Intelligent Design / Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

What's an "evolution lobby"?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Speaking of falsehoods, No where did I say he was An ID supporter. There are many scientists who dissent from Darwinian theology and but don't support ID.

"Darwinian theology"? Seriously? It's been explained about a bajillion times on this forum already - modern evolutionary theory is quite different from original Darwinian evolution. It's based on it, for sure, but many components have changed significantly. I'll leave the more in-depth explanation to the biologists.

You number 2 point, is evolution in a net shell. Natural selection vertical descent of biological information. Without these tenants, evolution hypothesis falls apart.

Incorrect. Natural selection is the commonly accepted mechanism for evolution. Gene flow is a competing mechanism. They achieve the same result (evolution) in different ways.

This is how the evolution lobby keeps the rhetoric going, by twisting statements, twisting evidence. Anything to keep everyone's eyes off the actual lack of evidence. Creating controversy about the controversy. The facts about this article are turned around from a scientist who was censored, who believes aspects of evolution are wrong, to look the ID'er wrongly claims ID support. Critical thinkers don't miss the deception.

Darwinists rarely actually answer anything, the tactic is to attach who ever is opposing their theology. In his book, Raoult calls Darwin a priest that modeled his tree after the bible.

So what have we learned about evolution lobby tactics? Watch what they say and how they say it. Disregard any comments about the messenger as that has nothing to do with the facts presented. For example, an arsonist saying fire is hot, would be rebutted by an evolutionist saying, "this guy just wants to destroy things, he's a criminal, look a judge even says so."

Don't be intimidated by the lengthy ranting about really nothing to do with the subject at hand. The louder, more obnoxious, and more personal they get, shows how weak the ground they are standing on is.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire! Well, evolution blows a lot of smoke. Ignore that and look for the fire.

It's statements like this that tell me that you actually have zero interest in a two-way discussion. There are people (on both sides of the debate, to be fair), who come on here just to push what they see as irrefutable evidence for their position. They say that they want a discussion, but they're actually expecting to get laughable responses that can easily be shot down. When they start getting well thought-out replies that they don't have an easy response to, they turn to ad hominem, sweeping generalizations, and general name-calling.

 

[Split Rock]

Speaking of falsehoods, No where did I say he was An ID supporter. There are many scientists who dissent from Darwinian theology and but don't support ID.

I was pointing out that he was not an IDer, and that he was not abandoning evolution. Either of which could easily be inferred from your slanted post.

You number 2 point, is evolution in a net shell. Natural selection vertical descent of biological information. Without these tenants, evolution hypothesis falls apart.

There are three main mechanisms of evolution:
1. Natural Selection
2. Gene Flow
3. Genetic Drift

The THEORY of evolution would not fall apart without one of these. Nor does Dr. Raoult claim that Natural Selection is not a valid mechanism of evolution.

This is how the evolution lobby keeps the rhetoric going, by twisting statements, twisting evidence. Anything to keep everyone's eyes off the actual lack of evidence. Creating controversy about the controversy. The facts about this article are turned around from a scientist who was censored, who believes aspects of evolution are wrong, to look the ID'er wrongly claims ID support. Critical thinkers don't miss the deception.

Stop projecting. (See: What is Psychological Projection?). You are the one twisting evidence. Dr. Raoult was not censored or oppressed (your words) for anything he wrote about Darwinain evolution. "Critical thinkers don't miss the deception."

Darwinists rarely actually answer anything, the tactic is to attach who ever is opposing their theology. In his book, Raoult calls Darwin a priest that modeled his tree after the bible.

Obviously you think it is bad to model a theory after something in the bible??

So what have we learned about evolution lobby tactics? Watch what they say and how they say it. Disregard any comments about the messenger as that has nothing to do with the facts presented. For example, an arsonist saying fire is hot, would be rebutted by an evolutionist saying, "this guy just wants to destroy things, he's a criminal, look a judge even says so."

How about this example: : A fire fighter puts out a fire and complains that the next door neighbor's car blocked the fire hydrant. You then claim "Neighbor starts fire and persecutes fireman who put it out."

