> Meet the ID's latest martyr, Guillermo Gonzalez.
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leading proponent of theory targeted by atheists,
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU).
Credentials: Born in Havana, he and his family fled from Cuba to the United States in 1967, where he earned a Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington in 1993. Author of nearly 70 peer-reviewed scientific papers and co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook, Dr. Gonzalez’s work led to the discovery of two new planets, and he has had his research featured in Science, Nature, and on the cover of Scientific American. He is building new technology to discover extrasolar planets. He served on the NASA Astrobiology Institute Review Panel in June 2003, and the National Science Foundation Advanced Technologies and Instruments review panel in January 2005. And He has served as a referee for Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal (and Letters), Icarus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Origins of Life and Evolution Biospheres and Science.
The Crime: Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez contributed to scientific Intelligent Design Video 'Privileged Planet'.
The Punishment: Religious studies professor Hector Avalos—faculty advisor to the campus Atheist and Agnostic Society—began publicly campaigning against Dr. Gonzalez and his work in order to “uphold the integrity of our university” by “reject[ing] efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.” Furthermore, in the spring of 2007, when ISU President Gregory Geoffroy denied Dr. Gonzalez’s application for tenure, despite Iowa State University's Physics and Astronomy Department recommendation that Dr. Gonzalez receive an Associates Professorship.
This followed on the heals of of the attack on the Smithsonian Institutes science magazine that included an article written by Stephen Meyer that supports Intelligent Design ("The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," which cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.) Mr. Meyers holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. The article was received by the Institutes Richard Sternberger, who placed the article in the peer review process, was reviewed by 3 scientists, and approved for publication. The powers that be among evolution ideologues from Talk Origins to Academia shed their rage against the Smithsonian for allowing this ID paper to be even sent for peer review, much less be published.
Richard Sternberg in particular came under heavy vicious attacks from outside and inside the Smithsonian prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The Smithsonian issued an apology to evolutionists and promised their magazine will never again publish another science paper that supports intelligently design. And who had not heard evolutionists belittle creationary scientists by claiming their science is so wrong and poor that they can't get them published in major science journals and periodicals.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel eventually determined that Mr. Sternberg had indeed been discrimnated against, and in a most vicious and unprofessional manner.
Once again the lunatic atheist fringe that control our public education continue to use their power of censorship to control what students, and the public, may hear and think.
1984 has come and past, yet George Orwell's "1984" is alive and well in the hands of atheistic pro-evolutionary thought Police who enforce their evolutionary belief system on an unwary public despite their theory's failings as science.
In our educational systems a few evolutionary agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous.
And in the general hardening of outlook that has set in, practices which had been long abandoned: Censorship, Ad hominem Attacks, Ridicule, Public Humiliation, A Science established by Authority rather than Evidence and Reason - not only became common again, but is tolerated and even defended by people who consider themselves to be enlightened and progressive. Defenders of THE TRUTH, they seek to eradicate, in their words, "purveyors of Thoughtcrime".
Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they are bound to get you. Creationary scientists simply disappeared, always during the night, in the darkness. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Evolutionism Oligarchy imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the materialists slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
Day by day and almost minute by minute the past has been brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by evolutionism could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the evolutionism of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All evolutionary science was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.
------------------------
My challenge to those who responded is to provide a strong bit of specific scientific evidence that has clearly lead you to accept evolution as being a scientific fact, as so many of you wantonly proclaim. Please be specific and provide one piece of evidence from science at a time. Be prepared to defend whatever convincing scientific evidence you set forth.
I, on my part, aim to respond, with the hope of demonstrating that: Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
To wet your appetite, note the following:
Scientists abandoning Evolution
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities. ... Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Science Digest:
`Educators against Darwin', winter, 1979.
In a Newsweek article, 1985, "The great body of work by Charles Darwin is under increasing attack and not only by Creationists, but by all sorts of other scientists." In this same article, one evolutionist stated that "things have gotten so bad in the field of Evolution that I am thinking of moving into a field with more intellectual honesty, like being a used car salesman."
"Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time. not too long ago when it seemed to the world at large that triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes. and in the prestigious halls of academe. The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing descent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully, as one could say."
J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Telhardism and the New Religion" 1988, Tan Books and Publishers Inc..
ON BIOLOGY:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, And biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith ? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to a belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." Evolutionist L. Harrison
Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwins "The Origin of the Species", J.M. Dent &
Sons LTD, London, 1971, p xi.
ON ABIOGENESIS (Evolution of life from non-living matter)
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
"Considerable disgreement between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic , molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and the processes by which these proceeses occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all livings cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence."
"It appears the field has now reach a stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments dominate over facts on based on experimentation or observation"
[and]
"In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthrough during the past 30 years to help the origin of chiralty in living cells,"
Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348.
Eminent Evolutionist, A.I. Oparin, In the preface of Dean Kenyon's book, 'Biochemical Predestination', (Mcgraw Hill, 1969 edition, and was the best selling advanced level book on chemical evolution in the 1970's, written in Professor Kenyon's (Ph.D. Biophysics, BS Physics) evolutionist days) wrote:
"It is not only my professional opinion, but that of many leading evolutionary scientists at present, and in the past as well, that Creation Science and Evolution are the sole scientific alternative explanations, though each have a variety of approaches. ... To sum it up, biological creation is scientific, and in fact is stronger than biological evolution." German Edition (1974).
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)
On Darwinian evolution:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable,and so far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173
On the General Theory of Evolution (Macro-evolution - That all species share a common ancestry)
Professor J. Wolfgang Smith wrote:
"The salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall) then it can be said with utmost vigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there is not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
"... We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consist." Professor J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Teilhardism and the New Religion', 1988, Tan Books and Publishers. pp. 2,5,6.
On the interpretation of Scientific Data in support of evolution
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." (Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist
Looks at evolution," Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)
"Any reasonably graded series of forms can be thought to have legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relationships from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution [Macro-evolution]". Thomson
`Marginalia, the Meaning of Evolution' 70 Am. Scientist 529-530,
(1982).
ON Evolutionists and the Evidence they offer in support of evolution
" I probably will be chastised by them [his more cynical evolutionists colleagues] for writing this preface, as if in doing so I give aid and comfort to an enemy of true science. ... I do so because the book has virtue as criticism of evolutionary theory.
"It has virtue even though its criticism is loaded like the proverbial pair of dice. ... He [creationist W. R. Bird] rolls the dice with style. He rolls them over and over again with the same result. I may be too optimistic to expect my colleagues learn much if anything from Mr. Bird's effort. But there is something in his book for all of them...
"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that the evidence, or proof, of origins- of the Universe, of life, of all major groups of life, of all the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species- is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be.
"He is correct also that what evidence there is, is sometimes, even often, exaggerated by evolutionists. Yes, they load their own dice, for they too, are human. They, too, play to the gallery, to the jury, to the judges. Were they entirely wise rather than adversarial, they would never have claimed to do the impossible: to have proved the correctness of their views by offering evidence of the origin of things. One might just as well attempt to prove stability by offering as evidence a pyramid balanced on its apex." Evolutionist, Gareth J. Nelson, Chairman and Curator, Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024. Preface to W.R, Bird's book, 'The Origin of Species Revisited'.
Evolution as anti-Science:
HL Lipson writes in his published paper 'A Physicist Looks at Evolution' (31 Physics Bulletin 38, 1980) rejects macro evolution. He says:
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwins theory. I do not think they do. ...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory. He concludes:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
In his November 5, 1981 address at the American Museum of Natural History, Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History stated at the AMNH address the following with regard to macro-evolution:
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, What about evolution? Well we are back to the question I have been putting to people, "Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?" The absence of answers seem to indicate that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge..."
