Replies

"Again, let us all remember that when Richard Sternberg published Stephen Meyer's article supporting ID in the Smithsonian, despite the fact that it had crossed all the standard hurdles for being peer-reviewed before publication, the Evocratic Inquisition did not refute the article--they pitched a hissy-fit and went out of their way to ruin Sternberg's career."

Um, not what happened.
http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/12/sternberg-saga-continues.html

"The funny thing is that they're losing the public debate--and they're very much aware of it. Despite public school indoctrination, thousands of articles, TV shows, and movies, and millions of dollars in tax money being poured into the support of evolution, polls consistantly show that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject evolution as the "answer to everything" that it's been touted as."

It's a lie to say that evolution is portrayed as the *answer to everything*. Also, a good percentage of Americans don't know what a molecule is either. Science is decided by opinion polls.

"It's interesting to watch, but I no longer believe it profitable to bother to debate a group of people that stack the deck the way the evos do."

You don't really have a scientific argument to make, do you? Didn't think so. The point I have been arguing here is that evolution is not inherently atheistic. Your rant has done nothing to further this debate.

You don't really have a scientific argument to make, do you? Didn't think so.

Years ago, I used to spend weeks at a time debating the evolutionists here on FR. I had the respect of a number of them, including Patrick Henry. I stopped for lack of time and weariness over going in circles: The same arguments came up every single time, with the same refutations and counter-refutations.

Re: Sternberg, the fact remains that his career has been crippled because he has dared allowed question of the ruling paradigm to have voice. The fact also remains that there was huge emotional outcry instead of scientific consideration for Meyer's article. Evolutionists have set up a situation where it is impossible for an IDer (let alone a Creationist) to get published and still have a career, and then turn around and deride their opponents for not having a whole lot of peer-reviewed articles and research. Well, duh. That's right up there with Democrats during the Clinton years asking why, if he really did sell our nuclear tech to the Chinese, the MSM wasn't all over the story.

It's a lie to say that evolution is portrayed as the *answer to everything*.

That's a bit of hyperbole on my part, true--but it's not far off. Evolution, the biological theory, has long since branched off into Evolution, the religion, in which everything, from the current forms of animals and plants to the first life to human morality to the universe itself all "evolved." It's become the catch-phrase answer for the non-theist, every bit as much a "god-of-the-gaps" as any Creationist could be accused of:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

If Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, didn't think evolution explained "everything," including abiogenesis, then it would hardly serve to make him "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Ergo, he really does think that evolution, in one manner or another, explains everything that the theist points to God for--and more.

"The point I have been arguing here is that evolution is not inherently atheistic."

Why can't people figure this out? If God intelligently designed the world, then couldn't he have intelligentlky designed species to evolve into more complex life forms? Doesn't a human embryo evolve from a sperm cell and an ovary into a complex human being? If God didn't want anything to evolve, and wanted everything to work simply, then wouldn't full grown adults appear out of thin air the second a man and woman have sex?