processes in
avian and other reptilian embryos. Indeed, a great deal has already
been discovered about the genetic changes that transform reptilian
scales into feathers, and strong indications of such primitive feathers
have been found in some dinosaur fossils. Similar research can test
theories about the origin of the eye (e.g. the existence of homologous
genes regulating eye development in molluscs, insects, and mammals
suggests that the last common ancestor of all bilaterian fauna had
eyes, and that the theory that eyes evolved from scratch separately in
each of these phyla is mistaken).
Third, if theories about phylogeny and evolutionary pathways *were*
untestable, how would that show that it required *more* faith to accept
evolution than to accept "the existence of a sole omnipotent
intelligent designer" (hereafter SOID)? Surely your own premises
demand that creationism is untestable, and the existence of jury-rigged
designs, or designs antagonistic in purpose to each other (e.g. the
camoflage of prey vs. the sharp eyes of predators) would still be
problematical for separate creations by a single, all-powerful
designer.
>
> Evolutionary theory is comprised of an historical conjecture (common
> descent) and a conjectured biological mechanism (random mutations
> coupled to natural selection). The historical claim of common
> descent attempts to reconstruct unique non recurring events and is
> therefore outside the direct competence of science. The atheist---on
> faith alone----holds that the neoDarwinian mechanism can underwrite
> the unique and untestable historical claim.
>
Do you hold that it is "on faith alone" that a medical examiner can
determine whether a particular (unique, nonrecurring) death was the
result of a blood clot in the coronary artery, a blood clot in the
brain, or a bullet in the liver? All events, examined on a detailed
enough level, are "unique" and "nonrecurring." Nearly all events,
examined on a sufficiently broad level of detail, fall into classes of
similar events with similar causes. To infer that, e.g. humans and
chimpanzees share common ancestry is no more a faith-based, untestable
"conjecture" than are inferences of plagiarism in literature or music,
or inferences that group biblical manuscripts into families copied from
a common source.
Note that the theory of common descent is testable apart from the
theory of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption. On the other
hand, the mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, and reproduction
are demonstrable and studiable in the laboratory or field. I think
this cannot be said of the activities of the proposed SOID, and,
again, by your own arguments, there cannot be any empirical tests for
unique acts of separate creation or design. Therefore it is
unreasonable in the extreme to assert, even if you deny the testability
(and hence the vast amount of evidence for) common descent with
modification, that acceptance of evolutionary theory requires *more*
faith than does acceptance of creationism.
Note that I take no great pleasure in attacking faith in a SOID.
Indeed, the noted "neoDarwinist" Theodosius Dobzhansky accepted both
"neoDarwinism" and the SOID, apparently finding himself of enough faith
to hold both ideas. Given that "oh ye of little faith" is rarely, in
theological circles, offered as a compliment, perhaps you should seek
to emulate him.
>
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
>
You said this before; it has not become more true in the last couple of
days. New genetic loci have arisen through duplication of existing
genes. New alleles in those loci have arisen through subsequent
mutation of these duplicate genes. On occasion, mutations to existing
genes have produced novel abilities (from poison resistance to the
ability to digest substances not found in nature). If none of these
things represents "novelty" arising from mutation, one may wonder
whether the term "novelty" refers to anything that would have to arise
for common descent to be correct.
>
> SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
> stasis not transformism.
>
This is false, even by Gould's sense of "stasis" -- as Gould himself
noted, there are a few examples of phyletic gradualism preserved in the
fossil record. Of course, you don't use the correct definition of
"stasis" (no morphological evolution at all), but rather a unique
definition of your own (no "novelty"). The existence of numerous
transitional fossils between higher taxa (e.g. the whale series,
showing, _inter alia_, the gradual emergence of the "novel" _rete
mirabile_ in the skull) show, again, that for any definition of
"novelty" relevant to evolution, it is demonstrated in the fossil
record.
>
> THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
> progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
> correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
>
I'm sure you believe that the above string of jargon means something,
but I fear you are mistaken in that belief.
>
> FOURTH, artifical selection and mutation experiments have never
> demonstrated the emergence of novelty.