Don't be intimidated by the lengthy ranting about really nothing to do with the subject at hand. The louder, more obnoxious, and more personal they get, shows how weak the ground they are standing on is.

More projection. You should see someone about that.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire! Well, evolution blows a lot of smoke. Ignore that and look for the fire.

The fact that you refuse to admit you posted falsehoods here about Dr. Raoult and why he was temporarily banned from ASM journals shows everyone here the truth. And the truth is that you couldn't care less about the truth. I'm disappointed... but not surprised. More of the same from the ID camp. You should help Ben Stein out with his next movie... you would be a tremendous asset.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The fact that you refuse to admit you posted falsehoods here about Dr. Raoult and why he was temporarily banned from ASM journals shows everyone here the truth. And the truth is that you couldn't care less about the truth. I'm disappointed... but not surprised. More of the same from the ID camp. You should help Ben Stein out with his next movie... you would be a tremendous asset.

To be fair, he probably just read the abstract/blurb thingy since the full article is behind a pay wall unless you have access to a subsciption. And that little blurb suggests all the the claims that he made. It's a little sensationalist.

 

[Split Rock]

What's an "evolution lobby"?

Atheists, agnostics, liberals, witches, homosexuals, professors, scientists, democrates, nazis, communists, socialists, humanists, civil rights activists, PETA, Green peace, the ACLU, Mexicans, Immigrants, teachers, New Englanders, Europeans, trans-sexuals, Muslims, drug abusers, people who sleep with dogs and goats, child molesters, abortionists, pro-choicers, pinkos, hippies, judges, and people punished by God with AIDS.

 

[Split Rock]

To be fair, he probably just read the abstract/blurb thingy since the full article is behind a pay wall unless you have access to a subsciption. And that little blurb suggests all the the claims that he made. It's a little sensationalist.

That's why I suggested he may have been bamboozled by his sources. Obviously, if he was, he doesn't care.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Liberals, witches, homosexuals, professors, scientists, democrates, nazis, communists, socialists, humanists, civil rights activists, PETA, Green peace, the ACLU, Mexicans, Immigrants, teachers, New Englanders, Europeans, trans-sexuals, Muslims, drug abusers, people who sleep with dogs and goats, child molesters, abortionists, pro-choicers, pinkos, hippies, judges, and people punished by God with AIDS.

However, you forgot the chief high priest himself, Richard Dawkins.

 

[Split Rock]

However, you forgot the chief high priest himself, Richard Dawkins.

Holy cow! I forgot atheists and agnostics!!

I will go back and correct my post.. thanks!

 

[idscience]

Evolution likes to claim all knowledge for lord Darwin. For example, without evolution medicine would be at a stand still. If the Intelligent Design community were allowed a seat at the table all science would come to an end as we were thrust back into the dark ages. The ignorance of these statements are only out done by the lack of support.

This type of desperate "sky is falling" tactic only reveals that intelligent people do desperate things when there ideology is at stake. The mouth pieces for this type of rhetoric, if you look into it, I think you will find are Atheists. The poster children for common ancestry are Atheists, not the theistic scientists out there. Since Atheists only make up about 14% of the world, there has to be few religious scientists in there too.

Richard Dawkins, biggest mouth they have, hates religion, hates God. He worships Darwin for making it possible for an Atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. I guess by that he means thinking life has no purpose.
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

• “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,” writes Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

PZ Meyers, Here is a quote from Dawkins website,

• "WARNING: PZ Myers is one of those Gnu Atheists and some people may find it offensive to have their cherished beliefs questioned." (notice the condescending tone.)

My point is, common descent has to be defended at all costs, or world views will have to change. Atheist's see it as a war of the worlds, and in doing so tries to strike fear into the world if anyone even thinks of straying away from methodological naturalism. Which means, if it is science, it is evolution, the two cannot be separated.

Micro-evolution (variations) is not controversial. It is a fact. Unfortunately it is used to prove macro-evolution (common descent) which is a fairy tail. The logic is if something can change a little over short time, it can change into a completely different animal, or organism over long periods of time. This would be like saying because a house catches fire and catches the next house on fire, given enough time, the whole world will catch on fire.

