If Mr. Darwin got all this:
A capitol city in Australia, his face on a £10 note, and a day on the calendar.
Imagine what all he would have gotten if he had been right!
Variation though mutation, in fact.
A slightly different field of study perhaps, but relies on exactly the same sort of mythology.
What!? Of course there is evidence. I have found that most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence. And no, you are simply wrong No creationist has come even close to showing that any aspect of evolution is impossible. You should not give any credence to creationist sites. Most of them require that their workers to avoid the scientific method and they are not exactly honest. When it has been shown that you made a rather severe error the correct thing to do is to own up to it and correct yourself. They do not do this.
Clearly Creationism doesn't work if Naturalism is the model to which we work.
Then God shouldn't have admitted to it ... in writing.
Although mutation contributes to variation, it is not the sole cause. Mutations come along periodically, but variation on which natural selection acts occurs each time an individual reproduces.
That is baseless nonsense straight from a creationist propaganda mill. Please don't insult us with it.
That's the first thing you've got right--but since there is no "evolutionary story" which comprises both evolution and abiogenesis, it does you no good as an argument.
It might not be allowed but I am repeatedly confronted with dogmatic, evidence free assertions of faith in Methodological Naturalism from so called scientifically minded people.
Not a Creationist but a Structuralist (although I suspect that anybody that is not a dyed in the wool Darwinian Functionalist gets awarded the "Creationist" label), by the name of Denton, has shown that a number of the Taxa defining forms in the "tree of life" have no adaptive function, particularly in any transitional state and must have therefore been formed in a saltational manner so that Darwinian incremental functionalism fails. These forms include the Pentadactyl limb, avian feathers, whorls of the angiosperm flower, the shape of the Maple leaf, the Enucleate red cell, and a number of others.
Nevertheless naturalistic evolution cannot be a "fact" if biogenesis or any genesis of form happened through an intelligent agent.
Methodological naturalism is not a dogma in which one has "faith." It is merely a procedural tool. Are you sure you are not confusing it with metaphysical naturalism?
LOL! Anyone associated with the Discovery Institute merits a much less complimentary label than "Creationist."
What would prevent the creator from bringing forth life directly and then instituting a naturalistic process to provide for evolution?
And what pray tell would be the cause of the variation?
I'm not sure to which mill you are referring but I am familiar with this sort of condescending blether when dogmatic evoltuionists are faced with something they can't give a proper answer to. I do hope you are not one of them.
They both face the same problem however; that of a credible explanation for the functional coherence of novel biological forms.
All read an understood, so it follows that the splitters and lumpers need to eat some humble pie and stop looking so much like dogmatic beleivers in Materialism.
Yes, you are right, what rationalism coined merely as a procedural tool has become a metaphysical dogma.
Why pray tell? These guys are working very hard to explain a very simple position using scientific methods. Why the dogmatic "dees (sic) guys are the boogey man" approach? It doesn't look very rational or scientific.
Nothing, would prevent this except that there are numerous other saltational events that have occured along the way for which there is also not a pip of evidence for a natural process explanation. It would appear that given the demands of functional coherence these are best explained by the intervention of an intelligence.