> FIFTH, atheists haven't a solitary clue how this is possible even in
> principle.
> LASTLY, the Gould-Eldredge camp agrees that this is a significant and
> UNSOLVED problem.
>
Fourth, fifth, and sixth, the above three statements are false.
Lastly, no one has ever demonstrated the SOID producing "novelty" in
any living organism, nor have creationists a solitary clue as the His
methods in doing so. Of course, theistic evolutionists hold that the
naturalistic mechanisms created by the SOID were, in fact, His methods
of implementing "novelty" in His creations, but I doubt their faith
would be acceptable to you. So, again, even if all your false
statements above were actually true statements, they would not
demonstrate your thesis, that it requires *more* faith to accept
"neoDarwinism" than to accept the SOID.
>
> Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
> bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
> that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
> Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
> emergence and development of novelty.
>
Tony, you are the author of some of the most baffling phrases, from
"calm, global-like flooding," to, here, "_non sequitur_-like." Since
the former means, "not really a global flood," I assume, by analogy,
that the latter means "not really a _non sequitur_," but I am not
certain about this. I'm curious: if I don a bullet-proof vest, have I
"lost sensitivity" to being shot in the chest? Is a modification of a
redundant gene to make an enzyme that can digest nylon a "loss" of
sensitivity, function, or "information?" If creationism really
requires less faith than evolutionary theory, shouldn't its proponents
be able to think in less egregiously weird ways?
Again, though, you made a claim at the start of this post: that it
takes more faith to accept "neo-Darwinism" than to accept a SOID (and,
presumably, separate and probably recent creations). Aren't arguments
about Mt. Rushmore and all other ID arguments as much _non sequiturs_
as you claim arguments about bacterial mutations to be? Or is Gutzon
Borglum the SOID?
>
> >>>> one
> >> >> would think that there would be some consistency instead of the
> >> >> embarrassingly confused cacophony of answers. The most popular answer,
> >> >> though in fewer than 1 in 4 entries, is the hopelessly ambiguous and
> >> >> scientifically meaningless "creation." That and most other answers
> >> >> were not mutually exclusive with evolution, and thus display a gross
> >> >> misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.
>
> I've summarized briefly above the morrass that requires atheists to
> have a hefty helping of faith to wash down evolutionism. This also
> failed to address the failed and stagnant theory of abiogenesis. This
> failure and stagnation is undisputed.
>
None of your pontificating, of course, constitutes anything remotely
resembling a testable theory (or even a conjecture pointing to a
possibly testable theory) about the SOID, or even an account of what
(other than somehow using natural mechanisms to bring about common
descent with modification over millions of centuries) the SOID is
supposed to have done.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
> >> >> scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
> >> >> Since "ID" was tied for second most popular answer (with
> >> >> creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly
> >> >> religious answers with which it is intimately connected through such a
> >> >> popular sound bite.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
> >> >> creationism" chant.
>
> This is simple:
>
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism. Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory (as
> evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object. Creationism takes as an
> initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
> design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
> test for design not presume it. Creationism presumes the exist of a
> supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
> intelligent agents as a class. ID theory's use of information theory
> and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
> Creationism.
>
Creationism is an attempt (several inconsistent attempts, actually) to
demonstrate that Genesis offers inerrant historical account of origins.
Old-earth creationists like Hugh Ross deny that biological evolution
has taken place, but this is purely an deletion of detail from purely
secular accounts of Earth and cosmic history. Young-earth creationists
offer a six-day creation and drastically shortened Earth history in
place of conventional reconstructions of the past, but aside from
denials of mainstream chronologies where they contradict the Bible,
there are no attempts to provide an alternate chronology (e.g. when, if
not two centuries before the alleged global flood, was the Great
Pyramid actually built?).
ID assumes that intelligence is not -- cannot be -- the result of
"chance" and "law," and that it can be inferred by eliminating
"natural" causes (so that implicitly intelligence is seen to be
supernatural). This is certainly a very watered-down version of the
assumptions of creationism, but it is still creationism, not some
separate activity. Hard-core YECs were using (or misusing) probability
and "information" arguments before anyone ever heard of ID, which took
it over from their primitive creationists precursors. ID is, in
evolutionary terms, a "derived" creationism, with some primitive
creationist features present only in vestigial form and a few lost
entirely.
