Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

[jla]

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, August 16, 2006

---

The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.

---

Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-16.html

[185JHP]

The Fred column to which you refer is one of his best. That feller can think. And write...

[185JHP]

BTTT

[Virginia-American]

One would presume that believers in evolution, at least in the U.S., also believe in free speech and wouldn't want to silence those who disagree with them.

ID-ists, astrologers, pyramid-and crystal power-sts, homeopaths, Lawsonomists, and so on and so on have the same right to free speech and association, the right to publish, etc, as anyone else. But none of them has a "right" to taxpayer money to try to present their crap in classrooms as though it were science.

[RunningWolf]

Darwin in his proper place..



A bobble-head figurine in the dusty chest of failed & cast off theories jettisoned in the sea of reality

Wolf

[spatso]

"Oh? If evolution is accepted as viable then you can negate the Book of Genesis."

I do not believe that your faith is that fragile that it requires the reversal of a scientific theory. Evolution is not and has never been a threat to Genesis. This is why I am so angry with the promotion of this ID nonsense. Some people are setting this up so that kids are having to make a choice between science and faith. And, it is my experience that the bright, curious minded kids are choosing science.

I don't think ID is a problem for science. I think ID is a serious problem for our faith communities. Now is the time for people of faith to step up and hold the promoters of ID to their word. ID is not about faith or about God. It is a scientific theory. And, if it is proved true than we go back to say Aristotle was right, there is a prime mover. Neither ID or evolution has any real significance for people of faith.

[spatso]

"Oh? If evolution is accepted as viable then you can negate the Book of Genesis."

Do you not understand how profoundly offensive ID is to many people of faith? The promoters of ID believe themselves responsible to sneak God through the side door of scientific debate. And, in the debate they have promoted with the scientific community they don't even have the courage of their faith to use the name of God in their writing.

But, in doing this they reduce God to a mere scientific formulation. So, if ID does not prove out as a viable scientific theory does that mean that God does not prove out? Absolute rubbish, total nonsense! As a person of faith I am offended by the vanity of the promoters of ID.

[KeepUSfree]

That's good...because, unlike ID'er and creationists, Evolutionists LOVE criticism and scrutiny. It allows us find flaws in the existing theories in order to refine and improve them.
Or, one can stick one's head in the sand and despite mounds of evidence all around one, sit and scream: "I believe, I believe, I believe".
Hmmmm.... which one of these two options to choose. We'll let you decide.
Bt first, let me remind everyone, that Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up daily due to unshakable faith in their God and the mistaken belief that Allah will gift them in the afterlife.
Hmmm....reasoned thought - or unshakable faith??

Johhny, I'll take what's behind door #1!!!!

[spatso]

"Or, one can stick one's head in the sand and despite mounds of evidence all around one, sit and scream: "I believe, I believe, I believe"."

The ID phenomena does not justify your attacking people of faith. People of great faith occupy all streams and postures (Carter, Reagan, Bush). The notion that faith causes a believer to stick their head in the sand is nonsense. The problem is that this ID drivel is making people of faith look foolish. ID promoters are a fringe group who have been given a free hand by faith communities. Science will never be able to convince them of their folly. But, perhaps it is time for people of faith to step forward and point out that they are becoming an embarrassment to us all. For me, the Coulter book was the last straw, I am no longer embarrassed, I am simply angry. I will no longer tolerate the arrogance of these people who believe they can reduce sacred mystery to a dependence on scientific formulation.

[KeepUSfree]

I too am a person of faith. I just have NO tolerance for ID'ers or Creationists. If that is where one's faith leads them....then they ARE sticking their heads in the sand.

And, like Muslim extremists, the reform needs to begin from within or else all will be painted with the same broad brush.

I don't make the rules....I just see reality and tell it like it is.

[jla]

Then please explain how evolution and Genesis are compatible with each other. As I said, if one is true, (which would be the latter), then the other cannot be.

[spatso]

Simply take the time to read the beautiful words of the Pentateuch.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.
Genesis 2:2 ..He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.
Genesis 2:7 Yahweh God fashioned man from the dust of the soil.

There are two separate Creation stories in Genesis. So when you speak of evolution having a negative affect on the Genesis Creation story I don't even know which of the stories you are talking about. There are enormous conflicts in the time lines of Creation. The most significant of these conflicts are right within the body of the text of Genesis. Bible scholars have studied these conflicts for centuries. They seek to better understand the sources and difference in meaning that can be taken from the differences. People who seek to better understand the sacred word will find strength even within the textual contradictions.

The idea that evolution creates a crisis for Genesis is silly. Science has always been creating crisis for faith. The science of evolution is pretty timid compared to the crisis caused by Galileo when he looked into his telescope and told the world there was no heaven immediately above us. Or, that the two great lights in the sky were not just for the earth as suggested in Gn1:17. Faith communities have constantly had their beliefs tweaked by science. When it happens we need to go back to our scripture and find an answer within ourselves. We don't invent our own science.

[Dante Alighieri]

"Then what is science for?"

It exists to form explanations of natural phenomena observed both directly and indirectly.

"It requires faith in something that cannot be proven, has a dogma (which hit by my karma), has tenets, and is diametrically opposed to many of the religions of the world, claiming to be the only true source for mankind. Sounds like a religion to me. You call it whatever you wish."

How is it faith? It uses scientific arguments, not appeals to faith. What tenets? And how is it "diametrically opposed to many of the religions of the world?" It never claimed to be the "only true source for mankind" (whatever that means); nice try setting up a strawman about evolution and raising arguments that the theory never proposed.

"Snort, chuckle, can I quote you on this? 'Evolution does not address the origin of life' no, really Dante Alighieri said so! "

Sure you can. When biologists laugh at you for not listening to me, don't complain. Evolution explains the diversity of life and its relationships. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. There's a difference.

"You mean things that choose not to mate with each other, but could in a lab? Hey, I just saw a site about that recently… "

No. Look here for a nice primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

"They can still breed, just have adapted to their environment, not a differing species...you keep quoting controlled micro evolution or evolution within a species "

What are you talking about? They *are* a different species. You asked for speciation, I gave it to you and now you're going to say it's microevolution? (When in reality, macroevolution is nothing more than speciation) You can repeat it all you like, but that doesn't change the research.

"Hey those fish grew legs and can only breed with each other now!"

Ridiculous. Evolutionary theory isn't Lamarckian and you should know that.

"I see why we are having a problem, Facts are, Theories are created by men like us." Er, wrong. Contradicting your implicit claims is that even facts are subject to change. (Usually, refinement of measure or something)

"Science , like religion is a search for truth, not Theory, that’s science fiction."

Wrong. It's so laughable that you're raising the objection about a theory, though. Let's look at it logically:

Science is the systematic method of forming explanations of natural phenomena observed both indirectly and directly.
Theories in a scientific context are well-supported systems of explanations of a broad range of related phenomena.

Of course, theories are the goals of science. Of course, your objection arises from "But, but, a theory is just a wild guess!" Er, wrong. Theories in science are well-supported systems of explanations of natural phenomena and they incorporate facts, tested hypotheses, and inferences. Gravitation is a theory (and a law and a fact), heliocentricity is a theory (and a fact), cell theory is obviously a theory, along with relativity, and atomic theory, and the list goes on. Everything solid in science *is* a theory.

"Sounds like fake but accurate to me…"

Er wrong. At no point in time will a scientists sit down and say that his or her results were %100 correct, true forever, and thus, are not subject to change. Anything scientific by definition must be tentative and subject to change.

"Wake me will you, I mean when one happens?
That should be in about a billion years or so."

I just gave you a couple and you ignore them?

Darwin predicted that according to his theory trilobites would be found in the pre-Siluran layer - and they were.
Biologists predicted that humans would have an intermaxillary bone like other mammals - and we do
Biologists predicted that since the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23, there should have been a chromosomal fusion - and there was, in chromosome #2

You really want to be that ignorant?

"OK, I’ll bite; explain something to me without describing it (Grin)."

Objects with mass have the tendency to accelerate towards each other because matter bends spacetime around it. (General Relativity)

"Theories are the goal of Science fiction writers, not Scientists, Science it the search fro truth, theory is another word for conjecture."

See above. I'm surprised that you don't even know what a scientific theory is.

"I am talking about reality; walls exist, if you theorize you can walk through them that won’t stop you from bumping your head."

Once again, see above.

"Your tenuous connection with reality, and scientific method."

