We don't need your civil war. Don't believe in God, so what. Don't try to say science somehow shows this. The politicization of science by liberals (with iconization of Darwin as the most widespread example) is not science nor has it anything to do with science. And it is very harmful to science on many levels.
Actually I did six years of grad school, half in evolution and related fields (mostly bones), and never once heard the word "Darwinism." With few exceptions, Darwin wasn't even mentioned!
He formulated his theory before almost all of the hominid fossils were found (I think a Neanderthal was found just a couple of years before he published, but that's about it.)
But you know, his theory fit the fossils when they came along. And his theory fit the genetics a century later when DNA became so critical.
I don't know what "iconization of Darwin" and "politicization of science by liberals" has to do with me, so I'll just ignore those comments for the time being.
As for a civil war? What motivates me to participate in these threads is (1) the attempt to force religion into science classes, and (2) the deliberate misrepresentation of, and attacks on, science by those attempting to do (1).
You want to see what I mean by deliberate misrepresentation, all you have to do is check out the creationism websites. They are full of half truths and outright lies, all promulgated in an attempt to twist science to fit particular religious beliefs.
Just check out what they say about radiocarbon dating, for starters. That is one of my fields, so I can recognize BS when I see it. You could fertilize all of Kansas, with some prime material left over for Missouri, with what you get from a dozen creationist sites.
So, its not a civil war to me, but a defense of science. I don't attack, but generally respond to attacks. I choose to defend science with fact, well-reasoned theory, and rational debate. (But I might toss in a pun or a little gentle sarcasm as needed.)
Exactly.
What motivates me to participate in these threads is (1) the attempt to force religion into science classes,
Which started largely in response to attempts to politicize science in class rooms.
You could fertilize all of Kansas, with some prime material left over for Missouri, with what you get from a dozen creationist sites.
Or from the other side -- which is not science. This is not a science issue. To the extent that you Coyoteman are part of the civil war it is in not recognizing this.
What happens is that the veneer of science and its associated authority is used by people for socio-political ends. Global warming is the most blatant example. Darwinianism, which as you and me both know from first hand experience isn't even an issue in real life science programs, is used to beat up on "fundies" and the like in the context of the culture war.
Darwin has become a religious symbol of sorts to those who oppose traditional religious ideas.
You seem to be knowledgeable about this evolution stuff. Perhaps you can help me with two things that have always seemed a little "off" about evolution to me.
A. If evolution is a slow process occuring over millions of years where are all the transitionary species in the fossil record?
You can make a good case for evolution within major grouping such as 'fish, 'bird', 'reptile', etc., but where are all of the 'fish in the process of becoming amphibians'and 'reptiles in the process of becoming birds', fossils?
Since evolution is a process, it would seem logical to deduce that 'pure' fish, birds, etc. ought to be mere tiny waypoints on the evolutionary spectrum, and that the fossil record ought to consist almost entirely of transitionary species.
B. Why aren't we seeing a lot of evolution going on right now? There doesn't seem to be any particular scientific reason why this should not be happening.
The only example that I have heard of is the 'walking catfish'. Shouldn't we be up to our eyeballs in 'evolving' creatures? Shouldn't we be seeing all sort of creatures in various states of evolving? Yet all we see are the same old 'insects', 'fish', 'birds', 'reptiles'.
Perhaps evolution is waiting for its Einstein to come along to advance it beyond Darwin's Newton.
Good sir...please prove the beginning of the Universe...can't you say? Well you trust it began as science says, correct? Same concept for those of us who believe God created the Universe by His commands...can't prove it, yet I believe it...
Haven't you ever wondered how science in and of itself shows that the Universe couldn't have just started yet that's what the entire basis of the gradual evolution of our planet and all species rests on...surely you follow the law of quantum physics that says matter cannot be CREATED or destroyed. So by our human limits we cannot create matter...so if we can't or the Universe itself by random chances over substantial time frames can't then where did it all come from? Hmmmmmmmm.....