Replies

Given the myriad of evidence supporting evolution, scientists accept it as fact.

---
So do I, almost. But there is a group of people who are using evolution as a weapon to destroy any notion of God and then morality. They shove it down other people's throats as a way to kill their religion. It is these people using a scientific theory like evolution as part of their agendas that I don't like.

I also think it is wrong for these scientists to be so close-minded to alternative explanations or modified descriptions of evolution. That's unscientific! As long as these theories can be tested in some rigorous way with quantifiable results they should consider it.

I don't understand the attacks on Intelligent Design. From what I understand, all they are saying is that the number of random mutations required to get the complexity of today is in question. It's a purely mathematical argument that could be easily modeled and tested. Just because the Creationists have taken it as a pet cause to defend themselves shouldn't discredit the hypothesis itself. If you were a politician, you would embrace it, because it would be a happy medium where evolution could co-exist with spirituality.

I don't understand the attacks on Intelligent Design. From what I understand, all they are saying is that the number of random mutations required to get the complexity of today is in question.

I do.

The problem with ID is not that it is wrong, it is that it is not science. We cannot prove definitely that ID is wrong. However, little observational or calculational evidence has been provided to show that it is right.

On a thread a day or so ago this was discussed. The article quoted total numbers of publications in biology for the past 7 years or so, ever since Behe's book on ID. Total number of citations for Intelligent Design: 1. Total number of citations for "horse feces" : 97. The quote was perfect: "When the number of scientific citations for ID rises to the sum for horse feces (97), then maybe ID will achieve the level of intellectual respect it deserves."

Priceless.

It's a purely mathematical argument that could be easily modeled and tested.

We have heard that argument before. I would dearly love to see that mathematical treatment. If you have seen it, please post. I have asked every ID proponent who has ever mentioned that point to please post the math. I'm still waiting, however, with an open mind.

But there is a group of people who are using evolution as a weapon to destroy any notion of God and then morality. They shove it down other people's throats as a way to kill their religion.

I've never heard of such a group. Can you name it?

I also think it is wrong for these scientists to be so close-minded to alternative explanations

What, like Flat Earth theory?

That's unscientific!

ID isn't scientific. For one, it's based on a subjective view of complexity.

It's a purely mathematical argument that could be easily modeled and tested.

How?

So do I, almost. But there is a group of people who are using evolution as a weapon to destroy any notion of God and then morality. They shove it down other people's throats as a way to kill their religion. It is these people using a scientific theory like evolution as part of their agendas that I don't like.

Could you identify by name a few members of the "group of people who are using evolution as a weapon"? Are they a cabal, or a conspiracy?

I also think it is wrong for these scientists to be so close-minded to alternative explanations or modified descriptions of evolution.

Scientists as an organized group are the least close-minded group on the planet. They comically bend over backwards to give way more of a hearing than the evidence deserves, for all manner of whacky notions in every branch of natural science.

That's unscientific! As long as these theories can be tested in some rigorous way with quantifiable results they should consider it.

And in the event of such a fortunate circumstance, they surely will.

I don't understand the attacks on Intelligent Design.

As far as I can see, it is ID that is attacking the teaching of evolutionary science in science class, I have not observed any great move to attack ID in church, philosophy class, history, or social studies classes, or science fiction books, where they belong.

From what I understand, all they are saying is that the number of random mutations required to get the complexity of today is in question.

Such concerns have been the long-time gist of the scientific mill. There have been myriad such questions in the history of evolutionary theory. None but ID wants to suggest that the proper solution to the dilemma is to throw up our hands in surrender and claim that the only possible answer is that a miracle occured.

It's a purely mathematical argument that could be easily modeled and tested.

No matter how much math you can eat, you can't prove something that occurred in the natural world is impossible. To do statistical math you need to accurately model a sequence of dependent state-spaces and selection criterion. Don't buy a bridge from anyone who claims they can do that for the history of the natural world.

Just because the Creationists have taken it as a pet cause to defend themselves shouldn't discredit the hypothesis itself.

It isn't the function of science to discredit hypothesis, just to provisionally accept some that have been proved to have compelling support under cynical and careful scrutiny, & that prove useful.

If you were a politician, you would embrace it, because it would be a happy medium where evolution could co-exist with spirituality.

Evolution co-exists with spirituality throughout most of the christian world. Science has nothing significant to say about spirituality. The catholics officially accepted evolutionary theory just recently. It is only in the overheated imaginations of some literal creationists that there is a pitched battle between evolutionary theory and God.