You said:
Is that example of the scientific method? Many evolutionist would dismiss your statement because it clearly isnn't!
My reply:
No, the belief I describe above is not "an example of the scientific method.[sic]" It is a religious belief, that is impossible to prove or disprove using science. As such, no evolutionist has any basis upon which to dismiss it. In fact, many evolutionists hold it. The worst an evolutionist can say is that it is not scientific, which I fully aknolwedge. There is more to life than science. I hold the belief because I think the philosophical case for it is compelling, but I cannot prove it scientifically. If an evolutionary biologist wants to argue against it, that's fine, but he's stepping out of the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics, which is not his area of expertise.
Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website.
"Regarding all your quotes, they're just assertions with no supporting evidence by people with dubious credentials. Frankly, I don't have time to carefully study what every crackpot has to say. Give me a real argument, and then I'll see what you have to say. And please, don't just cut and paste from a creationist website."
Before I cut and paste some more, let me say this: Someone with dubious credentials might be someone like yourself. On what basis do you assert that the posted assertions are from scientists with dubious credentials or crackpots? How can you just make a blanket statement like that? Just stop and listen to yourself. There are an ever increasing number of scientists speaking out against evolution. The truth of the matter is that you don't know jack about their credentials!
DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION
by Michael J. Behe
If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory.
Peter van Inwagen
Professor of Philosophy, Notre Dame University