The problem with that theory is there are limitations to what fire can do and gaps it cannot breach. The same is true for common descent, and all the jumping up and down screaming its true doesn't make it so.

In my next post, I will discuss the disconnect between evolution and medicine and the ludicrous claims of evolutionists regarding the connection.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Evolution likes to claim all knowledge for lord Darwin. For example, without evolution medicine would be at a stand still. If the Intelligent Design community were allowed a seat at the table all science would come to an end as we were thrust back into the dark ages. The ignorance of these statements are only out done by the lack of support.

This type of desperate "sky is falling" tactic only reveals that intelligent people do desperate things when there ideology is at stake. The mouth pieces for this type of rhetoric, if you look into it, I think you will find are Atheists. The poster children for common ancestry are Atheists, not the theistic scientists out there. Since Atheists only make up about 14% of the world, there has to be few religious scientists in there too.

Richard Dawkins, biggest mouth they have, hates religion, hates God. He worships Darwin for making it possible for an Atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. I guess by that he means thinking life has no purpose.

The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

• “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,” writes Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

PZ Meyers, Here is a quote from Dawkins website,

• "WARNING: PZ Myers is one of those Gnu Atheists and some people may find it offensive to have their cherished beliefs questioned." (notice the condescending tone.)

My point is, common descent has to be defended at all costs, or world views will have to change. Atheist's see it as a war of the worlds, and in doing so tries to strike fear into the world if anyone even thinks of straying away from methodological naturalism. Which means, if it is science, it is evolution, the two cannot be separated.

Micro-evolution (variations) is not controversial. It is a fact. Unfortunately it is used to prove macro-evolution (common descent) which is a fairy tail. The logic is if something can change a little over short time, it can change into a completely different animal, or organism over long periods of time. This would be like saying because a house catches fire and catches the next house on fire, given enough time, the whole world will catch on fire.

The problem with that theory is there are limitations to what fire can do and gaps it cannot breach. The same is true for common descent, and all the jumping up and down screaming its true doesn't make it so.

In my next post, I will discuss the disconnect between evolution and medicine and the ludicrous claims of evolutionists regarding the connection.

Did you read all of "The Blind Watchmaker?"

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution likes to claim all knowledge for lord Darwin. For example, without evolution medicine would be at a stand still. If the Intelligent Design community were allowed a seat at the table all science would come to an end as we were thrust back into the dark ages. The ignorance of these statements are only out done by the lack of support.

There is no Lord Darwin.

I.D. has to earn its place at the table. I know this is a unique concept for an I.D. Apologist such as yourself, but IDers must bring something to the table and not just Special Pleading. Bring a theory or at least an hypothesis that makes predictions and is testable. Otherwise stay home.

This type of desperate "sky is falling" tactic only reveals that intelligent people do desperate things when there ideology is at stake. The mouth pieces for this type of rhetoric, if you look into it, I think you will find are Atheists. The poster children for common ancestry are Atheists, not the theistic scientists out there. Since Atheists only make up about 14% of the world, there has to be few religious scientists in there too.

Common ancestry is accepted by 99% of scientists out there. We don't need any poster child and we don't need Darwkins. Common ancestry does not mean atheism.

Richard Dawkins, biggest mouth they have, hates religion, hates God. He worships Darwin for making it possible for an Atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. I guess by that he means thinking life has no purpose.

If he worshipped Darwin, he wouldn't be an atheist, now would he?

[/LIST]My point is, common descent has to be defended at all costs, or world views will have to change. Atheist's see it as a war of the worlds, and in doing so tries to strike fear into the world if anyone even thinks of straying away from methodological naturalism. Which means, if it is science, it is evolution, the two cannot be separated.

Common descent is inferred by all the physical evidence. Scientists go where the evidence leads, and it leads to common ancestry. Sorry if you don't like that. Again, atheism is irrelevant.

