this didn't happen until...

[hrothgar]

What I mean is that there is surelly a way to make evolution compatible with religion as there is a way to make islam compatible with cristianism or any other religion. (sorry for putting evolution in the same sentence with 2 religions, not comparable I took it :))

I think you have this one completely wrong. As a practical example, consider the following

 

Pope John Paul II directly stated that "Evolution is Compatible with Christian faith".

 

I'll be shocked if anyone can find an example where he receits the Shahada (You know, "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".

[Fluffy]

There is a god, that sends prophets, I don't find that much differences, the fact that others are willing to separate them for power purposes doesn't change the way I see it.

 

Maybe if I believed in the sacred words from each religion that have been adulterated through the years I would see the differences.

[Al_U_Card]

I really hate this kind of debate.

What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

It is not a debate. It is a turkey-shoot.

 

We are not "right" and we are not invested in proving a point. We are just stating that even though the sun "rises" in the morning, it is the earth that is spinning that makes it seem so. This has been verified sufficiently even though many people for many years thought that the sun moved around the earth.

 

It is not stupid, it is reality.

[mikeh]

I really hate this kind of debate.

Heavy states his opinion that evolution is just a theory.

 

Now, the true believers in evolution claim that he is wrong and that his claims are silly.

 

Impressive. So you state an opinion is wrong, but your opinion is right.

Now, this is really convincing- at least for you fundementalists.

 

 

This is stupid.

 

Please, I know that you can do better then that.

That you believe that Dawkins is right, is no proofe for the theory of evolution.

 

So, when you want to show him and others, that evolution is more then a theory, maybe some statements like: Look here, a nice article about ring species, or here a research about the evolution of bacterias etc.

 

Of course, if you simply want to write your already well known opinion and your believes, go ahead, we all have the right to believe in things we do not understand. I for my part believe that evolution is more then a theory.

What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

 

I am not a scientist. I am a widely-read, intelligent layperson with some university training in chemistry and physics, before going to law school. I do not pretend to have read everything there is to read nor to have conducted any research of my own.

 

However, unless there is a vast conspiracy amongst virtually all scientists, it seems reasonable to me to accept that when a large number of prize-winning scientists from major universities (rather than fringe religiously funded quackeries) repeatedly and consistently report research findings (usually in the first instance in peer-reviewed journals and only later in books and articles more accessible to people like me), the odds are that their information is based on reality...observed, verifiable reality.

 

Thus when there are reports of new species of bacteria arising, or that ring species have been observed or that we share 98.3% (or whatever the figure is)of our dna with chimps, or any of thousands of findings consistent with the validity of evolution by natural selection, I accept that the theory has been tested, and retested, and continues to be tested and that so far it has held up (obviously with refinements as our knowledge base has expanded) for 150 years!

 

That last point about knowledge base expansion is very important. Revealed truth usually changes only when the discrepancies between popular knowledge and the old revealed truth threatens the control of the religious hierarchy.. which then reinterpretes the revealed truth to be more consistent... so as to retain control... witness the way in which the Mormons outlawed polygamy or recognized that blacks were fully human. Science, being based on an understanding gleaned from actual reality changes as new facts arise.

 

So when someone who 'believes' in evolution does so because he or she has actually read a significant number of books and understands (or thinks he does) what the authors are saying... based on verifiable physical observation and genetic analysis and mathematics, then (absent the huge conspiracy theory) this is completely different from being a creationist or even just a non-acceptor of evolution. It is a rational, fact-based opinion which is based on faith only in the integrity of a mulitude of very intelligent, hard-working scientists at major institutions.

 

Only an idiot or a religious believer or someone who is too intellectually lazy to actually do any serious reading would equate this sort of opinion with that of the creationists or ID'ers. Strong words... but, really, what do you expect if you make public pronouncements about such things as gaps in the fossil record leaving doubts about evolution... evolution was never based solely on the fossil record.. Darwin wasn't a fossil hunter.. and with modern science, especially in genetics, the fossil record, while still important, is far from central to the understanding of the theory. The doubts that lingered in the early years, based on the fossil record's incompleteness, have been assuaged by other approaches, using techniques unavailable to Darwin and his peers. To not know this reveals an astounding degree of ignorance.