Hardly. You think that unless Einstein discovered relativity, GPS today would be able to use relativistic factors to navigate properly? Engineers are brilliant to be sure; but without the explanatory framework science provides, many would have nothing to apply.

"You have not proved your case; you have spoken in circles, which sound suspiciously like a liberal explaining 'Global Warming' everything proves GW to be true, for you there is no such thing as proof, yet to deny the truth of evolution is to put your fingers in your ears and yell I can’t hear you. You speak in riddles and it’s getting late, I have destroyed your attempt s to prove what you say is un-provable, and I am not even trying to replace it with anything."

Hardly. That you misunderstand the role of science, what a theory means, and appear to purposely use the claims outlined in the TalkOrigins "Creationist Claims" archive speaks volumes.

[spatso]

"I too am a person of faith. I just have NO tolerance for ID'ers or Creationists. If that is where one's faith leads them....then they ARE sticking their heads in the sand."

Thanks for the comment. I pray to a Creator God. I understand God as the author of Creation and I am at peace with my place in the world. Like you I get irritated with Creationists who presume to tell me exactly what I should believe. I believe in God's sacred mystery. I understand there is more about God that I don't know than I know. Indeed, it seems that the more that I learn the more complex that sacred mystery becomes. I find no conflict in the advance of science and my faith in Christ. Indeed, I accept the advance of science as one of the great movements of the Holy Spirit within the human community.

So, I get angry when I know I should be more patient. My real anger is more with the arrogance of the ID inventors who somehow thought God needed to be protected. In their vanity they attempted to create an opening for God through a scientific formulation that does not even name God. I am also angry with Ann Coulter. It seems to me she is a crass opportunist who has tried to squeeze book sales writing on a subject she simply does not grasp. But, I am most upset because the promoters of ID and their followers are pushing an agenda that suggests because I am conservative and a person of faith I am anti science. That I take as a personal insult.

[Physicist]

I'll take your failure to reply as an admission of culpability.

I'll give you your choice: you can take it as an indication that I am working 7-day weeks with very long hours (which I am) and don't have enough time for FReeping, or an indication that I missed your post at first and then didn't think it worth a response when I finally did read it.

But I'll throw you a bone: someone on this thread pointed to a list of 30 scientists who dissent from evolution as proof that the theory is in trouble. Against that I offer a list of 755 scientists named Steve who signed their names to a very strong statement of acceptance of evolution: "...there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."

Taking into account the prevalence of the name "Steve" in the population as a whole, this is equivalent to a list of over 75000 scientists. That's better than 2000 times larger than the list of 30 evolution dissenters we've been offered.

And before you say that that's not good enough, try demonstrating that degree of unanimity in favor of any position of any kind that you agree with.

[Dante Alighieri]

Better yet, 99.86% of scientists in the related earth science and life science fields accept evolution:

""By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
-- Newsweek , 6/29/87, Page 23"

Or, the November '97 Gallup survey on not just scientists in the relevant fields, but scientists in the U.S. in general:

"Creationist View

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." 5%

"Theistic evolution

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." 40%

"Naturalistic evolution

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process." 55%

That means that 95% of U.S. scientists accept evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

[balrog666]

Festival-of-ignorance placemarker.

[DelphiUser]

Evolution

>>How is it faith?

Evolution requires faith in that it requires a belief in that which cannot be seen.

>>It uses scientific arguments, not appeals to faith.

Um, Yeah, I can make scientific arguments about faith that does not make it science.

>>"Snort, chuckle, can I quote you on this? 'Evolution does not address the origin of life' no, really Dante Alighieri said so! "

>>Sure you can.

Thanks, now it’s on the record.

>>When biologists laugh at you for not listening to me, don't complain.

I won’t because they won’t.

>>Evolution explains the diversity of life and its relationships.

Evolution: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

>>Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. There's a difference.

Abiogenesis: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abiogenesis

Now you are just being silly, one moment you are arguing that species that “can” reproduce together are different species because they look different, the next you are saying that hybridization in a lab to create something that does not breed (either at all or true) is speciation.

If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design

Hybrids are not Species, Breeds are not species, and races are not species. Species are defined by an ability to reproduce; not color, size, shape of beak stripes or patches, fur or feathers. The simple question is can they breed? If we crossbreed a horse with a Donkey, we end up with an Ass. Asses (For the most part) can not breed, when the rare ass is born that is fertile, it can only breed back to a horse or a donkey. If you find two asses that are fertile, of opposite gender, they will not reproduce more asses together you will get a horse or a donkey.

