My thinking is that when the best qualified of the evolution critics -- the ones who get called to testify in court -- accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth, that those two issues are settled.
And when you get behind all the techno-babble on these threads, those are the two issues that generate the most heat. All the arguments about irreducible complexity are just noise. We can never know if a specific mutation was "natural" or the result of intervention. We can, however, test the limits of theories of change, and that is exactly what evolutionary biologists do.
[[My thinking is that when the best qualified of the evolution critics — the ones who get called to testify in court — accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth, that those two issues are settled.]]
Talk about only seeign what you want to- Gee wiz-
“Settled”? Have they shown evidence to support their beleif and actually ‘settle’ the issue? No! They have not, but their beleif is enough for you to concider the issue ‘Settled’?
[[And when you get behind all the techno-babble on these threads, those are the two issues that generate the most heat.]]
Babble huh? Why is that? Because it doesn’t conform to your beleif in macroevolution?
[[All the arguments about irreducible complexity are just noise.]]
Yup- just ‘noise’ sure it is- this is a dismissive wave of hte hand because hte evidneces supporting ID/IC undermine the position of common descent, so it’s best to just ingore the evidneces and label it ‘noise’ and claim that because Behe beleives in common descent, then it’s a ‘settled matter’.
[[We can never know if a specific mutation was “natural” or the result of intervention.]]
We most certainly can determine that- Beyond a reasonable doubt- and that is precisely what ID does- it presents enough evidence to make hte case beyond a reasonable doubt- those hwo wish to ignore the evidneces against nautral explanations, and for ID intervention can do so if htey so choose, but they are not free to make hte claim that we can ‘never know’ without havign hte obvious pointed out to them in return- YES we can, and running away fro mthe evidences isn’t exactly a good tactic for htose that oppose ID. Appealing to natural forces that simply defy natural laws, biological, chemical and mathematical laws isn’t a very good tactic either- it’s a losing proposition, and it doesn’t strengthen your position to keep implying that those hwo present the evidneces that both refute nature’s involvement, and show evidences for ID that present a case beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn’t bolster your position either- Now, I know you in particular aren’t guilty of this all the time, but some on here certainly are- calling Creation science and ID science ‘psuedo-science’, and ‘anti-science’ continuously, all while ignoring hte evidences brought forth isn’t a very mature or intellectually honest defense of macroevolution. You for htem ost part have been civil- dismissive, but civil- others though just can’t seem to get past their bias and petty pat answers for everything.
[[We can, however, test the limits of theories of change, and that is exactly what evolutionary biologists do.]]
They sure do, but hwat they also do is go WAY beyond those limits, and try to hook their hypothesis to hte shooting star of chance- which is fine- regarless of how improbalbe or downright impossible, I understand why they latch onto chance, but to turn around and accuse ID of being ‘nothign but a religious apologetics practice’ is quite frankly blatantly hypocritical, demeaning, and frankly detached from the reality of the issues. It’s an elitist and snobbish example of those that think their manure don’t stink looking down hteir noses at those that would dare question their religious beleif in common descent, and not accept it just because a ‘consensus’ beleives the way they do. I’ve looked at hte evidneces CAREFULLY, and htem ore I look, them ore it becoems apparent that we have been bald-faced lied to, and hten, we are the ones that get attacked when we bring evidneces that show we are being lied to, and htat expose htose lies, and expose hte lack of evidence that we’re told amounts to mountains but hwich is really not even a bump and by necesssity, includes assumptions that defy biology, natural, mathematical, and chemical laws.
Ugggh- Not gettign into this-
Ah, *that's* what you meant about DNA evidence and forensics--Dover trial and so forth. I mistakenly thought you were referring to *criminal* forensics and DNA testing there.
I should've caught that, of course.
Many apologies for my abject lack of attention to this thread.
Cheers!
"Test the limits of theories of change"??
Please explain, I don't know what that phrase means.
Cheers!