[BrandtMichaels]

Article says precisely what I'd like to know from all the evolutionists on these threads?

[RFC_Gal]

Read later.

[Bommer]

What are Darwinists so afraid of?

The evolution of their irrelevancy!

[Coyoteman]

The author seems to have done his research on creationist websites.

All of that nonsense is rebutted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[RFC_Gal]

About the moths. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html

I will include a brief sample below, the entire article is much to0 long to post, at least that in my understanding of the rules. If I am incorrect someone please let me know.

But this is only part of the story, if you will bear with me for a moment. Kettlewell did several different experiments:

1. Direct observation and filming. Kettlewell and others observed birds eating moths directly off trunks of trees. This was done both in experiments in an aviary, as well as outdoor experiments in the polluted and unpolluted sites.

2. Camouflage rating. Kettlewell visually ranked the effectiveness of camouflage of moths on different backgrounds and compared the effectiveness of camouflage with predation rates both in an aviary and in the field.

3. Release-recapture experiments. Kettlewell marked and released both light-colored and dark moths early in the morning, and recaptured some the next night in both pheromone and light traps (using mercury-vapor lamps). In polluted woods, he and his assistants recaptured more dark moths than light-colored, whereas in unpolluted woods they recaptured more light-colored than dark coloured.

4. Geographical distribution. This is not an experiment per-se, But Kettlewell noted that the distribution of the dark moths in the country closely matched the areas of industrialization.

The release-recapture experiments are the ones that capture the most attention, but the direct observation experiments and aviary experiments also supported the results from the release-recapture experiments.

When the experiments were completed, Ford didn’t triumphantly announce the results. Instead, they were published by Kettlewell in peer-reviewed research journals, and then Kettlewell brought further attention to them via publications in Scientific American, and lecture tours. However, at no time did either Kettlewell or Ford claim that the observations “proved” evolution all by themselves, or that natural selection by visual bird predation was the only factor in the rise of the dark peppered moths (although it was considered the major factor). They did, however, note that they had experimental documentation of natural selection producing an adaptation in a wild population, and although such results are commonplace today, at the time it was one of the first instances of this kind of experimental work.

Indeed, when Kettlewell published his first, massive paper showing selective predation on poorly camouflaged moth forms in polluted woods the response was a bit ho-hum. It was his second paper, where famed ethnologist Nico Tinbergen actually filmed birds eating resting moths (and where the complementary data set, that dark moths were selectively predated in unpolluted woods was performed, along with a second replication of the study in polluted woods that addressed some criticism of the first study) that people sat up and took notice. Still, this didn’t stop people trying to replicate the data, in different localities and with experimental set-ups to address some limitations of the original studies. There have been at least 30 independent experimental replications of Kettelwell’s original experiments, and they all confirm his work.

Unfortunately for Coulter, Peppered moths do rest on tree trunks as well as branches (see also Howlett and Majerus, 1987). In fact, they rest all over the trees, although most prefer trunk postions underneath branches. Bernard Kettlewell, a keen naturalist, noted this explicitly himself in one of his papers, which is why in his release-recapture experiments he released the moths on trunks and branches. It’s in the original papers, which for some reason none of the creationists bother to read. (Coulter herself uses only newspaper accounts and flawed popular books such as Icons of Evolution for her sources, and did not go to the original work herself). No fakery was involved.

[Constantine XIII]

Ninjas.

[Michael.SF.]

This should be a fun one to watch. I think only abortion, as a subject on FR, garners a more vociferous response then evolution theory being attacked.

Watch how anyone who disagrees will be insulted and attacked for even asking the question.

[firebrand]

The return of the Dark Ages.

[Jeff Gordon]

Why can't the Creationist be happy with teaching their theories in Philosophy and Religion classes?

[Dracian]

the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete

Really? Name them. Name one.

[youthgonewild]

Looks like those crybaby creationist PC thugs are at it again. Imagine the uproar if they really did teach "alternative" theories like Scientology in schools.

[DaGman]

Subscribers to the FACT of evolution:

1. Have nothing to fear regarding the soundness of the facts of evolution.
2. They do fear the dumbing down of our children and the loss of American dominance in science from baseless pseudo-science like creationism.
3. Fear loss of elections from conservative candidates being tagged as a "Flat-Earth Republican".