Ass’s can also be made by taking a stance that something is proven, yet nothing is provable.

I have worked for a company that produces Hybrid seed, the story still goes around about how the “Soviet Union” purchased seed from the US because of the claims made by the seed company. The seed planted, and harvested according to the instructions was an amazingly bounteous crop. The soviet leadership saved the all the resulting corn for seed in the next season, and had dismal results. The seed was a hybrid, hybrids do not breed true. You have confused Speciation with just about everything under the sun, except Speciation.

>> "You mean things that choose not to mate with each other, but could in a lab? Hey, I just saw a site about that recently… "

>>No. Look here for a nice primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Yes, they do not mate with each other because they look funny, they can however be mated in a lab. And you still get a lizard, and it can still reproduce with other lizards, so its’ not speciation, regardless of how the appearance changes.

What are you talking about? They *are* a different species.

You say they are, I say they are not. You present “Irrefutable evidence” that as soon as I study it, refutes your point (like the hybrid Radish and Cabbage you tried to pass as a new species by linking to a web site earlier).

>>You asked for speciation, I gave it to you and now you're going to say it's microevolution?

Well, it is microevolution, or evolution within a species.

(When in reality, macroevolution is nothing more than speciation) You can repeat it all you like, but that doesn't change the research.

There we have it, “Micro evolution, or evolution within a species, proves Macroevolution”. Organisms react to their environment adapting to it, not becoming a new organism. “If I change my environment and Thus my appearance I become a new species? Saying that proves evolution, is like saying: ”I can work out, and improve my muscle to fat ratio, therefore I have evolved into a new species, and that proves we all evolved from apes millions of years ago.”

You logic is so full of holes it would be funny if you weren’t so serious. You require Faith to fill the holes, and you are not even aware that is what you are doing. At least Christians are honest about their faith.

Godless – Page 200 William Provine, an evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism “The greatest engine of atheism devised by man.” His fellow Darwin disciple Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins , famously said “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Darwinism requires faith, (believe, and eventually we’ll fill in these nagging details) Has dogma (Evolution is not to be questioned, especially in school!) Has Tenets (Man evolved from Monkeys, or some other lower life form), opposes most other religions (Is the greatest engine of Atheism devised by man).

Most importantly it affects the very philosophy of how men live, one moment they are on the earth in a probationary state obeying laws, and taking instruction from on high, the next they are one shot accidents, who should live while you can, nothing is right or wrong as long as you enjoy it, and there will be no reward or punishment as long as you die while young and preferably traveling at high speed. (Live fast, die young)

>>Ridiculous. Evolutionary theory isn't Lamarckian and you should know that.
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Lamarckism

I have said nothing about use, only that new “Genetic modifications that lead to speciation should also require that they (the creatures of the new species) not be able to breed with prior species or it’s not a new species.

Species: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species All the definitions specify procreation as the defining attribute. If they can interbreed, they are in the same species.

To show speciation, something outside tha lab has to evolve to the point that it cannot breed with it’s ancestors.

>>>> "I see why we are having a problem, Facts are, Theories are created by men like us."

>>Er, wrong. Contradicting your implicit claims is that even facts are subject to change.
>>(Usually, refinement of measure or something)

Facts do not change our understanding of them does.

There is reality and there is perception. Facts exist in reality, our perception of that reality may change, but facts themselves do not in fact change.

Your definition of science is part of the problem here Science is a system for describing the Reality in which we exist. Newtonian Physics will not change with observation, Quantum physics do. It’s a fact.

Check out this fun clip: http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/doubleslit.wm.low.html
Scientists make theories to meet with their observations, which may or may not be accurate.

>>Of course, theories are the goals of science.

To borrow your phrase Er, Wrong!

>>Gravitation is a theory (and a law and a fact)…

You my friend are confused and confusing.

>>>>"Sounds like fake but accurate to me…"

>>Er wrong.

This is a quote from Dan Rather, and is an allusion to the fakery inherent in your evolution treatise .

>>I just gave you a couple and you ignore them?

You gave me a couple of Bogus LABORATORY GENESPLICING experiments which is somehow supposed to show something happening in nature. No, I did not ignore them; I made fun of this pathetic attempt. Humor and sarcasm are not ignoring.

