Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

sigh. Of course there's "holes." There are "holes" in every theory as you said. To assume otherwise is assinine.

But the funny thing is, at least there's an existing theory to contain said "holes," as opposed to ID or YEC which is nothing more than nonsense.

it also must be said that these supposed "holes" are nothing on the order of what you believe, nor even approaching what you think they mean.

Now, if I were a "Prominent evolutionist," you'd see my first statement of this post on some creationist website in a few months: "Prominent evolutionist whattajoke said, "Of course there are holes."

See how you people work?

(by the way, what is one of these holes you speak of? Just curious).

Every civilization will either fall or merge when suddenly confronted with a technologically superior culture. It's pretty obvious that most civilizations have had religion as a stablizing element, but this is not necessarily an honorific.

Religion has had varying effects; it has justified brutality and caused stagnation. I suppose I would have to agree that Christianity, with its valuing of the individual soul, may have given rise to individualism, which may have enabled science and led to political individualism. Unfortunately for theists, these blessings are indistinguishable from humanism.

You wrote the meaning of the Constitution (mostly) correctly, but you totally misunderstood what you wrote.

If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others.

>> If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others.

According to the Constitution, only the congress would be prohibited. State legislatures are not prohibited, but rather have the power to set educational and religious standards for their respective states, should they choose to do so.

It's pretty obvious that most civilizations have had religion as a stablizing element, but this is not necessarily an honorific.

True, civilizations rise and fall for many reasons and it is a confluence of trends that leads to a fall. There has been a long discussion in history as to the effect of Christianity on the fall of Rome. It was a factor but not the sole cause. Also, nations have risen and fell irrespective of religion, perhaps it does have a stabilizing factor but it is not enough in and of itself.

I suppose I would have to agree that Christianity, with its valuing of the individual soul, may have given rise to individualism, which may have enabled science and led to political individualism. Unfortunately for theists, these blessings are indistinguishable from humanism

That's an interesting possibility although I would include Judaism as well.

Political individualism is a threat to any organization that prospers on groupthink and control of the masses. Mercantilism was a threat to feudalism and the Reformation was a threat to the Church - their responses were similar.

As is the response now.

According to the Constitution, only the congress would be prohibited. State legislatures are not prohibited, but rather have the power to set educational and religious standards for their respective states, should they choose to do so.

Not so, no state may pass legislation that voids or goes against a portion of the US Constitution - sounds like the equal protection clause.

Not so, no state may pass legislation that voids or goes against a portion of the US Constitution

Historically the states were indeed free to establish religions -- unless their own constitutions prohibited this, as most (I don't know how many) now do. Massachusetts was the last state to have such an institution. Their church (Congregationalist, I think) was disestablished in the 1840s. After the so-called Civil War, the US Constitution has been re-interpreted to "incorporate" most of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment (no state can deny anyone life, liberty, and property without due process), so now it's not possible for a state to establish a religion, regardless of the state's constitution.

Creationism is in no sense proved - it only has a limited interpretation put forth by an equally limited sect of one biblical writing.

Creationism is just as "proved" as evolution, by your lights. It is just a question of how much credence you may choose to put in the "proof". Scientists assign little concrete statistical likelihood to the creationist theory. Creationists reciprocate. Whom should I choose to believe, and why? Continuing to gabble on about "proof", when, in fact, you mean high likelihood, is not a satisfactory answer. Lay people who inhabit school boards need to understand why some ideas are scientifically respectable, and some are not, and continuing to claim that you have "proofs", and refusing to go into the inherently fallable nature of inductive reasoning and then defending the choices science makes on the basis of this fallable reasoning is just flat ceding the argument to the creationists because you are too lazy or arrogant to do some difficult homework.

...this is, in fact, an illustration of a logical fallacy.

Unless, as I said, "dog" is defined as anything with 4 legs. By some lights, including mine, deductive logic, as applied to real-world events, sits on no more a secure base than does inductive logic, because it requires inductive leaps of faith to map a real world event to a well-behaved set theoretic representation upon which syllogistic logic can act.

Creationism is just as "proved" as evolution, by your lights.

No, it isn't no matter how much you repeat that. Where are the repeated and verifiable observations? Where is the experimental data? Creation has to be taken on faith because there is only ONE source for it - a religious writing.

and refusing to go into the inherently fallable nature of inductive reasoning and then defending the choices science makes on the basis of this fallable reasoning is just flat ceding the argument to the creationists because you are too lazy or arrogant to do some difficult homework.

Get a grip.

I've illustrated the words and how they are used in science and they have failed because they don't meet your stringent standards. I've gone along with the semantic games of reasoning and the fallacies. But you've kept getting your panties in a bunch because the standards and definitions weren't pure enough for you.