>
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical. On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
>
The "signature" is the inability of the person doing the search to come
up with an explanation of the phenomenon in terms of "law" or "chance."
The amount of faith (or perhaps I should say the amount of bad faith)
needed just to assume that "law" or "chance" explanations undiscovered
by the searcher don't contain the answer is staggering. But of course
no ID proponent has ever tried to systematically rule out even a few
"law" and "chance" explanations; they assume that if some structure of
interest was unlikely to emerge in one step by random collisions of
atoms, it must show the "signature" of "design." Whether such a
methodology puts a greater stress on having faith or on not using one's
brain I leave to readers to decide.
>
> I'm done.
>
Albeit, as usual, not well done.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Tell us with which of the above answers you agree
> >> >> or disagree. Don't just say "they all take faith," but state
> >> >> specifically which of those answers you think really do require * less
> >> >> * faith than evolution (not your "Darwinism" caricature) and which
> >> >> do not.
> >> >
> >> > I want to nominate as a POTM for two reasons.
> >> > 1. It involves actual data collection and analysis (i.e science)
> >> > rather that the recitation of textbook learning we usually
> >> > find in a POTM.
> >> > 2. I am no fan of Moore either.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree. It's also a lot like the ToE.
> >>
> >> Utterly useless and much ado about essentially nothing.
> >
> >Is that a second?
> >
> >> --
> >> Nicolas
> >>
> >
> >Bill
-- Steven J.
Deadrat
<snip massive ignorance>
>
> This is simple:
>
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism.
Except, of course, that it *is* creationism.
> Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory
No, it's not. Creationism is simply blind faith in a book of myths. It
doesn't reconstruct anything.
> (as
> evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object. Creationism takes as an
> initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
> design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
> test for design not presume it.
Really? Could we have an example of a test, please? You'd better start
with a testable definition of design.
> Creationism presumes the exist of a
> supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
> intelligent agents as a class.
Translation: Creationism presumes a supernatural creator called God;
IDiocy presumes a supernatural creator who remains unnamed for legal
reasons.
> ID theory's use of information theory
> and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
> Creationism.
IDiocy makes no use of mathematics whatsoever. Please feel free to post
some, though.
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI).
Without definitions of (C)omplex, (S)pecified, and (I)nformation, IDiocy
can't search for any signature. Please feel free to post some useable
defintions, though.
> That signature must meet quantifiable standards.
Why, yes it must. But IDiocy cannot seem to meet any. Feel free to post
some quantification, though.
> Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical.
It is completely undefined. Please feel free to post some standards,
though.
> On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
I don't care about your ignorance about science in general or biology in
particular. I don't care about your faith, either. Quite whining about
evolution and post some math I can check.
Deadrat
> I'm done.
Whining? I doubt it. Posting evidence? You haven't started yet.
Deadrat
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
<snip>
John Harshman
No matter how many times Pagano is told, he never remembers that atheism
and evolution are not synonymous, and that many evolutionary biologists
are theists of one sort or another. But congrats on relating to the
current thread on "...takes more faith than...".
> First problem is that Frank J is under the delusion that the
> "prehistorical" evolutionary if-so stories like the purported
> emergence and development of the eye and the avian wing are
> empirically testable. Surely he jests.
Nope, no jest. The origin of eyes is probably not testable using
fossils, since eyes are only rarely fossilized. Fortunately we can learn
about eye evolution by dipping into the genomes of living organisms. On
the other hand, the origin of bird flight is pretty well documented by
fossils.
> Evolutionary theory is comprised of an historical conjecture (common
> descent) and a conjectured biological mechanism (random mutations
> coupled to natural selection). The historical claim of common
> descent attempts to reconstruct unique non recurring events and is
> therefore outside the direct competence of science. The atheist---on
> faith alone----holds that the neoDarwinian mechanism can underwrite
> the unique and untestable historical claim.
