Sir Vivor,
You say that I should give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to your questions. I did give simple answers to those questions permitting simple answers, and gave more detailed answers where appropriate.

We are not in primary school. If you think the important questions in life are answered simply with one word, yes or no, then I don’t know why I am the one accused of being ‘hollow’, ‘narrow’ and ‘lazy’. The important questions in life are worth discussing, and here we are given 350 words to do it.

As for certain theists giving themselves a bad name in the eyes of atheists? Why would it be desirable for theists to be liked by atheists, or vice-versa? This might be called conflict of interest. They don’t send each other their books for peer review. They usually don’t send each other Christmas cards. Fast bowlers aren’t liked by batsmen, and full-backs don’t want a nice reputation with full-forwards.

Adam,
You’ve read all those books?

You claim to have ‘shown’ that the design argument is based on ignorance. I’m sorry that that demonstration escaped me.

I would have thought that it would be hard for any of us to ‘show’ anything in 350 words. We’re just a bunch of guys and gals giving our opinions. I wouldn’t get ahead of yourself.

I said back on Feb 21 that this debate could go for a long time, and that I didn’t think it was going to be settled here. It’s already gone 23 pages, and could go for many more. If evolution was as clearly demonstrable as many believe, then it wouldn’t be so hotly debated, here and elsewhere. It is debated more so now than at any other time in the last 50 years.

If it was so clear cut, then it wouldn’t even be discussed on a web sight like this, one devoted to opinions. Instead this discussion became one of the longest running on OLO for weeks.

Yet when we are tempted to reiterate, that’s a sign that things are getting a bit stale.

Happy birthday, Charles!

Asks Dan, "Why [has] an article void of religious content inspired a religious discussion? Why is that unless Darwin truly is filling a religious need and touching that part of our core being? As you suggest, the question turns into who has the better creation story."

On The Origin Of Species was attacked by the church for implying biblical creation wasn't true. It was and has been derided by creationists since publication. It doesn’t even mention the origins of mankind; the religious debate is of the church’s making.

Darwinism is a logically consistent explanation for what we see around us. http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=73385&start=25#p1781821. It is uninfluenced by where you live, or when you were born, and can be examined for inconsistencies. Unlike dogma, science is designed to accept revisions. Unless you’ve formed your own private church it is possible to be both Christian and Darwinist, as the Vatican attests.

Unlike the O.T. evolution is not a “story” but a theory. Big difference. It is tangible, non-dogmatic, measurable, disprovable. It’s like gravity and general relativity - if you wish to be consistent dispute these also. Calling it a "creation story" is deliberately provocative and somewhat childish.

Your assertion "undirected matter has been afforded creative tendencies" holds no more for the eye than for picturesque sand dunes http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwin-misunderstood.
It's the end result of natural forces over time; in the case of living organisms is due to living creatures’ imperative to pass on successful traits to the next generation, and among other things it has led to all kinds of sentient creatures. Most of them rational.

Since you charge "You admit that you can’t offer any thermodynamic mechanism of molecular transition that describes the process", perhaps you can explain what the bible does says about it. Can you even tell us who wrote it?

Apart from tilting at windmills you’re in way over your head, Dan.

It amazes me the scientifically ignorant would climb onto the shoulders of scientific knowledge and proclaim, "From here I can over the horizon, and there lies god."

"Unlike the O.T. evolution is not a “story” but a theory. Big difference. It is tangible, non-dogmatic, measurable, disprovable. It’s like gravity and general relativity - if you wish to be consistent dispute these also."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Dan,

What a beautiful circular argument. Evolution is being debated, therefore it must be shaky.

The only ones that oppose the theory are the flat earthers/ creationists.

In all the arenas that actually count i.e. the universities, the legal system, etc, creationism and intelligent design has been found to be a religious belief, completely devoid of any basis in fact.

The only "scientific" work done by the flat earthers is to point at some of the gaps in the collected information.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a methodology by which life evolved, and all the evidence found to date confirms this. The gaps are simply that. Where information is yet to be found.

If the same criteria were applied to creation, how does it hold up.

The answer is simple. It falls over at the first hurdle. The planet is not 10 000 years old.

Intelligent design is simply a rear guard action, recognising that pure creationism is so flawed you could float a tanker through the holes, claiming that evolution occurred but god must have had a hand in it.

The flaw in this is that the designs are not perfect, but the best from what is available. Brains, eyes, immune systems, etc could be far better, but evolved from what was available.

Life if evolved from another path would be completely different.

When humans finally get to design life forms from scratch there is no doubt that they will be better faster smarter, and finally we will have intelligent design.

On 5 March 2009 at 4:31:22 PM AdamD wrote: "(and now with the help of Apis, we have yet another logical fallacy: The argument from authority)" and "Also, Michael, you say that the design argument in not based on ignorance, yet when I showed that it was, you had no response. Care to explain?... As for your list of books, none of them have been peer-reviewed" and more.

Adam, in relation to the information that I supplied, shooting the messenger (me!) is no argument.

Calling the providing of factual information relevant to the matter being discussed "an argument from authority" is no argument either. Pardon me, but your slip is showing , as they used to say in the old days: either you misunderstand the principle in question (argument from authority) completely or you are unable to apply it except in the most extremely narrow frame of reference. Besides, since you belong to a school of thought that relies simply and solely (and uncritically) on a mega-argument from authority, namely the teachings of Darwin and all that stems from them, it is a bit rich to throw the "argument from authority" in someone else's face.

Now, if you demonstrated the same level of "honesty" and "courtesy" that you demand from Dan when you berate, bully and browbeat him, you would have taken the information that I provided and adressed it impartially and accurately. So, my question to you and your henchmen is this: when certain well-qualified scientists who earn their living from pursuing science in a goal-oriented way come to conclusions about Darwinism that are different from yours, by what right do you accuse them of logical fallacies and other putative transgressions? Care to answer?

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)
Take the names of the numerous scientists who have "come out" about their non-acceptance of Darwinist dogma and conceptual imperialism; they can be seen here at a website which I provided previously.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

The list is eighteen pages long! Obviously these people have been deemed suitable, qualified and competent to work as scientists according to that peer-review that you so readily invoke. Or are we to believe that each and everyone of them should be removed from his
position on the say-so of the likes of yourself? If, however, you correctly perceive that they have in all likelihood earned their place on their own merits and have been chosen following rules of objectivity and impartiality which are so important to the scientific critical apparatus, how will you answer the objections they raise? Will you do so on the neutral and level field of scientific debate or in some other way that is perhaps somewhat less scrupulous?