Dan,

I'll get to your response soon, but first...

I have only just read through your posts here, and the posts of everyone else who has responded to you, and I must say: You have either trivialised everything that everyone here has said to you, or simply dismissed the evidence that you cannot explain. You also seem to confuse “reasonable doubt” with “conclusive, undeniable evidence”.

Your arguments in this thread have amounted to something along the lines of:

“There were no eye-witness accounts. Therefore it's very unlikely that it happened.”

But if you want to use the legal system as an analogy, then we need to apply it fairly - to ALL aspects of the argument. So:

If there are no eye-witnesses to a crime, does it mean that it didn't happen?

No.

You piece the evidence together, and then you come to a logical conclusion. The fossils; the radioactive dating; the adaptation we see nowadays; the mutation of bacteria to immunise itself against antibiotics...

They all come to a conclusion that suggests that all species evolved from simple lifeforms.

Again, If you want to use the legal system as an analogy, then we need to apply it to all aspects of the argument - not just the one's that suit your viewpoint. And when we apply your 'legal system' analogy to everything, your dismissiveness becomes apparent.

Now, you can claim that the evidence isn't beyond reasonable doubt, but considering your demonstrated willingness to overlook, and trivialise anything that might contradict what you believe, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

Moving on...

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

Dan, what you've quoted from my last post, only half illustrated the point I wanted to make there, because of the editing I did to fit the post within the word limits.

What I was trying to illustrate, was the flaw in the logic of those who accuse the so-called “Dawkinites” of being just as much fundamentalists as the Theists are.

This couldn't be more wrong.

Theists are fundamentalists, because they will never change their view on anything scientific, if it clashes with what their Holy Book says. Never!

Dawkinites, on the other hand, would be willing to change their position on the origins of life - whether it be to creationism or any other theory - if either, evolution were conclusively dis-proven; or if another theory started to look more plausible.

And your silly logic about Dawkinites never abandoning their theory because evolution cannot be dis-proven, is trivial and inconsequential.

The fact that evolution can't be conclusively dis-proven, doesn't automatically mean that the “Dawkinites” wouldn't dump their theory if it could actually be dis-proven.

It sounds to me, like you are trying to suggest that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin's theory (even if it had been found to be completely wrong), in a vain attempt to lower their logic and mindset, to the same sub-standard level of a Theist's.

You can do this, because of the high probability that no one will ever be able to dis-prove your “Fundamentalist Dawkinite” theory. But trying to bring evolutionists down on to a level playing field, by claiming that they too are fundamentalists, isn't going to work.

If you're not trying to do this, then you need to construct your arguments a bit more coherently.

But if in fact, this is what you are trying to do, then your argument is presumptuous; it is a very sloppy debating tactic; and quite frankly, it's an insult to the intelligence of everyone on this forum.

george, yes obviously one can be holier-than-thou without a god, and it certainly exists, in abundance. i'd suggest having an authoritarian god-figure makes it a damn sight easier.

as for moralizing being in pell's job description, well i'm not paying him. if catholics are happy with his nonsense, that's up them (give or take the issue of children). but if he moralizes for society in general, if he comments upon the personal, consensual behaviour of non-catholics, then his "job" is irrelevant, and i and others have every right to object to his smug pontificating.

bushbasher, thank you for your sincere words. I do not think anybody denies you the right to object to views you do not like. There are many opinions expressed by public figures - political, religious etc. - "smugly pontificating" about how society should conduct itself that I do not agree with. Some of them I simply ignore, some of them I might be tempted to react to emotionally like you. I usually do not because I know an emotional reaction points more to myself than to the public pronouncements that irritate me.

Bushbasher,
Who described anything as “only a theory”? You are punching at shadows.

How’s my mate, Dr Michael Denton? He’s doing well from what I’ve heard. Thanks for the link to that book review of Denton’s latest book, “Nature's Destiny. How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.”

Last I heard, he does describe himself as an ‘evolutionist’, but he’s more open-minded than most. He sees the glaring problems with it.

It seems different people take different things out of this book. To quote Denton, he says that natural and artificial selection is ‘completely incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life’. From other reviews I’ve read, it seems he sees problems with the nature of mutations, preferring the idea that evolution must have been directed.

My main overall point in all of this debate is to demonstrate that there is an actual debate going on. This would only be more confirmed by anyone reading that book review.

AJ Philips,
You complain about word limit restrictions. Try debating five people at once. If I have to save a response for a later post, you might understand why.

If I read you correctly, you have understood my point that evolution can't be conclusively proven or disproved. And you are right in saying that this does not mean that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin’s theory. It only means that they will never be compelled to. They are free to hold to them as long as they believe the evidence warrants.

But then again, so are creationists. So there’s the rub! (By the way, I am hoping for a level playing field. Why can’t we compare apples with apples?)

I do not say that where there were no eye-witness accounts, then it's very unlikely that it happened, or that we are therefore free to believe anything. I only say that any possible historical account or scenario can only be held tentatively, not definitively. We try to make a case for a model which best fits the evidence.

AJ,
You accuse me of glossing over the evidence of others. This was not my intention. If you can point out which pieces of evidence I’ve glossed over, I’ll try and go back and address them. However, largely speaking, there hasn’t been much evidence put forward to address.

You say, “The fossils; the radioactive dating; the adaptation we see nowadays; the mutation of bacteria to immunise itself against antibiotics...”

The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.

Radioactive dating. No one’s brought that up yet.

Adaptation. I’ve partly addressed that already (30/12//07 ‘In the process of speciation [adaptation], genetic information is shifted around, corrupted or lost, but never added’.) There is always an amount of variability within a gene pool, but there are limits. E.g. the cane toads had variability amongst their population for longer and shorter legs, and those with the long legs were more suited to their environment, and so prospered. But the genes that created the long legs were already there. Now, if they were sprouting wings, this would be different.

The mutation of bacteria. I’ve partly addressed this already (31/12/07).

You alledge that there is all this evidence that all living things evolved from simpler life forms. Well, I haven’t read much on this thread. (And remember evidence, the things we touch, see, and measure, don’t speak for themselves. They are to be interpreted by the human element. So please don’t confuse evidence with conclusions.)