Personally, I do believe that evolution makes sense and is supported by the evidence. But, as an agnostic, I am very, very disturbed by the vitriolic fervor with which anyone who believes otherwise is attacked. I never see the pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side, but rather, storming around like the villagers in Young Frankenstein, relying on inflamed passions and demagoguery. (Someone please tell me I spelled that right). I also hate to see the supporters of evolution deny the existence of any scientist who thinks that there must have been some conscious plan for so complex a world. When one denies the existence of that which I've talked to, someone's going to be discredited. And it ain't gonna be me.
Never? Really?
I wonder if you could come up with, oh, one thread that supports your belief that such a thing "never" happens. One thread that relies on "inflamed passions and demagoguery", and contains not a single example of "pro-evolutionists reasoning calmly with the evidence on their side". Just one thread.
I also hate to see the supporters of evolution deny the existence of any scientist who thinks that there must have been some conscious plan for so complex a world.
I'd hate to see that too. On the other hand, I wonder if you can name one poster who's done so. Just one poster.
Thanks.
One of the problems is that, like the article claims, many people do not have basic scientific literacy, yet they try to argue science with scientists. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The scientists are faced with arguements that are below a freshman level in a lot of areas and the non-scientists lack sufficent versing to comprehend the arguements made by scientists. Frustration boils up on both sides and you get a situation where PatrickHenry has to remind everyone to be civil.
There is no problem with thinking there is a creative hand in our existence, but the problem comes when people try to introduce it as science. There is no evidence for it and, if one argues complexity, then there must also be an explanation for what this creative source is and how it operates. ID is an interesting philosophical concept, but does not rise to the level of science. Only those who do not understand the nature of science do not comprehend this situation.
Surely you're either joking or grossly uninformed? I merely refer you any of the posts of Ichneumon(or others) who are extremely patient in their presentation of the facts. Come back and make statements like the above after you've read them.
For instance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=82#82
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=85#85
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616059/posts?page=78#78
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615650/posts?page=350#350
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614588/posts?page=343#343
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614588/posts?page=120#120
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613407/posts?page=150#150
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1610794/posts?page=46#46
.....or:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1610794/posts?page=31#31
..........etc.
Ichneumon, it appears to be time for one of your "tip of the iceberg" posts. However, don't be surprised if, even after you post it, the claim is again made that we only engage in demagoguery rather than presenting evidence.
I guess you are not here to debate?
Far be it for me to add to the vitriolic fervor. I guess I'll just join the mob and storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle - butn, pillage, rape.
Better than to bandy words with someone as agnostic as F dot.