Replies

Can you say strawman, boys and girls? I knew you could!

The problem with this debate is that adherents of TOE as the only acceptable curriculum argue that TOE does not teach anything about life's origins, but when someone suggests that something about life's origins should be mentioned in curricula, even if to say that TOE does not explain origins of life, TOE adherents say precisely what you have responded to me: that is not the point of this debate (and they usually do it insultingly, as you have. But I forgive you since I know you must feel threatened).

I have actually plainly stated that TOE does not pretend to explain the origins of life. I do not understand why, on one hand, TOE advocates demand as an imperative the implication of accidental creation of life when teaching TOE, but object so strongly to mere mention of that implication's inadequacy at the same time? Why do you respond so condescendingly to a valid objection to that approach to teaching TOE?

TOE is not without other problems, of course. For example, returning to my objection to pure TOE advocate use of the deus ex machina of vast expanses of time, while one may observe the shift in population numbers of subspecies of moths in London suburbs as an accident of use of high- versus low-emission coal in manufacturies at the turn of the century, and use that as proof of an advantage of one coloring over another vis-a-vis predation, but it does not prove at all the emergence of a new species from an old one or even the survival of one species versus another. In other words, it is just a thoery.

Oh well, I know well that academic egos do not want to be questioned? "Get away from me, boy! Ya bother me!" (with apologies to W.C. Fields)

Regards.

" I have actually plainly stated that TOE does not pretend to explain the origins of life."

Then you criticized it for not explaining the origins of life.

"I do not understand why, on one hand, TOE advocates demand as an imperative the implication of accidental creation of life when teaching TOE, but object so strongly to mere mention of that implication's inadequacy at the same time? "

I don't understand that either, as ToE advocates, unlike the ID'ers, don't talk about life's origins. And nobody is saying that abiogenesis is an *accident*.

"and use that as proof of an advantage of one coloring over another vis-a-vis predation, but it does not prove at all the emergence of a new species from an old one or even the survival of one species versus another. In other words, it is just a thoery."

It was never said to show speciation. It never claimed to be anything more than a demonstration of natural selection.
And, as has been pointed out, your use of the term *Theory* belies your ignorance of scientific nomenclature.

"Oh well, I know well that academic egos do not want to be questioned? "Get away from me, boy! Ya bother me!" (with apologies to W.C. Fields)"

Unlike Creationists and ID'ers, scientists welcome questions. They aren't so arrogant as to think they know everything.

You raise several points in response to my post.

My primary theme was the scope of the theory of evolution. It does not deal with the origins of life, rather the changes which have occurred since those origins. However, you continue to bring up origins as a part of the theory of evolution. For example, you write the following (my responses in blue):

I do not understand why, on one hand, TOE advocates demand as an imperative the implication of accidental creation of life when teaching TOE
Evolution does not mention the creation of life
but object so strongly to mere mention of that implication's inadequacy at the same time?
Evolution does not mention the creation of life
Why do you respond so condescendingly to a valid objection to that approach to teaching TOE?
Because evolution does not mention the creation of life

I hope this helps to clarify things.