You seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject of the general theory of organic evolution (evolution). Perhaps you can help me with a project. Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter. Dr. Thomas Warren immediately accepted the challenge, whereupon Dr. Sagan conveniently hid under his desk. Both men are now deceased. Though not qualified myself to conduct such a debate, I have nonetheless challenged prominent evolutionists to meet on the polemic platform to defend their doctrine through the years. I regularly propose to provide a champion with a Ph.D. in microbiology to refute the theory. None have responded. I always make it clear that no reference to God, religion, or ID would be involved; only the merits of the theory pro and con. I am willing to bear some of the expense in the organization and conduct of the debate and the ensuing publication.
My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist and is not science. I just think that the secularist can not tolerate the thought that there is a creator who is both superior and anterior to him.
The theory is not observable; it is not demonstrable in the laboratory; and it is not falsifiable. In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical law of population statistics, and certainly the biological law of biogenesis. However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread.
My goal is to simply expose the theory to some critical analysis with the hope that somehow the public schools will at least acquaint the students and teachers with it's weaknesses.
So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.
And, I am new, so flame away. And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate it.
This only shows you are not familiar with the crevo debate. All the criticisms you list above are rooted in some kind of error. I recommend you follow Patrick Henry's list of links on the subject, or visit This page which explains the error behind each of those arguments and more
Sorry, your position is wrong.
Take a look at these definitions (from a google search) and try again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
I call BS on this. Sagan knew that theories never become facts. Theories are the frameworks that explain facts. It is a fact that populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution explains that change.
"The theory is not observable;
Except both in the lab and in nature.
"it is not demonstrable in the laboratory;
The effects of allele variation and selection have both been observed in the lab.
" and it is not falsifiable.
Find a mammal fossil in Precambrian strata.
"In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics,
Of course the 'many' are not well versed in both the 2LoT and biology. In fact they are probably not well versed in either.
"the mathematical law of population statistics,
The 'law' of population statistics? Make sure any calculations you are basing this on are recent.
" and certainly the biological law of biogenesis.
I assume you mean 'life only comes from life'. This is in regard to highly complex life. Abiogenesis is researching a sequence from simple non-life to simple life. Besides, at this point evolution has little to do with abiogenesis. Until research into abiogenesis can develop something that is subject to imperfect replication and selection, the mechanisms of ToE cannot be applied.
"However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread."
Try a written debate. Far to easy for verbal debates to be determined by crowd demographics and baseless unscientific one liners.
How will you ever get a wider audience than you have right here, where you have all the time in the world to frame your responses? Here's your big chance--argue away.
Let me suggest to you, however, that you try some material that hasn't been under the gun here already, countless times. None of which I saw in your original entry.
And, I am new, so flame away.
The level of courtesy you offer, will probably be about the level of couresy you will receive.
And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate
What abbreviations?
..."can not tolerate"..."superior and anterior"...
Not an auspicious start. I echo the advice you have been given to spend some time with PatrickHenry's list of links, so you can come to this debate with a little less of an inclination toward etherially abstract universal declarations, and a little more of an inclination to talk about the facts at issue.
Do you have a cite for this, -- I mean besides a creationist website, well FI; I'll even take the creationist site.
My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist
I think it's ironic that you'd use the word 'religion' to denigrate the theory of evolution.
My goal is to simply expose the theory to some critical analysis
Other than the thousands of scientists who actually work in the field?
Was this before or after the "Would you like to pet my pussy?" "OK, but first you'll need to move the cat." exchange?