Battle over evolution heating up

News 8 Austin ^ | 8/20/2003 | Antonio Castelan

[metacognative]

The relation is; unless you are an ardent atheist..you also believe in creation...you 'creationist'!

[King Prout]

you expect folks to know the difference between scio, cogno, and credo?

[WOSG]

"The Nation of Islam believes that the white race is the result of an alien scientist's experiment gone awry. Shall we include that one?"

If they can get the alien scientist to show up for show 'n tell, I'd say go for it. :-)

I've noticed a tendency to use kooky ideas as a foil / scare tactic to reject introduction of mainstream religious ideas.
Nice debating tactic, but not practical pedagogy. Go with the main ideas that have influenced actual western civilization, seems a clear enough rule I'd say.

[longshadow]

happy placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

you expect folks to know the difference between scio, cogno, and credo?

Est semper spes.

[King Prout]

sed est numquam expectes ;)

[dogbrain]

Battle over evolution?

This one's in the bag.
As far as I know, the monkeys may have troops, but they don't have any guns.

[f.Christian]

They have ... lost ((link)) --- a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

[hoosierskypilot]

goes along its merry way, being scientific

Only when it is able to demonstrate its conclusions. It (science) has not been able to demonstrate evolution, hence, the debate.

Seriously, if you were correct, there would not be so much controversy. The fact is that even experts are merely "guessing."

[PatrickHenry]

Only when it is able to demonstrate its conclusions. It (science) has not been able to demonstrate evolution, hence, the debate. Seriously, if you were correct [that goes along its merry way, being scientific], there would not be so much controversy. The fact is that even experts are merely "guessing."

In a very loose sense of the word, every scientific theory is a "guess." But a well-informed guess, which is something very far from a wild shot in the dark. Scientific theories are designed to be explanatory models for the data they purport to explain. Any scientific theory must be testable. It should make predictions. (Neither of these applies to creationism.) If a scientific theory fails to survive such a test, it will be revised, or even disgarged. As long as a theory continues to provide a useful explanatory model, consistent with the data, it will be regarded as a good scientific theory.

You may find these articles helpful. The first is short. The second is much longer, but loaded with information on this issue:
Is Evolution Science?.
29 Evidences: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

[Heartlander]

What does ID predict, and how can it be falsified?

Please read the links I provided.

[Rudder]

The only proponents of Creationism are the boogeymen who live inside of evolutionist's minds. Why is that?

What is that?... 'The Boogeyman in the evolutionists' minds, etc.?'

Because, as I've stated endlessly, Creationism is a pejorative term invented by evolutionists...Help me out here, I'm having trouble getting your gist.

[thulldud]

Not sure what this means....

[metacognative]

That's what evolution is; alchemy. Lead to Gold. Algae to Ecosystem. Something from Nothing. Too much faith for me!

[gore3000]

I'd contribute to stand up for science.

Then you should be opposed to evolution, it is not science. There is tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution , as well as many Amazing Creatures which in no way could have evolved as evolution claims. There are also plenty of reasons to say Bye, Bye Darwin.

[=Intervention=]

People who believe that God created the earth in some amount of days don't call themselves Creationists! Sure, there are a few who have adopted the term, but the term is a pejorative belittling term created by scientists to disparage such adherants to the idea.

[Dimensio]

I did examine the sites via the links provided by you. I will continue to examine them, but this far I have not located any description of what ID predicts nor any falsification criteria for it.

[Rudder]

I'm a scientist and I didn't know.

[hoosierskypilot]

But atheistic evolution purports to be fact, not a "guess." And any who challenge the "facts" concerning evolution are dismissed as unscientific.

Richard Goldschmidt (Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist American Scientist) says, "The incessant repetitionof this unproved claim (of micromutational evolution), glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine."

I still contend it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. But, if evolutionists were honest about the shortcoming of their religion, maybe there could be more honest dialogue.

[Rudder]

But, if evolutionists were honest about the shortcoming of their religion, maybe there could be more honest dialogue.

Talk about begging the question!!