david f,

We used to joke that Newton would not pass our first year exams in calculus, partly also because he did not have a clear distinction between mathematics and physics, although he contributed to the development of both (perhaps not unlike Aquinas who did not distinguish between philosophy and theology, although he contributed substantially to both).

If I understood you properly, you just wanted to point to this distinction, in particular that pure mathematics is not science, which, of course, I agree with. In particular, proofs in the strict meaning of the word, can only be formal, i.e. they exist only in mathematics (and logic, which in its formalised form has become just a branch of mathematics). Mathematics is built around deductions only; it is the mathematician’s reasoning, while discovering/inventing new results, that is both inductive and deductive. Induction in science appeals to experience and common sense, mathematical induction (as taught at high school) that you mention, appeals to logic. So here I do not think we disagree.

The applicability of mathematics, i.e. finding the appropriate mathematical model to serve as the backbone of a “mature“ - completed or still “under construction” - physical theory, is a complicated problem, nevertheless an approach that (so far) has been more fruitful in physics than in biology.

Perhaps also because of this formal clarity of mathematics (plus what Eugene Wigner called “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”), it is easier to understand and accept - irrespective of one‘s background world-view - not only the findings but also the assumptions of modern physics starting with Newton, and continued by Einstein etc., than those of evolutionary biology that started with Darwin.

Runner, you seem to be able to quote every argument against evolution, but you cannot understand why evolutionary scientists should lie. You say:

"What makes me think it is so important to evolutionist is their continual dishonesty to produce transitional creatures to fill in the 'missing link. NewScientist and many other Science magazines would make our local rags look truthful if examined for continual deceit. If it was not so important to those desperate to deny the obvious I don't know why they keep making up lies."

Runner, my own understanding of science (I have a BSc in biology), leads me to believe that science is a collective pursuit of facts and ideas that can be reliably shared. "Scientific ideas" are testable by experimental method, and may also be shown to be false by the same method. If elements of the knowledge base of science fall short of the standard of admission into the BOSK (my own instant acronym - body of scientific knowledge), then they either do not make it into the "book", or their stay is indefinite but limited.

Theories such as organic evolution by the mechanisms of population genetics (OE) are always vulnerable to the fundamental truth that "science never proves anything" (see my first post - Friday, 13 February 2009 10:31:10 PM); but a steady accretion of evidence it OE's favour, over over 150 years, has made the current "consilience of inductions" in favour of OE a very sound, reliable and serviceable edifice. OE theory has evolved, and its foundations are neither more nor less sound than scientific method.

Languages, cultures and religions also evolve, but not by the same set of mechanisms as OE.

Runner, if you can offer no motive for scientists to lie about OE, to contribute repeatedly to a false BOSK, then what is the point of arguing that organic evolution is a myth concocted by purveyors of "continual deceit"?

Could you kindly clarify your issue?

Runner, I must say you are remarkably selective in your treatment of evidence.

"Did Darwin really say this? Yes check 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Appelton, 1901), 2:202-203 note.'
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1995/PSCF9-95Newman.html"

I followed this link and waded through it, but could only find one relevant reference:

"Origin of life. Darwin himself wrote little on the question of how life might have originated. He did speculate that perhaps the necessary organic material could have self-assembled in a warm pond somewhere."

This seems a rather small hook to hang a very heavy coat on.
As for Archaeopteryx, I have found no evidence of "many scientist that know (sic) reject archaeopteryx as any proof of evolution."
All I could find were some rather wild accusations made by Fred Hoyle, which were rather easily disproved.
The latest evidence appears to come from China, linking archaeopteryx to more than 20 feathered dinosaurs -not including the deliberately forged "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis".
As for Dr George Gaylord Simpson, the emphasis in your quote should have been on the words "uniform continuous transformation". Simpson discovered the fossil evidence pointed to a rather more complex evolution, with 2 or 3 branches of horselike species co-existing; only one of which survived as the ancestor of the modern horse.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming it is no longer considered to be just a theory; not only by the vast majority of scientists, but also the more rational theists, including the Catholic and most mainstream protestant churches.

Runner, when you put up a reference, especially something like:
"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Appelton, 1901), 2:202-203 note.", you really should check that is actually what the reference says, and you should probably check also who wrote it. Those pages were actually written by Professor Huxley!

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.2&viewtype=side&pageseq=1

Your scholarship is exceedingly poor, I wouldn't even accept that from a high-school student.

To: All
From: Bennie
Re: Recent posts

You will NOT make a difference.

I and countless others before me have earnestly crafted genuine logical argument and wasted many valuable brain cells in an attempt to refute runner’s assertions. Should you take him more seriously than his replies warrant you too will, in time, develop a permanently furrowed brow and a recurring headache. If nothing else it does show altruism among us ill-destined heathenry is alive and well, as we strive to draw our fellow travellers into the post-enlightenment community to better appreciate the modern wonders that exist there.

If someone thinks G.W Bush is in fact a swell guy and that science is singularly responsible for all the world’s evils, rest assured they have not reached those positions through rational thought and thus will not be swayed by rational argument.

Personally I am convinced he is a naughty troll bent on leading us into despair, assigned to us by a mischievous and as yet unknown church.

So keep in mind: nothing is knowable; there are no absolutes independent of sacred writ. And remember, evolution – nay, science, all of it – is merely a “paradigm”

Dear Benny,

A paradigm? A paradigm is twenty cents.

Then there was the generous jockey who put two bits in his horse's mouth. That's because he had a quarter-horse.

The above is for those familiar with US coinage. Unlike me, runner is not a punner.

From one or a few simple life forms all life in its great diversity has arisen so we are related to mushrooms, bacteria, eucalypts and walruses. How grand a concept is evolution!

Life in all its forms is a unity. Who needs a supernatural when the natural is full of wonder? Darwin saw and spread his light.