Replies

A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. To present both sides of this argument is the only way to come to a fair result.

"I don't know of any alternate naturalistic explanation, one that accunts for all the data"

Here is a question that has been asked. Is there a naturalistic explanation that accounts for all the data?

Presenting two sides to this question is almost impossible in public school and college today. We have a coercive environment. This is touched upon in the Kennedy video. On these matters, I think there was more academic freedom in Darwin’s day.

"There are an infinite number of supernatural explanations. How many do you want taught in school?"

Simply acknowledging that a supernatural explanation may be valid will do for me.

By the way, this can be played both ways. Yes, religion has been presented many ways, but so has evolution. For example, on some recent FR threads some evolutionists have relied on the phrase “survival of the fittest,” while on other threads evolutionists deny that the phrase has anything to do with evolution. It seems that evolutionists can use the phrase, but when critics of evolution use the phrase, they are wrong.

Again, I enjoyed the video, and wonder if anyone else saw it. We’ve had a lot of hot air, but I don’t know that many have been open minded or organized enough to see the video. The video did require an advertisement. But this highlights another aspect of the current debate: one side has ample taxpayer funding, and the other does not.

Simply acknowledging that a supernatural explanation may be valid will do for me.

OK. Any of thousands of supernatural explanations may be valid. Gnomes from the interior of the earth may control volcanoes and earthquakes. Sprites may control the weather. Does that add anything to the sum of useful knowledge?

Science looks for regular patterns. That is what science is and does. If you aren't looking for orderly phenomena, you aren't doing science.

For example, on some recent FR threads some evolutionists have relied on the phrase “survival of the fittest,” while on other threads evolutionists deny that the phrase has anything to do with evolution.

It has something to do with evolution, but it's not an accurate summary of evolution, and it's not a good description of what goes on in the world. It implies that there is some objective standard for fitness, and there is not. In the real world, individuals survive for many reasons, not all of which are foreseeable.