Micro-evolution (variations) is not controversial. It is a fact. Unfortunately it is used to prove macro-evolution (common descent) which is a fairy tail. The logic is if something can change a little over short time, it can change into a completely different animal, or organism over long periods of time. This would be like saying because a house catches fire and catches the next house on fire, given enough time, the whole world will catch on fire.

Common Descent is inferred by comparative morphology, the fossil record, phylogenetics, evo-devo, embryology, biogeography and biochemistry. If you want to read a fairy tale, go to a Creation Ministry website. They have one there about a mudman, a rib-woman, a talking snake, and a magic tree.

The problem with that theory is there are limitations to what fire can do and gaps it cannot breach. The same is true for common descent, and all the jumping up and down screaming its true doesn't make it so.

All the jumping up and down won't make your assertions any more true. But keep repeating I.D. Apologist falsehoods you scrape off the internet... I'm sure that will convince a few gullible people, at least.

 

[idscience]

double post

 

[idscience]

post out of sequence

 

[idscience]

double post

 

[idscience]

double post

 

[idscience]

PART ONE of Two

Let's look at medicine. The evolutionists claims there would be no vacines, no cures, not even the knowledge about genes if it were not for evolution. This ridiculous article highlights my point.
Anti-evolution bills put my health at risk

• How was variation generated? And how were traits passed to offspring? The theory predicted the discovery of material answers.

That material would later be known as genes, stretches of DNA. But in 1859, biologists knew so little about reproduction they didn't even understand the role of sperm. Darwin attempted to answer these questions with a misguided hypothesis he called pangenesis. Other evolutionary theorists, notably August Weismann, put forward alternative hypotheses.
This article tries to commandeer gene discovery by evolution. I don't see any mention of Mendel there? Curious since he is the one who discovered genes, and Darwin ignored his work because it contradicted his own hypothesis. Maybe because he was a Christian Monk. Certainly in Mendel's case, faith did not stifle science. So, gene discovery has nothing to do with common descent, or Darwin. The science and discovery would have carried on regardless.
The article also lays claim for evolution, cancer research, again nothing to do with common descent, everything to do with variation and mutation which is not disputed by Intelligent Design theorists or anybody else. Just toughing a bit on the falsehood theme from a previous post by our friendly neighborhood Atheist team.
If ID was not censored, stifled and kept from grant money, cancer may be much further ahead. How? The evolutions so-called "junk DNA". For decades evolutionists have been pointing to junk DNA as the remnants of evolution at work. useless mutations that have been carried through out millennia. Junk DNA has been used as proof of exactly what common descent predicted. Until now. Now we know evolutions prediction couldn't have been more wrong, as the non coding DNA (evolutions junk DNA) is connected to cancer and other diseases. Think of the progress that may have been made if scientists took the ID prediction of the non coding DNA being functional in some capacity.
Before I cite some of the past statements I would like to point out this quote from the same article, spelling out the three legs in which evolution stands.

• The theory of evolution started researchers down this promising path. When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, there was as yet no way to explain two of the three legs upon which his theory stood. Those three legs are:
  • "inborn variation among the members of a species, (micro-evolution which is non controversial)
  • the fact that environmental pressures allow only some of those members to leave surviving offspring, (natural selection)
  • the passing of the favored members' traits to the next generation." (heredity)

Her first point is irrelevant, variation was known long before Darwin was alive with the practice of selective breeding.
Her second point is very important to evolution. (Something that Dr. Raoult believed has far less value than Darwin)
Heredity, Well again, this was a well know fact before Darwin but, as Dr. Raoult and many , many others say, the tree is more of a web than a tree. In other worlds passed on genes has little to do with what molecular biology is showing. Horizontal Gene Transfer is one (mEDT) methods used to explain the genes on organisms that are not present in their believed ancestors. For those who may be new (mEDT) is macro-Evolutionary Duct Tape. Every poorly constructed and old warn out things need duct tape to keep them together.
Ok, back to it. Now that function has been found in non coding DNA, the evo-lobby is trying to back peddle and say they never said it was junk. in fact now they have jumped on the band wagon proclaiming what was once said to be evolutionary mistakes in the genome that nature had not got rid of yet, to now, because it is there nature must have preserved it for a reason. A total 180 degree turn. As evidence comes up you will find many of these turns to compensate for errors in the theology of evolution. Look for catch phrases in headlines and articles like "sheds new light", or "increases our understanding". These are code for oops what happened there.
Here are some places you can go for info.
idscience junk DNA