BTW, the earth is round. It only looks flat in pictures.

[Non-Sequitur]

Article says precisely what I'd like to know from all the evolutionists on these threads?

Wouldn't the better arguement be to provide evidence supporting your theory? This is not a binary solution. Trying to prove evolution wrong will not automatically make your ID/Creationist theory correct. Only evidence supporting your viewpoint will do that. Questioning, incorrectly, four of the thousands of points that support evolution does nothing to show that ID/Creationism has any scientific foundation.

[ml1954]

Article says precisely what I'd like to know from all the evolutionists on these threads?

Lots of responses on talk.origins. This was posted there today. Take a look, but you won't like them.

[Cowgirl]

"What are Darwinists so afraid of?" I think it has something to do with hating God, loving power, being
found wanting in evidence, and generally a superiority
complex. It's kind of hard to have evidence supporting
something as vast as the universe coming from nothing.
Which is a total contradiction to scientific theory.

[combat_boots]

...that they're wrong.

[bert]

There is no fear ehen you are correct. Darwin is correct.

[Popocatapetl]

Creationism fails on every level, but for different reasons.

First level, that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. That is, based on the 17th Century math of an Anglican Archbishop in Ireland. Even if you like the idea, check the math. We know a heck of a lot more about bibical times now than a non-scholar making a guess did in 17th Century Ireland. And he wasn't even an Evangelical.

Second level, okay, earlier than 4004 B.C., but still in seven days, not about 4.5 billion years. Nothing else that complex happens in the observed universe that fast. Nothing. Plus the fact that humans weren't there in the first place to record it happening.

Third level, that it was a long time in the making, but that for some reason, humans have been around since the beginning of it, and coexisted with dinosaurs. This idea is utterly useless. It isn't bibical and it isn't evolutionary. Why anyone proposes it in the first place is just silly.

And finally, fourth level, that some intelligence is responsible for it all. This just doesn't matter. Even if there is, it is not scientific, or else you do not understand science.

A good analogy to science is chess. You play chess by the rules of chess, or you are not playing chess. When you have played a game of chess, all you have done is play a game of chess. It has no deeper meaning to extrapolate.

Science also has rules. If you follow those rules, then what you have done is scientific. If you do not, then it is not scientific. Much knowledge is not, nor can be scientific, because it cannot be analyzed using the rules of science.

When evolution is taught in school, it is taught as a science. And it follows the rules of science, and can be criticized scientifically. But at no time does a higher intelligence enter into science, because it is a variable that cannot be analyzed, or experimented with, or discarded, proven or disproven.

And therefore higher intelligence is extraneous to science.

If I flip a coin 100 times in an experiment, and all 100 times it comes up heads, I must assume that either the coin or my flipping of it is the cause of the anomaly. I cannot scientifically even consider that an angel is directing the coin to fall that way. It is simply not an issue, because I cannot see any angel, or order it to stop interfering, or lock it out of the room. Nor can anyone else flip the coin and expect the same result, because I cannot guarantee that the angel will do the same for them.

Therefore, I completely ignore the possibility of there being an angel. It doesn't matter. And though I will note the anomaly, I will keep flipping the same coin, and a different coin, and in a different way, until the angel becomes bored and moves on, and the coin flips fit their predicted pattern again.

And the important thing is that it *will* fit the same curve of probability as if the angel wasn't there in the first place. Because it is possible to flip 100 heads in a row. Not likely, but possible.

So evolution is a science. So is chemistry and physics. History is not. It is a study. So is political "science". The latter two do not follow the rules of science, but this does not mean they are wrong.

So call creationism a study, but do not call it a science.

And since it is a study, it can be taught in school like evolution, but not in the same class, because the two are incompatible subjects, as much as teaching the "democrat version of chemistry".

[Red6]

Good read

[mo]

their own narcissistic foolishness......

[be4everfree]

Christians and science

snip

Bible-believing Christians readily admit that knowledge gained through scientific inquiry has greatly benefited mankind. Furthermore, it is well established that modern science could not have developed apart from the Christian worldview. Many of the great scientists of the past, especially those who worked in the 19th century, were Bible-believing Christians.

http://thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060710/OPINION03/607100331/1014/OPINION

I think one of the greatest frauds ever advanced is that Christians are anti-science.

My Christianity not only allows me the opportunity to explore, it expects me to.