And who is going to provide "an independent objective critical look" at evolution?
Fundamentalists? Creation "scientists?" The Dyscovery Institute?
Independent and objective, right! Tell us another one.
Talk about folks with an ax to grind, and folks without the scientific training or technical background required to competently evaluate the sciences.
All you have to do is look at the various creationist websites to see how "independent and objective" the really are. Here is a good example:
The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound "independent and objective?"
Sorry, this is apologetics, not science. And folks like these are not qualified to provide "an independent objective critical look" at evolution. Not even close.
folks with an ax to grind, and folks without the scientific training or technical background required to competently evaluate the sciences.
& the tens of thousands of PhD scientists.
How about all of us together dig into all the thousands and thousands of PHD thesis on all the floors of all the libraries that you appeal too, and see how just many should be tossed out because they are now obsolete at the least, and essentially worthless because they were based to varying degrees on past works. Works in which those in turn were built on evidences that later turned out to be fraud fabrication, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, and so on.
I hardly came from a religious family, and my doubts as to evolution came entirley on my own during a time when it was ‘settled science’. A few years later I was at the Chicago museum walking through the entire evolution series of exhibits. And not only looking, but reading too. I I came along the ‘Java Man’, and there in tiny writing I read that Dubious had not released those fragments to the science world for over 60 years, and there were other similar little indicators about each exhibit.
A few years later at various University's, I actually did read 40 or 50 of these PHD thesis from various individuals, and a pattern emerged. I saw how unoriginal most of their works were, and it was based on other works, works later shown to be false and quietly shelved away.
When a person actually takes a look at it evolutionary thought, it breaks down fairly fast.
No coyote- their PERSONAL BELIEFS OUTSIUDE OF THE SCIENCE don’t sound objective- but listen up- for hte last time- a club’s personal beleifs OUTSIDE OF THE FACTUAL SCIENCE have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS OF THE SCIENCE that ID Scientists study- nothign at all
EVERY statement of beleif is also ABSOLUTELY consistent with the science gathered as I’ve made more than clear to you in the past- this is what is so tiring about folks like you- We show time and itme again that things like htis- personal beleifs, outside of the actual factual science have NOTHING to do with the science, and are entirely consistent with the science, and yet you REPEATEDLY ignore the easily debunked accusations and try to imply that ID science begins and ends with a club’s own PERSONAL BELIEFS- when anyone with an odicum of common sense who has actually taken a look at hte PURE ID SCIENCE knows you accusation to be a false and dishonest misrepresentation of ID science. You scream about intellectual honesty when ID and Creation scientists make honest mistakes, and accuse htem of intentional misleadings when you quite BLATANTLY MISLEAD others time and tiem again about ID
[[1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths]]
There is NOTHING inconsistent with science about htis- when you can prove MACROEVOLUTION, THEN and ONLY then can you say that they are misled- until then ALL you have is your own PERSONAL BELIEF that man came from mud
[[2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds]
Since hwne are scientists NOT allowed their own PERSONAL OPINIONS in science? Since hwne Coyote? This statement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the scientific evidences gathered EXCEPT to validate the FACTS found in science that itnelligent design is commonplace in species and that created k9inds are MUCH BETTER supported by Baraminology than is the fractured and broekn hypothetical tree of Macroevolution
[[3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect]]
Of which they have evidnece that strongly suggests it happened- when you positively can prove that it couldn’t have happened, then you can belittle and malign anyone who holds the position all you like- until then ALL you have is your own PERSONAL OPINION that it didn’t happen
Pointing to their personal beleifs OUTSIDE of the LIGITIMATE science that they do is an intellectually dishonest, and intellectually stunted attempt to malign someone based on NOTHING but your own persoanl bias against htem- did you hear that coyote? Your own personal bias against htem- If you are claiming that people with personal beleifs can’t study science and present factual evidences that support their beleif in intelligent design, then you are showing that you sir are NOT objective at all- Shall we simply scoff and laugh at you and call you an agendist disciple of humanism and nothign but a pseudoscientist because you beleive in somethign that can NOT be shown with the science and is nothign but an assumption that is unproven ? Shall we repeatedly post our feeligns about that everytime you comment? Shall we simply ignore all the scientific facts that you present and dismiss them point blank because you hold PERSONAL OPINIONS that go BEYOND the science Coyote? Shall we call all your scientific evidences void and null and simply ignore any defense you mount time and time again and just keep chiuldishly posting htem as you do the PERSONAL STATEMENTS OF BELIEF OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENCE of some clubs within the ID movement and shall we then suggest ot everyone that hte whole branch of evolutio nscience is nullified because of your own unsupported PERSONAL BELIEFS?
Your bias and intellectually dishonest accusations sure sound liek apologetics to me, and not true science- and just for the record, I’ll be copying htis to repost everytime you post the NON ISSUE of personal statements of faith when you try to denigrade, malign and ridicule ID science based on soem individual organization’s PERSONAL BELIEFS that are OUTSIDE and quite SEPERATE FROM the actual scientific facts that they investigate.