This is nothing more than a considerably more verbose version of the
"Were you there?" canard. It requires a complete misunderstanding of the
way science is done, especially of the power of inference.
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
Because whatever is observed is not novelty, by definition?
> SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
> stasis not transformism.
That's a confusion of time scale. Stasis, if it's observed, is seen
within species, over at most a few million years, and punctuation
between closely related species. Stasis is most certainly not seen on a
wider scale of tens of millions of years and between larger taxa than
species.
> THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
> progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
> correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
Buzzwords that don't fit into a coherent statement. The only code
generally under discussion is the genetic code, which has no error
correction mechanism. DNA itself has such a mechanism, but it's
unattached to the code -- just individual nuccleotides. And none of that
relates to the generation of novelty.
> FOURTH, artifical selection and mutation experiments have never
> demonstrated the emergence of novelty.
Again, this requires defining novelty out of existence: whatever arises,
antibiotic resitance, for example, is not novelty.
> FIFTH, atheists haven't a solitary clue how this is possible even in
> principle.
Again, none of this has anything to do with atheism.
> LASTLY, the Gould-Eldredge camp agrees that this is a significant and
> UNSOLVED problem.
Someone will have to tell Niles Eldridge about this. Too late to tell
Gould. But you can't find this in his writings. There are plenty of
problems in evolution, and plenty of problems raised by Eldredge and
Gould. But the origin of novelty is not among them.
> Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
> bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
> that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
> Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
> emergence and development of novelty.
One more time: this has nothing to do with atheism. The transformation
of dinosaur arms into bird wings is one of the best documented
transitions in the fossil record. Antibiotic resistance, which I think
is what Pagano is talking about, sometimes involves loss and sometimes gain.
>>>>> one
>>>>>would think that there would be some consistency instead of the
>>>>>embarrassingly confused cacophony of answers. The most popular answer,
>>>>>though in fewer than 1 in 4 entries, is the hopelessly ambiguous and
>>>>>scientifically meaningless "creation." That and most other answers
>>>>>were not mutually exclusive with evolution, and thus display a gross
>>>>>misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.
>
> I've summarized briefly above the morrass that requires atheists to
> have a hefty helping of faith to wash down evolutionism. This also
> failed to address the failed and stagnant theory of abiogenesis. This
> failure and stagnation is undisputed.
Undisputed by you, perhaps. But you can't live in your own little world
on usenet.
>>>>>Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
>>>>>scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
>>>>>Since "ID" was tied for second most popular answer (with
>>>>>creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly
>>>>>religious answers with which it is intimately connected through such a
>>>>>popular sound bite.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
>>>>>creationism" chant.
>
> This is simple:
>
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism.
Except its history, goals, methods, themes, and underpinnings of
religion. Dembski hardly even bothers to pretend any more that his
"designer" is anyone other than the Christian God.
> Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory (as
> evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object.
You mean that ID, by fiat, restricts the questions that can be asked and
the evidence that can be relevant to a tiny area deemed safe. In this
way IDers think they can avoid uncomfortable facts.
> Creationism takes as an
> initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
> design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
> test for design not presume it.
Don't be naive. All the IDers began by assuming their conclusion. They
were all conservative Christians long before they began doing ID
"science". And their religion was the motivation for their "research".
> Creationism presumes the exist of a
> supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
> intelligent agents as a class. ID theory's use of information theory
> and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
> Creationism.
Sure, just as much as Paley's nearly identical claims were independent
of his religion.
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical. On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
Strangely, Dembski has been unable to perform any empirical test for
CSI, and hasn't even managed to come up with a definition that anyone
else can use.
> I'm done.
Agreed. Not that you ever really began.
[snip]
Richard Forrest
In other words, you accept that neoDarwinism is the only theory
available to science.
Fine. I'm glad we're clear on that.
> It's acceptablility to the atheistic world view also
> doesn't divert the creationist accusation that its acceptance requires
> greater faith than the belief in the existence of a sole omnipotent
> intelligent designer. Why is this so?
Because creationists are stupid and ignornant and determined to remain
so regardless of the evidence?