When I have presented research, they met the audience standards. When I have educated patients, it met their standards. When I have taught classes at the university, it met the student's standards. There was no misunderstanding or confusion. There was none of this harping of 'it all depends on what the meaning of proof is.'

If anything, your harping on the nature of unattainability of pure theoretical proof is a part of the greater misunderstanding - nothing can be proved so anything can be taught would be the reaction. But please, continue using your pure definitions while I will continue to use the definitions of my education, experience, and that of fellow researchers.

No, it isn't no matter how much you repeat that. Where are the repeated and verifiable observations? Where is the experimental data?

Repeated and varifiable observations proved that all stoplights have a grue indicator. Masses of repeated and verifiable observations of the rapture of everyday existence as manifested in the glorious stars in the heaven, and rainbows, and flowers, and exquisite snowflakes, and the glorious word of God, far more numerous and observed than anything that ever happened in a science lab, prove the existence of God as the Prime Mover.

Creation has to be taken on faith because there is only ONE source for it - a religious writing.

Science has to be taken on faith because there is no prime source for it--a tangible sacred text anyone with a mind to can find and read. By contrast, science is just a bunch of constantly changing gobbeldy-gook the fundamentals of which two scientists describe alike.

I've illustrated the words and how they are used in science and they have failed because they don't meet your stringent standards. I've gone along with the semantic games of reasoning and the fallacies. But you've kept getting your panties in a bunch because the standards and definitions weren't pure enough for you.

That is inaccurate. My panties are in a bunch not because the word "proof" is being used impurely. It is being used wrongly. And as such, is endemic of the feeble defenses most scientists put up at school board meetings, because they haven't thought very hard about what they are saying, but simply assume that because they are scientists they will sweep this creationist rabble away with flick of their well-tuned mind.

"Proof", by any reasonable stretch of the lay meaning of the word, does not mean: "subject to question". And that is exactly the point that needs to be driven home at school board meetings about science--that scientific ideas are always subject to question.

Not so, no state may pass legislation that voids or goes against a portion of the US Constitution - sounds like the equal protection clause.

That has no bearing on your original post which read,"If a legislature passes a law banning the teaching of evolution OR requiring the teaching of a religious precept like creation of ID, it is violating the First Amendment by both requiring the teaching of one sect's religious views and by favoring one Christian sect over others." Your original post is false. State legislatures would not violate the 1st Amendment if they passed either of those because the 1st Amendment prohibits only the federal congress.

Unless, as I said, "dog" is defined as anything with 4 legs.

You can define it any way you like, but resorting to private definitions of classes and terms is usually a pretty good sign that your logic is in trouble. As I said, that rescues the validity of the reasoning, but it remains unsound because not everything with four legs is a dog, despite the fact that you have defined it as such. You can define 2=1 if you wish, but that does not mean that what flows from that definition is necessarily meaningful in any practical sense.

By some lights, including mine, deductive logic, as applied to real-world events, sits on no more a secure base than does inductive logic, because it requires inductive leaps of faith to map a real world event to a well-behaved set theoretic representation upon which syllogistic logic can act.

Perhaps. But then you're faced with the obvious results of the process of both deductive and inductive logic - time and time again, the process has shown itself to be both useful and valid, empirically speaking. Inductive reasoning is inductively valid, as a practical matter. If that strikes you as circular, it is, but quibbles about the theoretical foundation do not obviate the usefulness of the process - give me your hand and a hot stove, and I'll show you just how quickly you yourself come to rely on inductive reasoning, even if you find the basis of it to be somewhat less neat that you might wish. ;)

yes, well, and that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Science is useful because it accepts things that are useful to accept, not because it accepts things as unassailably true, which is the commonest ordinary meaning of "proof".

As I said, that rescues the validity of the reasoning, but it remains unsound because not everything with four legs is a dog, despite the fact that you have defined it as such.

Well, yes, but, once again, what was my point? The fact that you may or may not use pellucid reasonings does not, by itself, an unassailable scientific thesis make. All scientific theses, like all practical thought, hangs on faith in inductive hypotheses upon which the logic can work. Working the logic is the easy part. The falling off the log part. The bookkeepping part. Deciding what to have faith in for the logic to operate on is the hard part, and no amount of aristotalian arithmetic will rescue you from this task.

nothing can be proved so anything can be taught would be the reaction.

This is elitest junk food for the mind. "Ordinary humans are just too stupid to understand the uncertainties of science, so we'll just say we've proved it, so that these heyseeds from the creationist institute will shut up and go away." Fat chance.

Again, I urge you not to bring this philosophic Rube Goldberg contraption of supposed "proof" to the table when serious issues like the continuing scientific education of our children is at stake.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.