ID: What’s it all about, Darwin?

The American Thinker ^ | August 26th, 2005 | Dennis Sevakis

[RobRoy]

Is this some sort of "guilt by association" post? If one religion is garbage, they all are?

If there are three "clubs" which believe there is an answer to the equation "2 + 2 = ?" and one thinks the answer is 22, it doesn't mean the one that thinks the answer is "4" is equally in error.

Sheesh.

[wallcrawlr]

predictable response of the day....congrats.

[RobRoy]

Most of the ID people and creationists I know are not looking for scientific evidence for creation. Quite the contrary is true. They understand there are limits to what we know and probably limits to what we can know. They just get a little tired of the other side being crammed down their throats as fact. Some facets under the umbrella of "evolution hypothesis" are pretty supported by facts, but some of the most damning and outlandish claims are supported by pure speculation and a strong desire for it to be true.

We are tired of the attempt by a particular scientific oligarchy to control the entire debate - and thanks to the internet, they have lost that control as surely as the MSM has lost control of the publics source of news. Like Dan Rather, the whole thing is coming down.

And the constant ad-hominem attacks and arrogance even in evo's ignorance is both irritating and comical at the same time.

[Mylo]

Then what is 10 cubits across is only 30 cubits round about? If your sticking to a literal Bible than Pi is 3. Good as a parable, but lousy as mathematics.

[wallcrawlr]

yeah, I know...and that multiple wives stuff is so hard to get past too. ahh..the good ol' days.


I even heard a man walked on water...weird huh?

[wyattearp]

Thank you. Here's another one:

Since you said that you like the pictures, maybe you could ask Ichneumon to put it together in comic book form for you?

[nightdriver]

"Why isn't their faith good enough? If you want to believe that all of this was created by the hand of God, by all means believe it."

Uh, no.

We just object to having evolution taught as FACT to the exclusion of any other scenario.

Evolution is, at best, a theory. Its proponents weren't there to witness it any more than a creationist was there to witness creation.

The entire argument is about history, not science.

[wallcrawlr]

I dont think it would sell well.


We all have different "hero's" growing up....who was your Wyatt?

[wyattearp]

We all have different "hero's" growing up....who was your Wyatt?

George Samuel Patton III.

I had to read your question a couple of times to understand it. For a minute there, I thought that you had at least one punctuation error. My name is Wyatt, hence 'wyattearp'.

[wallcrawlr]

Its quite possible there are punctuation erros, grammar errors or spelling errors in my posts. That wouldnt surprise me..there was only 1 perfect man.

Obviously my post was referencing wyatt earp as a play on your username. It was in response to the comic book comment on mine.

Not a big deal.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll be adding your post 35 to The List-O-Links.

[Mylo]

No, the argument is about science.

Evolution IS taught as a theory, thus it is called Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection; not Darwin's FACT of evolution through natural selection. What is a fact is that the species that inhabit the earth have changed and are changing (mutation and selection)- and that there has been a change in what species inhabit the earth (extinction and speciation).

What isn't science is presupposing supernatural intervention by an unmeasurable and unknown and non replicable unobserved and unobservable force.

People who are religious but don't understand science, like Rush Limbaugh's less intelligent brother, think that Scientists have some sort of fetish for 'materialistic' explanations; never realizing that only material forces are observable, measurable and replicable- and that therefore only material explanations will EVER be science.

So it is Science and the nature of science that is the argument, not history.

[nightdriver]

"So it is Science and the nature of science that is the argument, not history."

It might be more plausible if there was a cogent scientific explanation for the forces of speciation and just how they re-order the composite parts of the DNA molecule to change to different, fully functional organisms.

But they don't do that.

The effect is that it takes more faith to believe the plausibility of evolution than it does for creation.

[Mylo]

Wrong. The "composite parts" of the DNA molecule are not "re-order"'d. There is a change in the base pairing (i.e. the sequence) and it is explained in great detail if you care to learn. But I guess you'd rather sit around with a blindfold on and complain that its dark.

[nightdriver]

Yes, I know that, but it is not what I was addressing. I want science to explain the forces that CAUSE the changes, not the nature of the changes. You're not reading carefully. Thanks.

[Mylo]

Your not using language carefully. Words mean things. What you said was incorrect.

The force that cause the change is electromagnetism from radiation or molecular charge. Light (i.e. electromagnetic radiation) is mutagenic; as are many chemicals that can bind to DNA (through electromagnetic attraction).

What it changes is the sequence of the DNA (sometimes), causing (sometimes) a change in the protein that is expressed.

All this is a highly studied phenomenon. I took an entire course on Mutation. There are many text books that can explain it all to anyones complete and total satisfaction. It is all measurable, observable and replicable.

[Verax]

Which problems?

[MACVSOG68]

They just get a little tired of the other side being crammed down their throats as fact.

Well, it does seem to be the only "facts" in the debate. And given the number of threads posted by the anti-evo crowd, I'm not exactly sure who's doing the "cramming".

We are tired of the attempt by a particular scientific oligarchy to control the entire debate -

Again from the threads I see here numbering in the hundreds, I doubt anyone in the "evo" community is controlling the debate.

And the constant ad-hominem attacks and arrogance even in evo's ignorance is both irritating and comical at the same time.

Believe me, your side is quite capable of the ad-hominem attacks too, as in referring to the "evos" as ignorant.

[RobRoy]

>>Again from the threads I see here numbering in the hundreds, I doubt anyone in the "evo" community is controlling the debate.<<

That is my whole point: They aren't any more, just as the MSM no longer controls the peoples source of news.

>>Believe me, your side is quite capable of the ad-hominem attacks too, as in referring to the "evos" as ignorant.<<

Yes, but it is the degree of magnitude. Everone lies, but not everyone is a "liar." It is also the spirit of the ad-hominem. There the two sides are quite different from one another.

[RobRoy]

Well, should someone just post the Black Box in it's entirety and we can really get the two sides of "experts" going?