Replies

I agree with your observation.

I'm not a supporter of ID, or of creationism, or of Darwinian theory. I honestly don't know enough about any of them. What bothers me so much about the battle against ID is that the Darwinians are so bound and determined to prevent anybody from bringing up possible alternative theories!

That is just plain weird to me, and bespeaks insecurity.

True science puts all the facts out on the table, works on poking holes in every theoretical explanation, invites alternate explanations, publicizes all results not only supporting, but it absolutely REVELS in anomalous results and enjoys debating alternate explanations.

What is it that makes the Darwinians so defensive? I guess I realize enough about the field to know that there are some big holes, but why can't they stand the theoretical discussion about whether some form of ID is needed to explain those holes? Instead, they put it up as THE solution, they ask your faith that Darwinianism can explain every hole, and insist that all other possible explanations must be banned not only from public discussion, but from all public knowledge.

To me, this is very akin to something I've far more knowledge of: the "global warming" debate. The Kyotoists don't want people to know that the Sun has cyclic behavior and have forever denied that it does by leaving that out of their "models", despite the fact that nearly all the Earth's "warmth" comes from the Sun! They have kept people under their influence for many years refusing to let people know that they are hiding perhaps the most important factor of all! Nyah,Nyah,Nyah,Nyah - I can't hear you!

Sorry, that doesn't wash in science. It shouldn't wash in the discussion about evolution, ID, or creationism, either.

Evolutionists work from the presumption that science cannot measure or "prove" God; that He is outside the realm of science. They have automatically limited themselves in the scope of their work and could not find or recognise God if He hit them over the head with a 2 by 4 because they have already concluded that whatever they discover is a natural occurance. How do they KNOW that God could never be determined through the scientific process? Just because someone decided however long ago that God is religion or supernatural, doesn't mean that He couldn't be discovered through scientific means if they gave themselves a chance. There's a lot of reality out there that can't be measured: Ideas, thoughts, emotions... They've hemmed themselves in a small, cold, purposeless world and want everyone else to be there, too.

What is it that makes the Darwinians so defensive? I guess I realize enough about the field to know that there are some big holes, but why can't they stand the theoretical discussion about whether some form of ID is needed to explain those holes?

The problem is that the IDer's aren't sceintifically literate enough to even compose a theory.

True science puts all the facts out on the table, works on poking holes in every theoretical explanation, invites alternate explanations, publicizes all results not only supporting, but it absolutely REVELS in anomalous results and enjoys debating alternate explanations.

You are quite right about that. Evolutionary science has lots of ares for research and interesting things to investigate. The problem is that ID claims that the lack of perfect knowledge invalidates a scientific theory. ID is being rejected as an alternative because it offers no new insights and does not explain what we observe better than evolution. My biggest pet peeve with ID isn't that it's not science (that's the strongest arguement against it) but that there is so much scientific illieracy, lies and misconceptions on the part of its proponents. These issues merely cloud the water and confuse the lay population. People like me that have sincere concern about the quality of science taught in the U.S. find these misconceptions and lies outrageous and requires a lot of work just to overcome before even engaging in an origins debate.

To address your main point, what you're taking as insecurity, I think is outrage and scorn - outrage that IDists try to sneak it in politically instead of scientifically and scorn at the ignorance of those they fool.

As for your minor points, first, evolution *has been* challenged, found wanting and consequently changed (e.g. endosymbiosis). Second, the idea of plugging "gaps" in evolutionary explanations with a non-scientific theory is risible. Third, the analogy to global warming is weak because evolution is a theory of much, much longer standing.