Why should I not give the same evidence? Because I have heard it all before AND I asked you not to. To do so is disrespecting me as if I didn't get it the first time so you, the new guy on the block had to help me understand it. This is patronizing and condecending and I think it rude that you insult my intelligence to promote your own.
Next to this, I find the above again confusing. When you write that you are "not disagreeing with the science of evolution but I am disagreeing with the the conclusions that are drawn that these so called "evidences" totally show we evolved from "whatever", (and therefore, we MUST discard the creation of Genesis AND in turn we MUST conclude the there is no GOD. ) You forgot that part of my quote which was the point I was referring to and I find it rude to do that. It twists what I said and I find that rude. this is internally contradictory. Because the science is the conclusions we draw based upon the evidence. Well I've been told over and over SCIENCE never makes any conclusions about God so what is it? does it or does it not? The only valid scientific conclusion we can draw based on the evidence is that we did evolve from "whatever" and we did evolve from other apes. When you say you disagree with that, you do disagree with the "science of evolution".
Okay I disagree with the science of evolution. I have said all along that I am not a science scholar so I will admit when I say conclusion I mean it the way the rest of the world means it. I do not profess to know all the scientific terminology NOR to I care to.
We'll see. I always try, but I do expect that my arguments are thought through instead of just dismissed. I get snappy when I think to spot the latter. I found it a little egotistical and offensive for you to "expect" that your arguments were to be thought through rather than just dismissed, especially when it wasn't asked for. This is a forum not a debate and not a school room. You can't expect anything and if I choose to not answer I do not have to. I also, suggested you NOT respond if you were going to make the SAME arguments.
[/I]
In this case I should have been more exact, the observation. That allele frequencies in a population change over time is an observation.
I am wondering what you think this emphasis adds. It's like you think this is some kind of drawback on the science. If an idea is supported by large amounts of evidence, it is very likely to be correct. We can never say that 'this is 100% correct' in science, but we can categorize things in how likely they are. Given the evidence, evolution from a single common ancestor is extremely likely. A literal interpretation of the Genesis account is extremely unlikely. You can emphasize words that indicate the fact that all scientific theories can be wrong, but that doesn't suddenly make evolution less and a literal interpretation of genesis more likely. It can only give you a false sense of security in the ideas that you have.
But I am confused. If I say I am confused of your position, I have no reason to lie to you about that. I am confused because from my perspective, you are using words in a manner that is not very rigorous and often internally contradictory. Your usage of the term 'evolutionism' is one example, your statement above another.
Yes. And:
I think the part you quoted as well as this above sums up nicely why I think the word is a complete misnomer. It singles out evolution when the creationists mentioned not only attack evolution, but the whole scientific method. But they couldn't just state that they are attacking methodological naturalism, because if they would do that people would start to make the connection with other branches of science. It would make it easier for people to see through their arguments, to see that the arguments they are using, if correct, would apply to the whole of science and not just evolution. Hence, they need a pejorative term, instead of a neutral one. The term 'evolutionism' to me embodies the professional creationists emotional stake in the issue as well as the verbal sleight of hand they almost invariably play. If you are talking about methodological or philosophical naturalism, just say it. For me, it is an indication that the creationists using it often are not really interested in an accurate portrayal of the matter at hand.
And what assumptions do you think they are? Because in the theory of evolution I only see two, the same ones that always play a part in science. Reality is really real and reality is testable. The second just derives from the first.
I would hold that it is a bogus word. Just because certain groups use it does not mean it suddenly becomes a word that really adds any meaning to the discussion. Evolutionism as a word doesn't, it is nothing more than a perjorative term designed to try to lure away the attention from the fact that the whole of science is under attack by creationists, (as the whole of creation has been and is under attack by science) instead of only the theory of evolution, it is a word that creationists try to confuse with atheism and it is a word that creationists themselves do not even use consistently. Perhaps it is because those who argue the opposite are also inconsistent. Furthermore, as you acknoweldged, there is a very good and commonly accepted word in use already for what you are describing, philsophical naturalism.
Why does that make the last three questions non-applicable? Because I said NO I DIDN't want to include God in science. Thus there is no need to anwser the other questions. If you want to include God in science, how are you going to do that? Since the way you talk about 'evolutionism' ie naturalism, perhaps unintentionally, signifies that you think there is something wrong with it, the logical question to ask then is how to come towards a good understanding of our surrounding then that is testable and can be checked by everybody.
I was kinda scared about that.