>
> First problem is that Frank J is under the delusion that the
> "prehistorical" evolutionary if-so stories like the purported
> emergence and development of the eye and the avian wing are
> empirically testable. Surely he jests.
They are testable because they make predictions which are tested every
time a new fossil is found.
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
>
> Evolutionary theory is comprised of an historical conjecture (common
> descent) and a conjectured biological mechanism (random mutations
> coupled to natural selection). The historical claim of common
> descent attempts to reconstruct unique non recurring events and is
> therefore outside the direct competence of science.
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> The atheist---on
> faith alone----holds that the neoDarwinian mechanism can underwrite
> the unique and untestable historical claim.
So do many devoutly religious scientists. But as you have accepted that
neoDarwinism is the only theory available to science, why is this
relevant?
>
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
Capitalisation does not make an unfounded assertion any more true.
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
> stasis not transformism.
No it doesn't. Ignornance is no excuse. But as you have accepted that
neoDarwinism is the only theory available to science, why is this
relevant?
> THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
> progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
> correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
Nothing in any biological system is "genuinely new". All systems are
modified versions of other systems. But as you have accepted that
neoDarwinism is the only theory available to science, why is this
relevant?
> FOURTH, artifical selection and mutation experiments have never
> demonstrated the emergence of novelty.
How would one recognise novely if it arose?]
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> FIFTH, atheists haven't a solitary clue how this is possible even in
> principle.
What on earth have the religious convictions, or lack of them to do
with science?
As for *how* novel systems can arise, it is through the well-known
processes of gene duplication, mutation and so on which have been
observed in nature and replicated in the laboratory. So you are wrong.
> LASTLY, the Gould-Eldredge camp agrees that this is a significant and
> UNSOLVED problem.
>
No they don't.
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
> bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
> that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
> Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
> emergence and development of novelty.
As you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available to
science, why is this relevant?
>
>
> >>>> one
> >> >> would think that there would be some consistency instead of the
> >> >> embarrassingly confused cacophony of answers. The most popular answer,
> >> >> though in fewer than 1 in 4 entries, is the hopelessly ambiguous and
> >> >> scientifically meaningless "creation." That and most other answers
> >> >> were not mutually exclusive with evolution, and thus display a gross
> >> >> misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution.
>
> I've summarized briefly above the morrass that requires atheists to
> have a hefty helping of faith to wash down evolutionism.
Perhaps you can explain why many devout believers in many different
religions find no difficulty in reconciling evolutionary theory with
their faith?
Scientists are not all atheists, and as you have accepted that
neoDarwinism is the only theory available to science, why is this
relevant?
> This also
> failed to address the failed and stagnant theory of abiogenesis.
There is no "theory of abiogenesis". It's a word which means life from
non-life. God breating life into clay is abiogenesis.
Have you ever considered trying to learn about a subject before you
attempt a critique? It would make it much harder to rip your pathetic
arguments to shreds.
> This
> failure and stagnation is undisputed.
Well, no. It isn't. I dispute it. More to the point, so do the US and
many European goverments, which have invested hundreds of millions of
dollars and Euros in sending
spacecraft to other planetary bodies on which conditions similar to
those of the primeval earth may be found.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
> >> >> scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
> >> >> Since "ID" was tied for second most popular answer (with
> >> >> creationism!), IDers should be especially unnerved by all those overtly
> >> >> religious answers with which it is intimately connected through such a
> >> >> popular sound bite.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
> >> >> creationism" chant.
>
> This is simple:
>
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism.
It is creationism. The fact that it's wearing a cheap false beard in an
attempt to pretend that it isn't is patently transparent to anyone with
a modicum of intelligence.
> Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory
Utter nonsense. Creationism attempts to "reconstruct" nothing, and is
no more than a collection of unsuported assertions on which there is no
agreement within the creationist tent.
> (as
> evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object.
ID specifically rejects causation. Haven't you read the books?
> Creationism takes as an
> initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
> design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
> test for design not presume it.
Perhaps. But it isn't science.
> Creationism presumes the exist of a
> supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
> intelligent agents as a class. ID theory's use of information theory
> and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
> Creationism.