>>Darwin predicted that according to his theory trilobites would be found in the pre-Siluran layer - and they were.

Do you mean the fossils in pre cambrean rock that were so small they were not discovered until a microscope was used? The fossils which Darwin himself thought disproved his theory, those fossils?

>>Biologists predicted that humans would have an intermaxillary bone like other mammals - and we do

Darwin made his prediction when? How long have we been doing legal and illegal autopsies? (hint long before Darwin) I hereby predict that McKinney will lose against Johnson! (Look, I can predict as well as Darwin)

Biologists predicted that since the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23, there should have been a chromosomal fusion - and there was, in chromosome #2

This was also “Predicted after the fact of it’s finding.

Do you know what non-coding DNA is? ID proponents stated that this “Junk DNA” had a purpose 25years ago. Just now we are finding out that contrary to the Darwinians theories it’s not junk.

So is ID right?

Answer: “Even a blind squirrel finds and acorn once in a while”

Darwinism is a theory because it can’t be predicted (with regularity), repeated, or measured. (End of Story) Gravity is a law, because it can be repeated, measured and predicted with complete accuracy.
It is sad that you can’t seem to see the difference.

>>You really want to be that ignorant?

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei

I agree with Galileo Galilei, I intend to keep thinking about things, you follow a pre planned dogma if you want.

>> Engineers are brilliant to be sure; but without the explanatory framework science provides, many would have nothing to apply.

We all build on what came before, the engineers of today would just be building something else…

My point was there are dreamers, and doers, you are a dreamer.

>>>>"You have not proved your case; you have spoken in circles, which sound
>>>> suspiciously like a liberal explaining 'Global Warming' everything proves GW to
>>>>be true, for you there is no such thing as proof, yet to deny the truth of evolution is
>>>>to put your fingers in your ears and yell I can’t hear you. You speak in riddles and
>>>>it’s getting late, I have destroyed your attempt s to prove what you say is
>>>>un-provable, and I am not even trying to replace it with anything."

>> Hardly. That you misunderstand the role of science, what a theory means, and appear
>>to purposely use the claims outlined in the TalkOrigins "Creationist Claims" archive
>>speaks volumes.

I can honestly sate I have never visited Talk Origins (if it’s a web site), nor have I any knowledge of what they state, but if we have come up with similar Ideas, they must be brilliant folks; I’ll have to look them up.

As for the role of science, if all you get are theories, it’s not worth the trouble. Theories are our predictions based on our perceptions, Facts are truth independently verified, measured, repeated, predictable. Evolution is a theory, not a fact (Hint, there is a reason the full title is The Theory of Evolution)

[Dante Alighieri]

"Evolution requires faith in that it requires a belief in that which cannot be seen."

What do you mean? We observe evolution directly via speciation and adaptation and indirectly in the fossil record.

"Um, Yeah, I can make scientific arguments about faith that does not make it science."

Non-sequiter.

"Thanks, now it’s on the record."

Great.

"Evolution: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution"

"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." That seems like an okay definition. What's your point?

"Abiogenesis: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abiogenesis"

"The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation." I've got a few problems with this one. It equivocates spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. A better synonym of abiogenesis is chemical evolution. Spontaneous generation is something else entirely.

What's your point?

"Now you are just being silly, one moment you are arguing that species that “can” reproduce together are different species because they look different, the next you are saying that hybridization in a lab to create something that does not breed (either at all or true) is speciation.

If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design

Hybrids are not Species, Breeds are not species, and races are not species. Species are defined by an ability to reproduce; not color, size, shape of beak stripes or patches, fur or feathers. The simple question is can they breed? If we crossbreed a horse with a Donkey, we end up with an Ass. Asses (For the most part) can not breed, when the rare ass is born that is fertile, it can only breed back to a horse or a donkey. If you find two asses that are fertile, of opposite gender, they will not reproduce more asses together you will get a horse or a donkey.

Ass’s can also be made by taking a stance that something is proven, yet nothing is provable.

I have worked for a company that produces Hybrid seed, the story still goes around about how the “Soviet Union” purchased seed from the US because of the claims made by the seed company. The seed planted, and harvested according to the instructions was an amazingly bounteous crop. The soviet leadership saved the all the resulting corn for seed in the next season, and had dismal results. The seed was a hybrid, hybrids do not breed true. You have confused Speciation with just about everything under the sun, except Speciation."