"The Myth of Junk DNA"

Don't Throw It Out: 'Junk DNA' Essential In Evolution

• "Like many revolutions, only a handful of people saw this one coming. David Stern, a geneticist with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, says as recently as two decades ago, scientists had little interest in the DNA that wasn't part of a gene. "We used to call this junk DNA, and it's perfectly obvious now what we used to call junk DNA is actually chock-filled with the information that builds out organisms," says Stern. Geneticists still think a lot of our DNA is junk. Makes you wonder if there are any other undiscovered treasures in all that junk that might spawn the next revolution in biology."

The above is an explanation for why the junk is important because nature kept it.
Genius of Junk (DNA)
In this article Simmons tells how he was convinced non coding DNA had function. His evolutionary contemporaries, said he was nuts. Not all evolutionary biologist thought the non coding DNA was junk, but it was the reigning consensus. As usual if you go against the consensus your a nut.

• He realized that whatever was going on in non-coding DNA was not random. Malcolm Simons, "There was order in the 95%. If there was order there was likely to be function. Maybe this was a way to also contribute to understanding the function of genes and therefore their malfunction in disease and in so doing help diagnosis - make earlier diagnosis - help save lives." When he posed his radical theory that this junk might actually have a critical role in diagnosis, his peers announced, "Malcolm, you're off your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' head."
• "Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology".

Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale (2004, page 22)

• ""DNA differs from written language in that islands of sense are separated by a sea of nonsense, never transcribed. 'Whole' genes are assembled, during transcription, from meaningful 'exons' separated by meaningless 'introns' whose texts are simply skipped by the reading apparatus. And even meaningful stretches of DNA are in many cases never read -presumably they are superseded copies of once useful genes that hang around like early drafts of a chapter on a cluttered hard disk. Indeed, the image of the genome as an old hard disk, badly in need of a spring clean,"

Dr. "So Much "Junk DNA" In Our Genome" (1972)

• "Our view is that they are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?"

Richard Dawkins, "The Information Challenge," The Skeptic, Vol. 18

• "Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn't even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there's lots more DNA that doesn't even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, "tandem repeats", and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA."

We see here that the Atheistic assault has failed. Methodological Naturalism predicted something and it was falsified. No, problem, a few headlines as to how this new contradictory evidence "sheds new light" on evolution and it will all be ok. Throw in and embrace the those who did see it way back and we can claim we thought that all along.

 

[idscience]

PART TWO of two


So what about medicine? How do doctors feel about evolution and it's contribution to health. Well, we already see that the evolutionary claim to gene discovery is a lie. It took Darwinists decades to figure out that Mendel's discoveries could be co-opted for their purpose.
Dr. Egnor is an eminent published Physician/Researcher, who states evolution has no connection to medicine.
'Why would I want me doctor to have studies evolution?'

• "Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin's theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That's a contribution which has brought shame--not advance--to the medical field."

Why I don't believe in atheism's creation myth.

• "The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God."
• "Why do Darwinists--scientists--seek recourse in federal courts to silence criticism of their theory in public schools? What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

Here is a blogger who thinks quite highly of himself. He talks about "slamming" Dr. Egnor along with, P.(Slee) Z. Meyers, and another. If you want to see just how frazzled an Atheist can get have a read. His is just beside himself to the point of humor. For what? A science that isn't science, something that is total bologna, with no feet to stand on? Wow, there sure is a lot of effort expressed to kill something that is already dead. I guess it isn't. I am pretty worried about linking to this site as all the arguments against evolution will be exposed by the legends of Atheism. A chance I will have to take for a good laugh.
As it typical with those who try to deal with dissenters of evolutionary theology. I say theology because, one, it is defended by zelotness, it is based on faith in those who infer the evidence, it is not testable and no one has seen it happen. Sounds familiar somehow.
Lets not get into micro-evolution that everyone knows happens. Common descent has to stand on its own.
Doctors have become fed up with evolutionists claims in all science. So much so, they have started a dissent from Darwinism letter. These doctors do not adhere to any alternative theory, but they do not accept Modern evolutionary synthesis as viable.

• PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

As usual, if you come out against evolution, you are then subject to personal attacks of a nature that it can only be rooted in something much deeper than opposition to evidence. It is a hatred of anyone who even suggests a theory that is compatible with a designer. That is why the Atheist are leading the charge of character assassination and slander. They have to do more than confront the enormous holes in the hypothesis that are crumbling the whole idea of common descent.
The PSSI when on a lecture tour in Spain with confirmed engagements and venues, only to find out at the last minute, that the evolution minions had put so much pressure on the venues, some cowed and broke the agreements. They even went so far as to call for boycotts of companies who were supporting the commercial venues if they wouldn't cancel out.
Fortunately all the news publicity helped to spread the word as many students came out to see why these men were being censored so hard. It was dubbed as the "university inquisition" in an article of one the major newspapers. The censorship did not sit well with students.

• PSSI PODCAST INTERVIEW

If you read the rebuts, you will see they are full of personal attacks, which is usual. Full on intimidation factor. If you cross us, you will be shouted down as ignorant, stupid and unworthy to call yourself a doctor or a scientist. It is not surprising these tactics are working against them.
As research moves foreword and more discoveries are made in DNA and information science it will become even more untenable for Anti-Intelligent supporters to maintain their cool. I suspect the head will be turned up even further as more and more educated professionals realize common descent doesn't work. This is why Anti-Intelligence has turned to the government and media for help to outlaw ID. They are trying to get them to do what the evidence can't.
I call it the "I'm telling my dad" approach.
LETTER TO CONGRESS TO CENSOR ID

DARWIN DESSENT LIST

Here is an argument from Pandas Thumb. They are rebutting the Discovery Institutes article on how many doctors believe in evolution. You can read if for yourself. In point 2. They say 58% of doctors believe that ID is religious in nature? What does that have to do with anything? nothing. It is a diversion to bias those who may be against religion before they have even looked at the evidence. just like the hot fire and the arsonist.
They go on to remix the poll numbers in their favor adding in the theistic evolutionist with the stricktly evolutionists. The author even states he is a theistic evolutionist and he is opposed to ID. He then extrapolates that rest of them are too as evidenced by his 78% in favor number. This is interesting and I would be interested to see what the Atheists say to that. Evolution is an undirected process, blind, no direction, no room for a guiding agent. At least they sure rave about it on this and many other forums. So, those who believe God had a hand in guiding evolution would not be included in the strictly evolution side of the equation. What is also unclear is the evolution that is considered may be variation or micro-evolution. prior to that it was an intelligent agent. The poss does not distinguish between the two yet Pandas thumb is making all sorts of assumptions.
Clearly there are many more doctors who believe an intelligent agent had a hand in guiding evolution (that all incompassing word) If the poll was not so vague, the numbers would probably be much higher for Intelligence. I don't know where the victory comes in. Anyway you look at it more doctors believe an Intelligent cause was involved then don't. Not that the numbers mean anything anyway, but the evolutionist needs every bit of help they can get.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'll address your posts one by one since you insist on creating such enormous walls of text.

Evolution likes to claim all knowledge for lord Darwin. For example, without evolution medicine would be at a stand still. If the Intelligent Design community were allowed a seat at the table all science would come to an end as we were thrust back into the dark ages. The ignorance of these statements are only out done by the lack of support.

You know, I harbored brief hope that you might actually provide some intelligent discussion. The concept of "Lord Darwin" is absolutely ridiculous. He got some things right, and other things wrong. The important thing is that his work laid the foundation for the theory of evolution. And that's it.

While I don't think that allowing the teaching of ID would thrust us back into the Dark Ages, it certainly wouldn't move us forward. Until there is a body of evidence backing it up, it shouldn't be presented as a theory, let alone as a topic for instruction.

This type of desperate "sky is falling" tactic only reveals that intelligent people do desperate things when there ideology is at stake.

