Exactly, which is why getting you guys to think about it is like pulling teeth. Let me state evolution's vitamin deficiency in another way: If evolution is on such a sound foundation, why do defenders have convulsions at the thought of allowing criticism? If you fear criticism, you have something to hide. Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools. Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly. That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.
It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.
You reveal a paucity of knowledge regarding religion. Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious. Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator. It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason. I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence.
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
I didn't know evolutionists feared criticism. I'll ask one next time I see one. As scientists I would hope they would be masters at producing criticism. In fact, the biological literature is full of criticisms, which is why evolutionary science has changed so much, and branched out, over the years.
Aside from evolutionists, anyone who values reason or simple truth may very well have convulsions at efforts to teach schoolchildren that the second law of thermodynamics means that only God can increase complexity.
I didn't know that "Darwinism" had an economic or political branch. I'll have to go back to Darwin's writings to see if I can find that. What are they doing advocating government monopolies? Perhaps you are thinking of a subset of Darwinists who also happen to be collectivists?
Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious.
What religion is not supersititious? What about Darwinism is superstitious?
I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
How so?
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
How do contemporary evolutionary theories depend on these?
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
And creationists can conceive of empirical data that would disprove the existence of God? That is, the part of their theory requiring God's existence is falsifiable?
Well, erase for a moment, for the sake of argument, all you think you know about how people currently conceive evolutionary theories. Can you conceive of a rational way of tentatively explaining the existing biological and fossil evidence without the need of a deliberate intervention?
Really?
Criticism is "allowed" all the time. What makes you think it's not? Hell, the whole process of peer-review is to *invite* criticism, loads of it, as much as people can think of. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
If you're clumsily referring to the "equal time" flap, that's not about "allowing criticism", that's about refusing to let religion be taught as if it were science. I'll agree to that sort of "equal time" just as soon as scientists are granted equal time in every Sunday school. But I don't think *either* is a good idea, frankly.
If you mean something about these threads, well, the only "convulsions" that "defenders of evolution" go into are convulsions of laughter, mixed with convulsions of dry heaves from being aghast at the poor state of science education in the public at large (you don't necessarily have to *agree* with basic scientific principles, but it would be nice if folks *understood* them before they set out to try to knock some down).
If you fear criticism, you have something to hide.
Nothing to hide here.
Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools.
What planet do *YOU* live on?
Since the 1987 Louisiana decision, public school authorities in Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas, have attempted to eliminate or de-emphasize evolution in scientific course materials in public schools. In 2001, the Hawaii state board of education and the Arkansas and Michigan legislatures all faced efforts to remove evolution and/or include creationism in their science curricula.Perhaps most well-known is the 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to remove evolution, as a concession to creationists, from the list of subjects tested on state standardized tests. Although the previous standards were restored, a national debate on creationism still continues, with over half the states at both the state and local levels facing pressures from creationists similar to those resulting in the Kansas concessions.
-- "Creationism in the Science Classroom", The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly.
No, just believe that science is what should be taught in science classes.
That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.
You're sounding a bit shrill yourself, bud.
It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.
You've got *that* right...
Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator.
Hume (1711-1776) lived before almost all modern science, and all of evolutionary theory, so I'm not sure he's the best person to look to for a balanced consideration of religion versus science.
It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason.
That's quite the oxymoron you've got there.
[beavus wrote:]Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence.
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils?
What do you mean, "fossils"? There has been one (1), and it was a comedy of errors, very quickly caught and exposed by, you must be astonished to learn, the peer-review process. Nor was it faked by any scientist in order to bolster any theory, it was assembled by the Chinese peasant who gathered it, knowing that "complete" specimens get more money on the black market than fragments.
This is a good example of evolutionary science correcting itself, instead of just embracing whatever seems to support its case. That sort of shoots your whole theory down, doesn't it? Read about it, you'll see that the mistake only happened at *all* because National Geographic, in its haste, chose to skip accepted procedures which normally prevent such screwups.
How about Lucy?
How about it? There's nothing wrong with Lucy, except for some creationist lies. What else have you got?
I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
No, actually, they couldn't. In 100+ years of paleontology, the fakes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The number of false accusations of fakery by creationists because they find a particular fossil hard to explain, however...
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
Peppered moths aren't "fake", they're perfectly real. It might help if you learned more about the topic before you expose more of your ignorance. And it might help your case if your proferred "evidence" against evolution didn't turn out to be mostly imaginary prejudice.