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?
[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.”]
Bzzzt lie!!! Did you not see the word evolutionists in his statement? I could care less how many accademic evolutionists are included- the word was evolutionists
But again sigh- this is entirely irrelevent to the discussion APART from the fact that RUSE Himself did say a growing number of EVOLUTIONISTS are having trouble with the model of evolution-
You seem obsessed with the quote of one man and seem content thinking that be4cause he himslef didn’t posit a complete denial of evolution in ANY form that therefore the 4 mentioned symposiums filled with scientists who presented their objections to the dartwinian model of evolution is thusly irrelevent. Good for you- you keep on beleiving the 4 major symposiums were of no consequence
[Perhaps, after all of this, we can agree that Dr. Ruse’s quotation should not be used to argue against the theory of evolution?
]
Actually no we can’t agree because it IS relevent to what Stultis claimed. Regardless of how much importance it is in a singular context when wiegghed against the numerous other evidences I showed indicating that there are indeed scientists who have problems with the model of darwin’s proposed hypothesis of eovlution.
The greatest hope for evolution right now stands with the hypothesis of lateral gene transference- why? Because the problems of mutations creating NEW information are just too damning to the old model. Gumlegs mentioned Woese- and I’m glad he did, because it highlights the biological problem that the folks at those symposiums brought out when they went on record as having doubts about the old model of eovlution through mutation, and lateral gene transference proposes the mechanism by which evolution can or did aquire the necessary NEW information. However, As I mentioned in my post to gumlegs, even lateral gene transference has it’s many impossible hurdles, but it at least addresses the problems of, and exposes why gene reshuffling, mutatiuons, or any of the other mechanisms that are attributed to the old model can’t possibly work beyuong mere genetic variability within a species own KIND.