Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Another World Net Daily article on the Discovery Institute is hardly news. Scientists, doctors, and engineers are people. It is possible to find all manner of obscure and minority viewpoints among them. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people working in scientific and biological disciplines accept natural selection and descent with modification as being best explanation for the evidence we have. Both the fossil record and DNA analysis strongly support evolutionary theory, and our understanding of fossil evidence and DNA evidence is crosschecked with our understanding of other physical sciences such as physics and chemistry. To suggest that it is a theory on its last legs or facing serious opposition with scientific circles is disingenuous at best.


1,109 posted on 07/21/2006 12:25:41 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Liberal Classic

Evolution has been in crisis since 1859. Not a year goes by when it isn't abandoned by science.


1,110 posted on 07/21/2006 12:28:16 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies ]

To: Liberal Classic

In the meantime, world famous critics of evolution like Behe, Dembski and Denton, abandon their opposition to common descent.


1,112 posted on 07/21/2006 12:29:35 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies ]

To: Liberal Classic

Appealing to 'truth by popularity' is the well-known fallacy of 'appeal to popularity'. Particularly when followed on by the tired deception that fossils represent a 'record' and that DNA 'analysis' is independent of an assumption of common descent. Both are firmly based on that assumption. Now that's disingenuous.

You would also need to understand that the fossil 'record' and DNA 'analysis' are metaphysical interpretations of evidence based on an 'a priori' requirement of naturalism. Science is strictly limited to natural explanations, therefore it should be no surprise that only natural explanations are allowed.

Then ask yourself whether limiting yourself to naturalistic explanations is appropriate if you are indeed looking at a supernatural creation or whether it guarantees a wrong answer.

Once you understand that, you could begin your search for specific *evidence* that uniquely supports evolution. You won't find any. The 'support' for the theory is wholly in the 'interpretation' of the data.

Most evos just can't grasp that fact, however and really aren't interested in doing that much thinking.


1,114 posted on 07/21/2006 12:39:32 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson