Replies

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton's and Copernicus' evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable. And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial. Two absolutely different things. The former has good basis for belief, the other does not. This sounds very much like Dawkins calling people who teach their children that God made the universe "CHILD ABUSERS".

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton's and Copernicus' evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable.

Neither are tectonic shifts or many other phenomena that take longer than the span of human experience. They are inferable. And they are subject to a better, more grounded, better-backed explanation being presented.

If ID has a better case and a better body of evidence, it's being awfully coy about it.

And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.

Okay. And?

I have never made and will never make the case that science is incompatible with Christianity, or with any religion. Faith and science are two areas of life that compliment each other, but neither should supplant the other.

For every evolutionary biologist -- Richard Dawkins is pretty lonely out on that limb -- who attack religion, there are at least a hundred wannabe theologians attacking science. I won't belabor it.

This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial.

No. I am making the point that just because two theories exist, it does not make the two theories equivalent in weight and value. Holocaust denial is not equivalent to established, documented history, because it is wrong. Because the facts speak otherwise. There is no obligation to "teach the controversy" just because some fringe group has an alternate theory.

I apologize for pushing an emotional button. The Holocaust exists in living memory; I have met survivors. I have seen the tattoos. None of us have such an intimate connection with a T. Rex. But to teach as if it were science that his razor-sharp incisors and vestigial forearms were designed to crack coconuts -- are you kidding me?

>> Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word “Darwinism” is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton’s and Copernicus’ evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable. And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.<<

FYI, if you hear a scientist use the term Darwinism he is almost certainly using the term to mean Darwin’s philosophy in the 1800’s to avoid confusing that philosophy with modern evolutionary theory which is not considered to have begun for at least 70 years after Origin of the Species.

Even “survival of the fittest” is more Lamarckian than Darwinian and Lamarck fell out of favor in the West while in the Soviet Union if became Lysenkoism and almost destroyed Soviet agriculture.

That’s a long winded way of say Darwin was a brilliant scientist (and recognized in his time) but didn’t begin, much less complete modern evolutionary theory.

Darwinism is not evolutionary theory.