Dr. Guiseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics at the University of Peruvia, former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo, Senior Editor of the Biology Forum, and co-author and paleontologist Dr. R. Fondi (Dopo Darwin, 1980) (Nature, 1982) stated that:
"The result we believe must be striven for can therefore only be the following: Biology will receive no advantage from following the teachings of Lamarck, Darwin, and the modern hyper-Darwinists; Indeed, it must as quickly as possible leave the narrow straits and blind alleys of the evolutionistic myths and resume its certain journey along the open and illuminated paths of tradition."
Muggeridge, Malcolm, The End of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1980), p. 59
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
P. 62
"I think that I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example. I'm very happy to say I live near a place called Piltdown. I like to drive there because it gives me a special glow. You probably know that a skull was discovered there, and no less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject, and then it was discovered that the skull was a practical joke by a worthy dentist in Hastings who'd hurriedly put a few bones together, not even of the same animal, and buried them and stirred up all this business. So I'm not a great man for bones."
Why r evolutionary educators/scientists suppressing dissent?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Fisherking
Post #11
Yet most scientists are commited philosophically to naturalism/materialism, believing that life is the product of "undeniably natural, material phenomenon". This is a metaphysical claim.MagusYanam wrote: Life is undeniably a natural, material phenomenon. As such, science is bound by the very foundations of the scientific discipline to ascertain a natural, materialistic cause for life.
MagusYanam wrote: What ID does is that it violates the fundamental ground rules for doing science. It tries to give metaphysical explanations for material phenomena
No, it gives an intelligent explanation, not neccessarily a metaphysical one. We need not know who or what the intelligence is.
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #12
Well, if most scientists are committed philosophically to naturalism and materialism, it doesn't show in their work. Science can make no metaphysical claims. When confronted with a metaphysical question, science cannot and does not give an answer. That life is a natural, material phenomenon is demonstrable - all you have to do is pinch yourself. Therefore, it is the job of science to seek a natural, materialistic explanation.Fisherking wrote:Yet most scientists are commited philosophically to naturalism/materialism, believing that life is the product of "undeniably natural, material phenomenon". This is a metaphysical claim.
Do you see the distinction? Is life a natural, material phenomenon? The scientist must say, 'yes, it can be observed'. Does life have a metaphysical element? The scientist cannot answer 'yes' or 'no' - as a scientist, whatever his beliefs might be outside his professional capacity.
Is this intelligence a phenomenon or not? Can it be measured, calculated, subjected to empirical testing (seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched)? Can it be expressed in terms of metres, grammes and seconds?Fisherking wrote:No, it gives an intelligent explanation, not neccessarily a metaphysical one. We need not know who or what the intelligence is.
If not, then it is a metaphysical claim.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
Post #13
Spot on!MagusYanam wrote:Well, if most scientists are committed philosophically to naturalism and materialism, it doesn't show in their work. Science can make no metaphysical claims. When confronted with a metaphysical question, science cannot and does not give an answer. That life is a natural, material phenomenon is demonstrable - all you have to do is pinch yourself. Therefore, it is the job of science to seek a natural, materialistic explanation.Fisherking wrote:Yet most scientists are commited philosophically to naturalism/materialism, believing that life is the product of "undeniably natural, material phenomenon". This is a metaphysical claim.
Do you see the distinction? Is life a natural, material phenomenon? The scientist must say, 'yes, it can be observed'. Does life have a metaphysical element? The scientist cannot answer 'yes' or 'no' - as a scientist, whatever his beliefs might be outside his professional capacity.
Is this intelligence a phenomenon or not? Can it be measured, calculated, subjected to empirical testing (seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched)? Can it be expressed in terms of metres, grammes and seconds?Fisherking wrote:No, it gives an intelligent explanation, not neccessarily a metaphysical one. We need not know who or what the intelligence is.
If not, then it is a metaphysical claim.
I would have responded in much the same fasion but you articulated what science is and is not much better than I could have.
