Replies

Yeah, right! More likely the guy would be out of a job.... There is no future for anyone who tries to substitute "I don't know" for a theory.

Aside from the way too obvious opening for snidely commenting on ID as being an 'I don't know' theory, all I can say about this remark is it is a hypothetical that has no basis in reality that you could point to for support.

Nobody claiming evolution is a fact? Then why is this happening? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439784/posts

That article provides a nice example of equivocation regarding the word evolution from the creationist side, but I fail to see one from the evolutionist side. I didn't sort through the posts, though. If there is one in specific you wish me to see, please identify it.

Now, back to the origin of our current exchange: I have called your statement of 'What rules are these? They can't be very robust as we have [evolutionist] scientists constantly saying that evolution is not a theory but a proven fact.' a fallacy of equivocation. Either directly answer this challenge or concede the point.

Firstly, the link is to an article regarding the hysterical reaction of the scientific (and advocacy) community to the attempt to explicitly state that evolution is a theory. It is actually very relevant.

As to your charge of equivocation: it is you who is flitting between the general, the specific, and the academic meaning of terms as you see fit. What we are discussing here is public policy and these discussions rightfully take place in the lexicon of the general public, not academic jargon which to outsiders appears to say one thing while meaning another.

Like it or not, to the public, evolution means natural selection & mutation as the only cause of change and spontaneous generation. If you don't like this association don't complain to me.

The proposition that science can state exactly why change occurred in the remote past is absurdly unprovable and that fact is not altered by bundling it together with other more provable notions and calling it a package deal.

Since I was racing to get OOO get me explain my reaction to your assertion that evolution could be "rocked" by anything. I agree with you if by "rocked" you mean surprise twinged with professional embarrassment followed by glee at the prospect of more research funding. But not if by "rock" you mean collapse.

For example, if a new life form was found which could not be related to any other, what would happen? Well, someone would postulate that since/if life spontaneously arose once, there was no scientific reason it could not have happened twice. Throw in dual descent and presto - evolution has been saved! It is totally predictable.

You pretend that science is completely rational, has no ulterior motives, and that even a lousy answer from "science" is better than anything else. This sort of reasoning may be popular in faculty lounges and with radical secularists but the public knows better.