Sure. Except you managed to miss the section in the article entitled "Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy." Also, you made this ridiculous claim: "If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design." Dichotomies don't exist in science, specially in different fields. Abiogenesis is separate from evolution; pink unicorns on the moon could have made life for all we know but evolution would still be supported. Although, admittedly, ID doesn't have any support behind it.

"Yes, they do not mate with each other because they look funny, they can however be mated in a lab. And you still get a lizard, and it can still reproduce with other lizards, so its’ not speciation, regardless of how the appearance changes." You realize that this isn't only definition of a species, right?

"You say they are, I say they are not. You present “Irrefutable evidence” that as soon as I study it, refutes your point (like the hybrid Radish and Cabbage you tried to pass as a new species by linking to a web site earlier)." And you ignore the later sections? Very impressive.

"Well, it is microevolution, or evolution within a species." No it isn't. Speciation is speciation; and it's macroevolution.

"There we have it, 'Micro evolution, or evolution within a species, proves Macroevolution'. Organisms react to their environment adapting to it, not becoming a new organism. 'If I change my environment and Thus my appearance I become a new species? Saying that proves evolution, is like saying: 'I can work out, and improve my muscle to fat ratio, therefore I have evolved into a new species, and that proves we all evolved from apes millions of years ago.'" Wrong. Speciation occurred and thus new species arose. Proof is non-existent in science, by the way.

"You logic is so full of holes it would be funny if you weren’t so serious. You require Faith to fill the holes, and you are not even aware that is what you are doing. At least Christians are honest about their faith." It's not faith though, interestingly enough. It's scientific evidence. You mind explaining a predicted chromosomal fusion, identical ERV insertions in humans and other apes, and approximately a 98% identical genome in human-ape analyses?

"Godless – Page 200 William Provine, an evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism 'The greatest engine of atheism devised by man.' His fellow Darwin disciple Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins , famously said 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'"

Argumentum ad vercundiam.

"Darwinism requires faith, (believe, and eventually we’ll fill in these nagging details) Has dogma (Evolution is not to be questioned, especially in school!) Has Tenets (Man evolved from Monkeys, or some other lower life form), opposes most other religions (Is the greatest engine of Atheism devised by man)."

No, it requires evidence. No, it isn't dogma. Evolution is constantly refined and questioned every day in biological circles. What are you talking about? While common descent is universally accepted by biologists, it is how evolution occurred where the rub is. How is the evolution of Man a tenet. And it opposes most religions? You just offended millions of theists who accept evolution and about 40% of the U.S. scientific community.

"Most importantly it affects the very philosophy of how men live, one moment they are on the earth in a probationary state obeying laws, and taking instruction from on high, the next they are one shot accidents, who should live while you can, nothing is right or wrong as long as you enjoy it, and there will be no reward or punishment as long as you die while young and preferably traveling at high speed. (Live fast, die young)"

No, it doesn't. It explains the diversity of life and its relationships, not positing moral consequences.

"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Lamarckism"

"a theory of organic evolution asserting that environmental changes cause structural changes in animals and plants that are transmitted to offspring." It's an okay definition.

"I have said nothing about use, only that new 'Genetic modifications that lead to speciation should also require that they (the creatures of the new species) not be able to breed with prior species or it’s not a new species.

Species: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species All the definitions specify procreation as the defining attribute. If they can interbreed, they are in the same species.

To show speciation, something outside tha lab has to evolve to the point that it cannot breed with it’s ancestors."

You realize that species have multiple definitions correct? Although, I did provide examples of complete speciation. For example, speciation in culex pipiens or in Nereis acuminata.

"Facts do not change our understanding of them does.

There is reality and there is perception. Facts exist in reality, our perception of that reality may change, but facts themselves do not in fact change.

Your definition of science is part of the problem here Science is a system for describing the Reality in which we exist. Newtonian Physics will not change with observation, Quantum physics do. It’s a fact."

You realize that relativity encompassed Newtonian physics correct? Newtonian physics were corrected. Facts themselves are subject to change. Facts are natural phenomena observed either directly or indirectly. For example, it used be a fact, 300-something years ago that mass was constant. This was later falsified by Einstein in the 1900s. There was the universal observation before Newton that mass remained constant. The problem was that the effects of relativity were not readily observable or measurable except at speeds exceeding 10% of the speed of light.