Without the "scientific creationism" movement, ID would not exist. It
is, after all, no more that "scientific creationism" with some of the
terms changed.
>
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards.
...and it does so by specifically ignoring the scientific explanation
for how such "signatures" can arise.
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical.
Utter nonsense. It offers no evidence and no falsifiable hypothesis. It
is not science.
> On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test.
So how do you explain the series of feathered dinosaurs which show the
transition from non-avian into avian dinosaur in increasing detail as
more fossils are discovered and which match the predictions made by
evolutionary theory?
But as you have accepted that neoDarwinism is the only theory available
to science, why is this relevant?
> Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
>
> I'm done.
Let's hope so.
Now that you've finished making yourself look foolish and ignorant, why
not do something astounding and actually *learn* something about
science?
RF
Dean Chesterman
T Pagano wrote:
>
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical. On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
>
> I'm done.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
Here is a quartzite pebble, flat on the back and with three fluted
surfaces on the front, each end has been retouched to a semi circular
surface. It looks like and acts like a hide scrapper. There are at least
four surfacing flakes and dozens of retouch flake scars. This observable
object obviously is manmade as there is no probable chance for at least
16 flakes to be taken off randomly to form this object. I think it is
part of the Old Woman Plains culture.
Down
Down
Down
Sorry I just picked it up from the output of a gravel crusher. The rocks
going in are 4 to 6 inches across and river rock smooth. the Rollers are
spaced three inches apart. Everything coming out has two or more
fracture surfaces and many look like they are manmade tools.
Its a random rock that looks to be Intelligently Designed. The ID CSI
testing clearly shows that the tools are Intelligently Designed.
I can see that they are randomly made rocks.
Dean Chesterman
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy P. Hamilton
RAM
Nashton wrote:
SNIP
> Utterly useless and much ado about essentially nothing.
>
Don't be so hard on yourself!
>
>
> --
> Nicolas
>
SNIP
CreateThis
wrote:
>>> >> ... If there truly
>>> >> were a promising potential scientific alternative to evolution,
>
>The fact that neoDarwinism is the only theory available and acceptable
>to the naturalistic worldview does not necessarily make it also
>"promising."
No, it makes it the truth as we know it.
On the other hand, your soothing bedtime story (you know, the one
where you live forever) and your dogged denial of reality (you know,
the one where you don't), are merely desperate.
Suck it up, take a Valium and try to enjoy yourself. Life is short.
CT
Robert Carnegie
> You have all heard the endlessly (& mindlessly) parroted "it takes
> more faith to believe in evolution..." line.
>From time to time. Of course, ideally, a belief or non-belief in the
theory of evolution should not be a matter of faith at all. To begin
with, it probably is so, inasmuch as you take what you're told for
truth, if it's from someone you trust, whether you should or shouldn't
trust them. Then, you are substantially dependent on honesty from
scientists and commentators, if you don't repeat all the experiments
yourself. Then you have to have faith that your experiments aren't
being fiddled with and that your work is accurate.
But on the whole, it's persuasion by evidence and by reason - at least,
it ought to be. If that isn't enough, then you don't put faith to a
scientific hypothesis. Science is not a mater of faith, it is
scrupulously controlled doubt - quite the opposite of faith.
And you have to put in the work. If you don't, why should anyone
listen to /you/?
Discovery Institute is a case in point: no science happens there. I've
said before, I think, is there one white lab coat in the building? If
so, is there an actual lab there?
> Note that not one of nearly 100 answers proposed anything remotely
> scientific, like "independent abiogenesis" or "saltation."
That's not the point. It could equally be the resurrection of Elvis.
(Why not, after all, he was a Christian of sorts.)
Or, Christianity itself as an object of faith.
Here's how I see it. Many, maybe most of the Christians in this world
have wavering faith. If that's you, then you figure that you have just
enough faith to believe in the Christian message, possibly including
Creationism. If someone tells you then that an alternative worldview
requires more faith than the Christian one, you will be put off because
you think this alternative is more than you can handle.
But it's nonsense.
