Replies

I agree completely with post #43. I am a conservative through and through, but I just don’t "believe" in the Creationism. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal. Beliefs are beliefs and should be exempt from debate. One doesn’t change beliefs with facts, one way or the other. BTW, Ann’s book is great. I have it on the coffee table for any liberal bold enough to visit this conservative household. Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

You are wrong; beliefs should be examined as to their reasonableness.

Although I only knew about half of the arguments before I read the book, Ann's presentation and contextualization (look a new word!) makes a much more convincing summary. The straw man arguments of an evolution/flat earth creationism dichotomy purposefully avoid looking at the strong statistical reasoning behind ID.

Although science is not to be sneered at, mathematical arguments have a stronger claim to the word "proof."

Once something is proved by mathematics it stays proved; mathematical proofs have to pass more than the "best so far" test of scientific theory.

Some sciences are more equal than others, as the following joke will show. (thank you Eric Blair)

An astrophysicist, physicist, and a mathematician were traveling on a train in Scotland. They saw a black sheep grazing near the train tracks. "Look", exclaimed the astrophysicist, "all sheep in sheep in Scotland are black!"
"You mean that there is at least one sheep in Scotland that is black", scoffed the physicist. The mathematician rolled his eyes heavenwards. "All we know is; there exists in Scotland at least one sheep, one side of which, is black."

ID is a science. The proponents of Darwinian Evolution (of whatever stripe) seem to react to Ann's arguments like other liberal apes; they just throw excrement.

Behind the development of evolutionary thought, there lurks the epicurean world-view. It's good enough for a RINO, but not for a real conservative.

Are there any rational explanations to the institutionalized lies of evolutionist? Has any equivalent behavior been tolerated in other science?