-
twobitsmedia
Post #14
It "interprets"...if it explains than it is truly "trump." It rules out spirit, and offers a "best" explanation based on what it has to interpret. Flawed by human reason.MagusYanam wrote:Science is the art of the phenomenal. It categorises, measures and explains phenomena in phenomenal terms: that is its sovereign realm. It does not attempt to explain anything in noumenal, metaphysical or aesthetic terms, which is what philosophy and religion attempt to do (among other things). Science cannot 'trump it all' because doing so would be stepping outside its chosen realm.twobitsmedia wrote:Scientific realm? What? there is a different realm for science? That explains a lot.
Is it on a map? Does it have anything to do with the philosophical realm or the religious realm, or does it trump it all because it is the "best" explanation?
Life is undeniably a natural, material phenomenon. As such, science is bound by the very foundations of the scientific discipline to ascertain a natural, materialistic cause for life.
What ID does is that it violates the fundamental ground rules for doing science. It tries to give metaphysical explanations for material phenomena.
Post #15
You know you should really base your perception of science from actual scientists rather than those arguing for evolution on an internet forum. If we make it out to be absolute truth, we're either being intellectually dishonest or you're reading too much into it. Science does not produce absolute truths or certainties, as we've come to a consensus on. Ask scientists if science actually produces unchangable absolute truth. I guarantee they will chuckle and kindly tell you no. Not even 'fact' means absolute truth or certainty. To demonstrate this, all you have to do is consider whether you believe the orbit of the earth around the sun is a fact. It's actually of a theoretical underpinning, but due to overwhelming evidence for and little to no evidence to the contrary, it's designated that one higher level of 'sureness'.twobitsmedia wrote:I havent neglected the point. That IS the point.Undertow wrote:History shows us that the most data encompassing and pasimonious explanations are more often correct than others. Besides you neglect the point that science dosen't produce absolute truths or certainties.twobitsmedia wrote:Yes, who needs the right explanation? Lets just stick with the best one.Wyvern wrote:Just a few things about your very old paste job. Abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE. Darwin was only the originator of this theory and the modern version of it has little to do with the original idea. The only people that separate evolution into macro and micro versions are those opposed to the idea in the first place. ID is not science since it only works by invoking a deus ex machina(god, aliens or whatever).
Simply put no matter how much you may dislike it evolution is the best explanation we have right now for how living things change over time. Humans are curious by nature and giving an unsatifactory answer merely sparks more questioning not less even if you invoke divine punishment for doing so.
Post #16
1) Do you think science states that matters of spirit do not exist or have no say in our universe?twobitsmedia wrote:It "interprets"...if it explains than it is truly "trump." It rules out spirit, and offers a "best" explanation based on what it has to interpret. Flawed by human reason.MagusYanam wrote:Science is the art of the phenomenal. It categorises, measures and explains phenomena in phenomenal terms: that is its sovereign realm. It does not attempt to explain anything in noumenal, metaphysical or aesthetic terms, which is what philosophy and religion attempt to do (among other things). Science cannot 'trump it all' because doing so would be stepping outside its chosen realm.twobitsmedia wrote:Scientific realm? What? there is a different realm for science? That explains a lot.
Is it on a map? Does it have anything to do with the philosophical realm or the religious realm, or does it trump it all because it is the "best" explanation?
Life is undeniably a natural, material phenomenon. As such, science is bound by the very foundations of the scientific discipline to ascertain a natural, materialistic cause for life.
What ID does is that it violates the fundamental ground rules for doing science. It tries to give metaphysical explanations for material phenomena.
2) As for being flawed by human reason, of course, to some degree. This is the nature of anything we humans come into contact with - flaw.
