[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.
Stultis seems to have made the mistake of arguing in absolutes. All absolutes, particularly with regards to people's opinions, can be proven false by the anomolous or trivial. You get credit for having done so.