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>
> The fact that neoDarwinism is the only theory available and acceptable
> to the naturalistic worldview does not necessarily make it also
> "promising."
of course, quantum mechanics has the same position in physics. kinetic
theory does in chemistry...etc etc...it's one reason evolution is
science
It's acceptablility to the atheistic world view also
> doesn't divert the creationist accusation that its acceptance requires
> greater faith than the belief in the existence of a sole omnipotent
> intelligent designer. Why is this so?
gee. most evolutionary biologists are christians. to the fanatic, only
those who believe as he does are christians.
> >
> Evolutionary theory is comprised of an historical conjecture (common
> descent) and a conjectured biological mechanism (random mutations
> coupled to natural selection).
hmmm...well let's see...natural selection can, and has been tested in
the lab. it's good science...unlike creationism which is nothing at all
if not arrogant.'
The historical claim of common
> descent attempts to reconstruct unique non recurring events
??? nothing is MORE recurrent than natural selection. it happens every
day. pagano has forgotten that bacterial reistance is a fact of life.
and is
> therefore outside the direct competence of science. The atheist---on
> faith alone----holds that the neoDarwinian mechanism can underwrite
> the unique and untestable historical claim.
ah, the christianist hatred of the non christian...2000 years of
bigotry and counting...
>
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
tell it MRSA. those of us with medical training learned to dread this
little critter in a hospital setting since it EVOLVED resistance to
most antibiotics...a fact pagano ignores.
> SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
> stasis not transformism.
??guess he's never heard of whales, for which a fairly complete
transitional series exists..
> THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
> progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
> correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
??so highly corrective that it allows cancer to occur? is that the
mechanism pagano has in mind?
> FOURTH, artifical selection and mutation experiments have never
> demonstrated the emergence of novelty.
tell to those who die from MRSA.
> FIFTH, atheists haven't a solitary clue how this is possible even in
> principle.
meaningless bigotry.
>
> Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
> bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
they don't 'lose sensitivity'. they develop mechanisms to destroy
antibiotics.
> that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
> Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
> emergence and development of novelty.
what's next? pagano proposes murder of atheists?
>
> >
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism.
gee. even HE admits it's designed...so to speak...to get god in
science...
Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory (as
> evolutionism is) while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object.
except it has NO 'mode of causation' at all.
pagano's an incompetent catholic, a bungling christianist and a
medievalist...other than that, he's a nice guy.
Gary Bohn
>
> FIRST, novelty has NEVER been observed to arise from mutation.
What is 'novelty'?
> SECOND, the only PREHISTORICAL evidence----the fossil record----shows
> stasis not transformism.
What the fossil record does not show is a proliferation of organisms
with partially formed features.
However since that is a strawman and evolution does not suggest there
should be a 'half a wing' in the sense creationists mean this absence is
meaningless.
However the fossil record does show, in the case of the Artiodactyl to
Cetacean line, a gradual reduction in limb size, modification of ear
morphology and movement of the 'blowhole' to the front of the head.
If we have a series of fossils that show this kind of dramatic change in
morphology without a need for 'novelty' why is it necessary for
'novelty' to be present for other transformations?
> THIRD, no one has shown how or even if random mutations can be
> progressively integrated into a code with a highly accurate error
> correction mechanism to generate anything genuinely NEW.
Describe something NEW.
>
> Atheists have been left to make non sequitur-like claims that because
> bacteria can loose sensitivity to a biochemical because of mutation
> that therefore a dinosaur arm can transmogrify into an avian wing.
All of the changes from a dino arm to a bird wing are of degree not of
kind. As are the wings of bats a modification of front limbs.
> Atheists have yet to explain how loss qualifies as evidence of the
> emergence and development of novelty.
>
>
Why the focus on atheists? Not all that accept evolution are atheists.
Sounds like you are trying to poison the well a bit. Of course that will
only work with people who think less of atheists than they do of
theists. Not much chance of that where tolerence is a way of life.
You have yet to explain why 'novelty' is necessary in the vast majority
of evolutionary changes. You have yet to explain why changes cannot
accumulate.
