Oh give us this day our creationist spam...
Ping!
Just so we know exactly who we're talking about, how many "evolutionists" are "such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne"?
They are no more indicative of the attitudes of scientists as a whole than militant creationists with credentials.
And the last thing they should do is delve into their “theological thinking” more deeply; they should abandon their pretense that they have any sort of privileged insight into religious belief at all.
Asking an atheist for information or insight about religion is like asking a virgin to give you information or insight about sex.
I like the quotes:
“the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections”
So arguing God wouldn’t have done it this way is “not a theological argument”. Hmmm....
There is not much to say about these meaningless as hominem attack.
I’ll just say that evolution is natural history. Those who study natural history just go with what they get. They are not going to give up their work just because people think they are part of an anti-religion conspiracy.
>> My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job.
That’s a pretty common misconception about Job. He started bitching pretty heavily after two chapters (out of 40-ish). Then God told him to butch up and stop his whining (that’s a paraphrase of Job 38). God may have even called him “Nancy” somewhere in there.
SnakeDoc
Christians of all people know how difficult it is to stop sinning. What makes this author believe non-Christians can stop it?
Are Creationists delusional?
“Evolutionists like to make factual claims. One fact that is incontrovertible is that evolution is driven by theological claims—that is a matter of public record. Evolution is a religious theory. What is interesting is that the evolutionist denies any such thing. He may as well be denying the nose on his own face. This is truly a fascinating mythology.”
Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Now who is that has a problem with that facts?
A typical straw man argument, but when that is the best you have
But what I fail to understand is how “it is just too complicated to understand so that proves that God did it” can be considered as science?
How evolution acts to bridge the chasm between two discrete physiological states is a question that's long puzzled scientists.
THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model.
...understanding how evolution makes the leap from one to another phenotype...
THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model.
This study provides a concrete example of a particular scenario to explain developmental evolution.
THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model. They weren't trying to show how winged insects developed their wings like this POS article wants you to think so they could beat the strawman to death and get you to think this was about anything more than it was. They gave what is called general background verbiage and then provided their specific research, nothing more.
Yeah yeah.....Man lived in the time of dinosaurs and HIV does not cause AIDS.