As I said, the book (and the argument) is about a specific hypothesis pertaining to a specific species within an evolutionary framework. That's not the same as arguing about evolution. Just like doubting that Bill is little Joey's father is not the same as doubting that people have fathers.
That is fine if you do not except the theory presented in the Book. It just makes it that much easier for us to show evolution is not true when evolutionists argue against their own theory. Or spend all their time to argue among themselves to try and establish just what it is they believe.
Unless your on the Jerry Springer show and you are testing 16 different men and none of them turn out to be the father. Usually it is fairly easy to determine who the father is. The test is 99% accurate.
Yet the arguement is if micro evolution is true then that means macro is true. So the theory stands or falls based on how true the details are. Of course the problem really is not with the theory itself. The problem is when atheists want to use the theory to try to support their claim to atheism. The theory of theistic evolution is fairly well accepted and few people argue against it. For me if people want to argue against the catching fire book then that is wonderful. That leaves more room for special creation. It opens the door for intelligent design.
Not really. Often it comes down to pro or con. For or against abortion, for or against homosexual priests and bishops and so on. This can be a problem for evolution theory because some people may consider pro evolution to be anti christian. So even theistic evolutionists may deny evolution in order to try and associate themselves with Christianity.
If it's "meaningless" then there is nothing for you to argue against.
It's only a problem if the students learn one thing in their science class and something else in the sunday school or religion class. It is not unheard of for evolution to be debated in the court system. The Ohio Board of Education voted in 2004 to alter its science standards to allow the teaching of criticisms of evolution, including intelligent design, only to reverse course less than two years later. The Scopes Monkey Trial—was a landmark case. Religion ends up in court also. There was Madeline O'hara for example.
there is nothing to argue against if you make a vague statement with no details. if you have none to give, thats fine.
Well that is a problem for the kids whose parents are cultists. but its among the least of their problems.
Intelligent design would be William A. Dembski & Michael Behe. Their books often can be gotten for the cost of the postage. Most people would agree there is an Intelligent Designer. But I do not think there are many followers of any theory for ID. Most Christians would be theistic evolutions to some degree. This simply says God used evolution when He created the Universe. I think the christians that tend to be against evolution are really against atheistic evolution as well they should be. God knows the end from the beginning and any sort of random process would contradict that. When you plant a seed for a mighty oak all the genetic information for that oak is contained within the seed.
We are talking about distance. People can run up to 25 miles in a day. Most anyone can do 12 miles in a day. I do not think a lion can cover that much distance in a day. I go out on the bike trails and see tiny little kids on tiny bicyles going up to 5 miles in a day.
