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.
He was, however, an atheist.
Let's be honest now Dan. Criticism by peers isn't the issue. Criticism of the theory is discouraged and even enforced by law in the public schools. A system as sound and proven as evolution shouldn't be afraid of criticism. You people feel free to criticize creationism. Now what if we used the power of the government to stop critcism and smugly claim that peers criticize the system regularly? Where is your sense of fairness? Double standards seem to be the rule here.
Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools.
Did I leave out the word "public?" Those right-wing fundamentalists, People for the American Way commissioned a survey within the last two years that showed parents who favored creation wanted both views taught in schools while parents who favored evolution wanted evolution only. Now doesn't that tell you something about the indefensible nature of evolution?
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.
You're contradicting your buddies.
Peppered moths aren't "fake", they're perfectly real.
Why are you defending a proven fraud? Peppered Moths were glued on a tree to prove evolution was happening before our eyes. This is well known. Search on "Peppered+Moths+Fraud."
We were discussing cosmology (e.g., origin of the universe), not evolution. Evolution would still be a science whether the universe was made by the Big Bang, by God, or by the pink unicorns.
Evolution depends as little on where matter "originally" came from as does meteorology, rocket science, or auto repair.
If cosmology has nothing to do with Evolution, then the two recent prime proponents of Evolution, Dawkins and the late Gould, should be entirely written off. This because Dawkins concludes, firmly, that there is no God on the basis of his "understanding" of Evolution. Or he's a liar. There is no doubt that he's an Atheist. And Gould because he was a huge proponent of the universe, everything, having arisen by chance. As science, the "chance" so-called argument is just plain garbage. This is blatently obvious to anyone to makes any sort or remote claim to some measure of intelligence.
If you can suggest, even flippantly, that the universe was made by pink unicorns, and that this issue of origins relates not at all to the grand claims made by Evolutionists, then you are running on pure unadulterated ego. The credibility of all aspects of science depends upon where matter came from and what it is. All aspects. And do you really believe that all that elegant math and all those elegant physical laws that the mathematicians and physicists spend lifetimes discovering "just happened"? If you do, then you are a pure fool. "Just happened" has no scientific meaning, or any other for that matter. It is an expression of ignorance.
Evolution does indeed depend upon what matter is and where it came from. But at the heart of all material is the immaterial. Ask the physicists, those with an intimate knowledge of quantum mechanics, not your average auto mechanic or Evolutionist. Ask them about John Bell and Alain Aspect. Here's some news to all of biology from the world of the physicists. Billiard Ball Materialism is stone dead, as dead as yesterday's coffee. Stone dead. Those who continue to express their faith in it, and that's all that it is, are exhibiting their ignorance. And that is also why the Evolutionists are sometimes accused of operating on the basis of faith.
Define Evolution for us, hotshot, and if it's anything more than "change over time", which means nothing, we'll have a hard look at it. It's a good thing, if true, that Evolution is backing away from grand claims about origins and abiogenesis but someone should inform the Talk Origins website people. I don't believe it's true.
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.
Yes, peppered moths is a fake example of Evolution, either Macro or so-called Micro. Within their genetic structure are genes for the expression of either mostly black or mostly gray wings and which predominated at any time was an apparent function of the environment. Nothing new, certainly no new species and NOT an example of Evolution. So, forget it AND take it out of the textbooks. Here you are exposed as the ignorant one.
Glib crap is just glib crap, no matter what its length. That is what you're producing, in volume.