If you’d like to revise your comments to more accurately portray what has taken place- I’ll accept it as an apology- otherwise I/’ll simply assume you’re simply not interested in telling the truth.
No problem. You just go on calling me a liar and I will continue posting the facts.
Our discussion was of a quote you posted, supposedly showing the weakness of evolutionary theory. You posted:
An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.I asked you to post the entire quotation, but you didn't. I found a bit more of the quotation:
Although still a minority, an increasing number of scientists, most particularly, a growing number of evolutionists, particularly academic philosophers, argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all."When you examine the expanded quote, you find that the author, Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, is not saying that the theory of evolution is increasingly seen as weak by scientists. He is talking about "academic philosophers."
But if you search the web, you can find what Dr. Ruse really thinks about creation science vs. evolution. Check out the court testimony from McLean v. Arkansas. It is here.
A few excerpts:
Q You say that scientists today agree that evolution happened.A: Yes.
Q Why is that so?
A: Well, quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you find that creation science measures up to the methodological considerations you described earlier as significant in distinguishing scientific from nonscientific endeavors?A: No. My feeling is that really it doesn't. I think that, for example, they play all sorts of slights of hand; they quote all sorts of eminent evolutionists out of context, implying that evolutionists are not saying quite what they are saying, implying they are saying other sorts of things.
In other words, what I'm saying is, I think that the creation scientists do all sorts of things that I teach my students in introductory logic not to do.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you believe that creation science approaches its subject honestly?A: No, I don't.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty about whether creation science is science?A:Yes, I do.
Q And what is that opinion?
A:That it is not science.
Q What do you think it is?
A:Well, speaking as a philosopher and speaking, also, as one who teaches philosophy of religion, I would say that it is religion.
But when we examine what the author's actual position is, as shown by court testimony, he supports evolution and agrees that creation science is neither science nor approaching its subject honestly.
Perhaps, after all of this, we can agree that Dr. Ruse's quotation should not be used to argue against the theory of evolution?