You have yet to explain why an increase in information is necessary for
morphological change. Hell, you have yet to explain why you ignore the
number of 'mutations' that add information.
>
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI). That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical.
CSI is not even consistently defined let alone applicable to biological
organisms.
> On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test.
Which part of the avian wing is more than a change in existing
morphology of a limb (and its attachment)?
> Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
>
What is the probability that a highly complex 'intelligent agent' formed
spontaneously?
What is more plausible, that simpler forms can add complexity gradually
through natural laws, or that a complex, intelligent, powerful designer
'poofed' out of nothing despite natural laws?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Frank J
T Pagano wrote:
(snip the usual PRATTs)
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, IDers, here's your chance to back up your empty "ID is not
> >> >> creationism" chant.
>
> This is simple:
>
> Dembski's ID theory has almost nothing in common with
> Creationism.
Other than dozens of the same long-refuted misrepresentations of
evolution.
As much as you want your readers to think otherwise, you are
undoubtedly well aware that I am one of the few critics of ID and
creationism who emphasizes the differences.
> Creationism is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory (as
> evolutionism is)
Evolutionism?
> while ID theory is an attempt to test for mode of
> causation of a specific observable object. Creationism takes as an
> initial condition that everything in nature is the result of the
> design of a supernatural creator while ID theory's whole purpose is to
> test for design not presume it. Creationism presumes the exist of a
> supernatural Creator while ID theory only presumes the existence of
> intelligent agents as a class. ID theory's use of information theory
> and probablility theory is completely independent of anything in
> Creationism.
So why then do major IDers promote for public schools nothing at all
about ID, and only the misrepresentations of evolution that it
intimately shares with creationism? Could it be, as several IDers have
admitted, that ID has no theory to teach?
>
> ID theory takes an observable object and searches for the observable
> signature of design (CSI).
If IC is the "smoking gun" of ID, as most IDers claim, why do we
need CSI anyway? All it does is misapply NFL, as the developer of NFL
has made clear. IDers must really lack confidence in IC to offer such a
risky backup. Oh wait, they don't think ID is ready for teaching
anyway. Never mind.
> That signature must meet quantifiable
> standards. Either the signature is found and meets the quantifiable
> standards or it doesn't. It is completely empirical. On the other
> hand the claim that the mesonychid transformed into the whale (or my
> favorite--that the dinosaur forearm transmogrified into the avian
> wing) is story telling at its science fiction best with no hope of
> empirical test. Which requires the most faith is a no brainer.
Ever hear of "quit while you're ahead"? You try to distance ID
from creationism then trot out the same old creationist canard. And you
snipped the part of my question that would have helped you truly
contrast ID with creationism.
I'll ask again, Do you disagree with any of those sound bites that
propose alternative "theories" that require less faith than
evolution? Or does ID find them all supportable by its "theory".
BTW, since you appear to be a fan of ID and not "creationism",
where does "creation science" fit in? Is it fully embraced by ID,
or has it been discarded to the dustbin of failed hypotheses along with
Biblical creationism? To help you are some quotes from 10 years ago
that should be familiar:
"It's obvious from your above reply that (1) your don't know what
scientific creationism entails or you confuse it with biblical
creationism, (2) it is likely that you have never read completely any
work of creation science, and (3) perhaps you have a different
understanding of how the scientific method has been applied."
"This is exactly what creation scientists do; your assertion
notwithstanding. Creation scientists are credentialed physists,
geologists, microbiologists, anthropologists, and the list goes on. If
you claim that creation scientists do not rationally and reasonably
apply the sciences to their work then you quite simply argue from
ignorance."
"Evolutionists act like the theory of special creation of God and
young earth is akin to voodoo. This guiding theory has explanatory
power, and in principle makes testable predictions. That this guiding
theory does not fit with positivist philosophy does not place it
outside of the scientific method, absent some convincing argument,
which has not been forth coming."
"Creation scientists believe in a young earth."
And most IDers do not. Where do you stand on that issue? Now? Then?
>
> I'm done.
So do yourself a favor and hop off the barby. ;-)
Gerry Murphy
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message
news:9a3ne2l3utdd6djpj...@4ax.com...