[apologist]

But the real problem is an advantage: Dimensio says, "The theory of evolution has no inherent political bias." In his view, the fact is evolution. Since evolution is science, voila! ergo-propter-hoc, evolution is without bias or prejudice.

If you believe that the theory of evolution actually has inherent bias, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate as much.

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed. Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors. Human free will is not an acceptable factor for consideration, since in a system where, ultimately, ALL behaviors are the product of, and allegedly explainable by, physical processes, there is no such thing as true free will. We are all, as Pearcey states in her book Total Truth, machines made out of meat.

And Pearcey illustrates the logical conclusion of such thinking, by evolutionists, with the examples brought out in the article at the beginning of this thread (e.g., Pinker).

[cornelis]

bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed

That's a bias. Usually criticism are the kind that says you're wrong, show me the evidence, give me proof, and so on. But this is a bias that isolates the subject matter in a privileged way so that it bars evidence and frames the debate.

It's a bias, apologist, but not inherent or intrinsic to all theories of evolution. Dimensio never forgets to bait his hook.

[Dimensio]

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed.

This is a limitation of the scope of science, not a "bias" specifically of the theory of evolution.

Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

Do you have evidence that it does not?

ALL behaviors are the product of, and allegedly explainable by, physical processes, there is no such thing as true free will. We are all, as Pearcey states in her book Total Truth, machines made out of meat.

Please justify this claim with evidence.

And Pearcey illustrates the logical conclusion of such thinking, by evolutionists, with the examples brought out in the article at the beginning of this thread (e.g., Pinker).

How does this demonstrate a "bias" with the theory of evolution? For what, exactly, are you arguing?

[betty boop]

The inherent bias is that metaphysical considerations are not allowed. Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors.

You know, apologist, the evolutionist's statement itself seems to be inherently "metaphysical" -- though of a bastardized sort, it seems.

[TXnMA]

"Evolution must explain all human behaviors and the outcomes of those behaviors."

Even including this discussion on FR? '-}