The sky-is-falling tactics are used primarily by Creationists, though I do admit that a select few "super-atheists" use them as well. The majority of scientists out there, don't use or condone that level of rhetoric. They either don't care or actually try to use intelligent discussion.

The mouth pieces for this type of rhetoric, if you look into it, I think you will find are Atheists. The poster children for common ancestry are Atheists, not the theistic scientists out there. Since Atheists only make up about 14% of the world, there has to be few religious scientists in there too.

FYI, not all atheists are Richard Dawkins. Nor are all scientists. As I said above, the truth is that the majority just don't care that much what you think. That leaves folks like Dawkins as the vocal minority.

Richard Dawkins, biggest mouth they have, hates religion, hates God. He worships Darwin for making it possible for an Atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. I guess by that he means thinking life has no purpose.

And he's a bit of a blowhard. Just because he shouts the loudest doesn't mean that we all agree with him. I mean, do you agree with the folks at Westboro Baptist Church?

My point is, common descent has to be defended at all costs, or world views will have to change. Atheist's see it as a war of the worlds, and in doing so tries to strike fear into the world if anyone even thinks of straying away from methodological naturalism.

I don't know why you insist on making this about atheism. True, the most militant critics of ID are atheists, but they don't represent the majority view.

Which means, if it is science, it is evolution, the two cannot be separated.

What? There are plenty of sciences out there that don't depend on evolution. Physics, Chemistry, most of Geology (ignoring Paleontology)...

So again, you're degenerating into ad hominem attacks and sweeping generalizations without actually presenting any data. Bottom line: most evolutionary biologists are not atheists, nor do they insist that the world will end if evolution is not "defended" (defended from what?, I might ask; ID certainly doesn't pose much of a threat apart from people trying to get it taught in schools).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

PART ONE of Two
<snip>

Ok, maybe this will be easier than I thought.

In this post, you again use the opinions of one extremely biased person to represent the views of anyone who supports evolution. Not only that, but it's an opinion piece for a newspaper/magazine, not a scientific article or research paper.

Then you go on to talk about how the views on "junk DNA" shifted. An excellent example of the scientific process. I read through what you wrote expecting to see some component that an ID-based hypothesis had proposed, but no such luck. Just because one hypothesis is falsified does not mean that your alternate hypothesis is suddenly correct. If you want to prove ID correct, you have to offer testable hypotheses, not examples of where evolution was wrong. Moreover, disproving one element of a theory is not enough to collapse it.

In fact, I'd like to point out that the goal of science is not to prove a hypothesis, but to falsify it. After all, if your tests can't falsify your hypothesis, then it must be correct, right? Falsified hypotheses are nothing new in the world of science.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

PART TWO of two
<snip>

1. Darwin wasn't an atheist. Before you attack me for claiming you've said something that you haven't, you're implied as much and you've appealed to other peoples' religiousness (i.e. Mendel) when explaining why they didn't believe Darwin. Darwin was actually a fairly religious guy who was quite conflicted about the repercussions of evolution on his faith.

2. While vaccines may have been discovered before the theory of evolution came about, without evolution, there would be no understanding of how to change those vaccines to combat viruses as they evolved. There's a reason why you need a new flu shot every year.

3. The fight against ID in schools has nothing to do with religion (apart from a few people like Dawkins) or silencing criticism and everything to do with teaching good science. ID does not present any testable hypotheses and is therefore bad science. It's as simple as that. Currently, ID consists of two things: "It's so complicated, it must have been designed by Go...I mean an intelligent designer!" and "Look what evolution got wrong!" There's no science there.

4. Random statistics are absolutely meaningless (on both sides). None of the poll data that you're talking about is still available, and I'm well aware of how data can be manipulated to show what you want it to show. Looking at the poll questions, anyone who answers "yes" to the second question could be an IDer, a theistic evolutionist, a Deist, or anyone who believes that God played any sort of role in the evolution of life. The only people excluded would be literal creationists and atheists. In other words, the only results that would have any significance would be those who answered "yes" to either the first or the third question.