-
twobitsmedia
Post #17
I think that was my original point: Science offers no absolute truth. Only a "best" explanation. Impressive if one just wants to know which ones best.Undertow wrote:You know you should really base your perception of science from actual scientists rather than those arguing for evolution on an internet forum. If we make it out to be absolute truth, we're either being intellectually dishonest or you're reading too much into it. Science does not produce absolute truths or certainties, as we've come to a consensus on. Ask scientists if science actually produces unchangable absolute truth. I guarantee they will chuckle and kindly tell you no. Not even 'fact' means absolute truth or certainty. To demonstrate this, all you have to do is consider whether you believe the orbit of the earth around the sun is a fact. It's actually of a theoretical underpinning, but due to overwhelming evidence for and little to no evidence to the contrary, it's designated that one higher level of 'sureness'.twobitsmedia wrote:I havent neglected the point. That IS the point.Undertow wrote:History shows us that the most data encompassing and pasimonious explanations are more often correct than others. Besides you neglect the point that science dosen't produce absolute truths or certainties.twobitsmedia wrote:Yes, who needs the right explanation? Lets just stick with the best one.Wyvern wrote:Just a few things about your very old paste job. Abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE. Darwin was only the originator of this theory and the modern version of it has little to do with the original idea. The only people that separate evolution into macro and micro versions are those opposed to the idea in the first place. ID is not science since it only works by invoking a deus ex machina(god, aliens or whatever).
Simply put no matter how much you may dislike it evolution is the best explanation we have right now for how living things change over time. Humans are curious by nature and giving an unsatifactory answer merely sparks more questioning not less even if you invoke divine punishment for doing so.
Post #18
Well that's more or less it though you could have made science sound a little less useless.twobitsmedia wrote:I think that was my original point: Science offers no absolute truth. Only a "best" explanation. Impressive if one just wants to know which ones best.Undertow wrote:You know you should really base your perception of science from actual scientists rather than those arguing for evolution on an internet forum. If we make it out to be absolute truth, we're either being intellectually dishonest or you're reading too much into it. Science does not produce absolute truths or certainties, as we've come to a consensus on. Ask scientists if science actually produces unchangable absolute truth. I guarantee they will chuckle and kindly tell you no. Not even 'fact' means absolute truth or certainty. To demonstrate this, all you have to do is consider whether you believe the orbit of the earth around the sun is a fact. It's actually of a theoretical underpinning, but due to overwhelming evidence for and little to no evidence to the contrary, it's designated that one higher level of 'sureness'.twobitsmedia wrote:I havent neglected the point. That IS the point.Undertow wrote:History shows us that the most data encompassing and pasimonious explanations are more often correct than others. Besides you neglect the point that science dosen't produce absolute truths or certainties.twobitsmedia wrote:Yes, who needs the right explanation? Lets just stick with the best one.Wyvern wrote:Just a few things about your very old paste job. Abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE. Darwin was only the originator of this theory and the modern version of it has little to do with the original idea. The only people that separate evolution into macro and micro versions are those opposed to the idea in the first place. ID is not science since it only works by invoking a deus ex machina(god, aliens or whatever).
Simply put no matter how much you may dislike it evolution is the best explanation we have right now for how living things change over time. Humans are curious by nature and giving an unsatifactory answer merely sparks more questioning not less even if you invoke divine punishment for doing so.
Post #20
1) A broad term which includes a tennant of methodological naturalism therefore negating any say in matters of the existance or otherwise of supernatural entities.twobitsmedia wrote:1) "science" is a broad term. 2) There are scientists who are part of science that say that. 3) "Science" per se hasn't a clue. 4) It is stuck on its best explanation.Undertow wrote:
1) Do you think science states that matters of spirit do not exist or have no say in our universe?
2) There we go, answered my question. Glad we can agree here. You say there are some, are there any you are aware of that proclaim that science has a say in supernatural matters?
3) Correct. I suppose, though, you have a much better idea of the existance or otherwise and the properties of a supernatural entity/ies, though, don't you?
4) Lucky for us it sticks to what we can know and not what we assume. That's how we progress, which is ultimately what science is purposed for.
