Replies

"Why not teach evolution -- as in randomness is responsible for life and all bio-diversity -- in a mythology or religion class?"

So painful... do we not agree that the scientific community is the authority that tells us what is scientific, and what is not? Well the scientific community unanimously agrees with evolution.

You people keep saying evolution is not well supported, well go do a bloody search in the major biology journals for papers on evolution! Count how many hits you get... about 2000 each journal! Now count how many dispute evolution. If you found one I would be very very surprised. If you found an acceptable percentage, say 10% (about 200 each journal), I would say there is adequate disagreement among the scientific community and I would promise to come here everyday and trash evolution with you.

How much easier can I make it for you? I can't come to your house and work the keyboard for you, so put your money where your mouth is and provide us the evidence that evolution is in question with the scientific community. Hell, if you find one paper I would be so curious I'd take over the search. Proving evolution wrong would throw the entire life sciences into upheaval since so much research is based on what evolution says.

Now of course you will change your tune and say "there is a big naturalist conspiracy to support evolution." In which case, fine. You want to espouse your unaccountable conspiracy theory, that is your opinion, and inconsequential to any real debate. BUT, you have to stop spreading lies about evolution being unscientific!

Dude, relax a bit. No need to get the blood pressure up. As a veteran of a thousand crevo wars,* take it from me -- the best you can do is put up the evidence for the lurkers and undecideds to peruse. Most of the creos on these threads haven't had an original argument in years; they go with the little bit they've got.

*Lyrics posted yesterday.

Now of course you will change your tune and say "there is a big naturalist conspiracy to support evolution." In which case, fine. You want to espouse your unaccountable conspiracy theory, that is your opinion, and inconsequential to any real debate.

Paper is cheap and the internet is cheaper. No one's view or opinions or findings can be censored.

Evolution will be in trouble just as soon as someone publishes an alternative history that is consistent with geology, physics, chemistry, and the accumulated facts of biology.

There are several IDers on FR that do not argue for a young earth and do not dispute that evolution occurred. The dispute the mechanism by which speciation occurs. That would put them within mainstream science -- just as soon as they can demonstrate an alternative mechanism, other than miracles.

My own pet peeve is that most of the dispute on these threads centers on the mechanisms that produce change -- mutations, copying, insertions, etc. There is one poster in particular who likes to call attention to long stretches of conserved non-coding DNA. Fine, that is a good problem that needs solving. I would be curious to see how ID proposes to research the problem.

do we not agree that the scientific community is the authority that tells us what is scientific, and what is not

LOL. Uh, no.

The "scientific community" is self-creditionaled and made up of human beings. Why would anyone with a shred of dignity submit their intellecutal autonomy to them or agree that their prouncements should be accepted uncritically?

Anyway, the way you are using the phrase is basically undefiable. Why shouldn't anti-evoltutionists such as Dembski or Behe be considered part of the "scientific community?" They have credentials and have been published in peer reviewed journals.

Others with creds have said their work meets standards for publication but have been rejected due to the subject matter -- which frankly does not appear to be very scientific.