"To borrow your phrase Er, Wrong!"

They are. I already showed how:

"Science is the systematic method of forming explanations of natural phenomena observed both indirectly and directly.
Theories in a scientific context are well-supported systems of explanations of a broad range of related phenomena.

Of course, theories are the goals of science. Of course, your objection arises from 'But, but, a theory is just a wild guess!' Er, wrong. Theories in science are well-supported systems of explanations of natural phenomena and they incorporate facts, tested hypotheses, and inferences. Gravitation is a theory (and a law and a fact), heliocentricity is a theory (and a fact), cell theory is obviously a theory, along with relativity, and atomic theory, and the list goes on. Everything solid in science *is* a theory."

"This is a quote from Dan Rather, and is an allusion to the fakery inherent in your evolution treatise ."

Great, I'll quote myself even more: "At no point in time will a scientists sit down and say that his or her results were %100 [sic] correct, true forever, and thus, are not subject to change. Anything scientific by definition must be tentative and subject to change."

"You gave me a couple of Bogus LABORATORY GENESPLICING experiments which is somehow supposed to show something happening in nature. No, I did not ignore them; I made fun of this pathetic attempt. Humor and sarcasm are not ignoring."

Actually, you did. You very obviously did not notice the section of speciation not involving hybridization, and possibly the subsequent sections.

"Do you mean the fossils in pre cambrean rock that were so small they were not discovered until a microscope was used? The fossils which Darwin himself thought disproved his theory, those fossils?"

Trilobites aren't microscopic. What are you talking about?

"Darwin made his prediction when? How long have we been doing legal and illegal autopsies? (hint long before Darwin) I hereby predict that McKinney will lose against Johnson! (Look, I can predict as well as Darwin)"

What illegal autopsies? They observed the fusion of intermaxillary bone during embryonic development.

"This was also 'Predicted after the fact of it’s finding." Wrong. It was predicted nearly 8 years before it was found.

"Do you know what non-coding DNA is? ID proponents stated that this 'Junk DNA' had a purpose 25years ago. Just now we are finding out that contrary to the Darwinians theories it’s not junk." Yes, that's known. But vast quantities of DNA seem to have no function or appear to be corrupted copies of coding DNA. Much of noncoding DNA very much seems functionless - otherwise, I'd be hard-pressed to explain why Marcelo Nobrega and crew were able to delete entire sections of DNA in mice with no effect.

"So is ID right?"

If they can publish scientific evidence, rather than pursuing a political agenda, they may indeed show the world they're right. If they do, I'll be happy for them for such a monumental discovery then.

"Darwinism is a theory because it can’t be predicted (with regularity), repeated, or measured. (End of Story) Gravity is a law, because it can be repeated, measured and predicted with complete accuracy.
It is sad that you can’t seem to see the difference." Actually, it can. I just gave you some of very specific, risky predictions evolution made and was right about. Here's another:

"An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)

Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water." (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html)

"I agree with Galileo Galilei, I intend to keep thinking about things, you follow a pre planned dogma if you want."

Critical thinking is great. But shutting your eyes and saying that there were no predictions is dissembling.

"We all build on what came before, the engineers of today would just be building something else…

My point was there are dreamers, and doers, you are a dreamer."

Sure. But, it remains that without the explanatory framework of science, engineers more or less have nothing to apply.

"As for the role of science, if all you get are theories, it’s not worth the trouble. Theories are our predictions based on our perceptions, Facts are truth independently verified, measured, repeated, predictable. Evolution is a theory, not a fact (Hint, there is a reason the full title is The Theory of Evolution)"

Theories are well-substantiated explanations of a broad range of related natural phenomena. Science exists to explain the natural world around us. Theories are the goals of science, it's as simple as that.

Theories are also verified, measured, replicable, and predictable. This is precisely what makes them falsifiable. Evolution is a theory to be sure. But, it is also a fact. The overwhelming evidence would suggest so. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)

Also, the full title is actually the Synthetic Theory of Evolution.

[webstersII]

"Wrong; it is. I already gave you a clue: falsification tests. Experiments are not the only way to test theories."

Please describe the falsification tests for the Big Bang.