 

And to call evolution a 'philosophy' equivalent in intellectual validity to creationism is absurd.

[ASkolnick]

I happen to be on the side of Heavy on the fact that too many people do not leave things open for debate, which I think is good discussion in schools. Now, I will have to admit I may be suspicious in Louisiana that they are trying to slip in some "religious" information under the guise of scientific discovery, but I don't think about talking about alternative theories is a bad things.

 

The general problem is people who are clearly "evolutionists" will dismiss anything that someone has stated and call them "religious nuts", "fanatics", "stupid" etc.

 

I happen to think evolution and religion are compatable, so I don't have a problem.

The fact that no one has been able to tell me "How life started?" seems to me a gaping hole in evolutionist theory, yet it seems to be dismissed. At least in this forum is was explained:

 

Occam's razor was used, but this is a horrible case of it:

 

Why is the chance of proteins building in such a combination that life started

any more or less likely than

An Entity decided to start the ball rolling.

 

I don't think anyone can do a statistical analysis of that anyway.

 

Unlike the sun and the angles, which can now be measured, this is not the same argument as the sun moved around the earth.

 

So if you think I am being dumb, fine. But I think many of you are being quite closed-minded about the fact there are holes in both theories.

[mikeh]

What alternative theories??? Does anyone have one other than ID.. which is no theory at all..merely dogma dressed up to look (to illiterates or religious believers) like one?

 

As for evolution not having all of the answers, so what? That is the essence of a scientific theory.. that it develops, changes, evolves as the knowledge base expands. Evolutionary theory is far more complete than it was 150 years ago and continues to grow... arguing that it is invalid until it answers every question is, frankly, dumb. It has proven to be correct in example after example.. if it ever proves to be incorrect, then we all have to rethink the theory... and maybe abandon it...but so far, while some important questions are not fully resolved, it has not been shown to be false... and it has been shown to be valid in the areas so far explored. Unlike ALL alternatives beyond the intellectually meaningless proposition that God created all, which is completely untestable. If that distinction is not appreciated, then, yes, that does say something about the intelligence of the person concerned... or more likely, given that I have a high opinion of the intelligence of all who post here, about the strength of the human tendency to reject that which makes us uncomfortable.... religious faith must be a very cozy blanket, compared to which science must seem very cold and frightening. After all, there is zero scientific evidence for an afterlife.

 

Edit: in case it isn't clear from the above... if there is actually a real alternative theory, that accords as well with reality as evolution by natural selection appears to, then I would be delighted to read about it, and very happy to have it taught in school as a legitimate alternative. I waste my time reading about evolution, psychology, antrhopolgy and physics because I enjoy the exploration of the universe, even if only at second-hand and on a dumbed-down basis. I am currently reading The Elegant Universe, about string theory...thankfully the book is devoid of math... which means that I don't have a true understanding of the issues, but it is so well written that I am left with the impression that I do... more importantly, that the physicists and mathematicians working in the field do.. and I get the same feeling about evolution when I read equivalent material in that area. So if there is something new.. I'd love to read about it.

[luke warm]

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

[Trumpace]

'I can't engage in an intellectual discussion, because you'll laugh at me... so I'm right... take that!'

I actually meant that posting our CVs seems like the intellectual equivalent of a pissing match and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other.

 

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

 

Let me underscore my point, again. I'm not arguing - for the sake of this thread, anyway - the particulars of evolutionary or 'intelligent design' science. I *am* saying that there are some (IMHO) no-so-scientific presuppositions that both sides bring to the table which compromise the objectivity of the science behind them. I think both camps would be better served to own up to those.

It seems like you are involved in and respect the scientific method.

 

If, after reading lot of the evidence favouring Evolution, you still think there are _huge_ gaps, I would suggest that you write up an article/paper about the flaws you think there are. Perhaps your insights will help others.

 

Maybe you could start off by posting a couple of flaws here (not this thread, but perhaps a new thread in the WC forum) and let the Evolution Thumpers agree or point evidence closing the gaps etc.

[jdonn]

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

Perhaps the reason is that one of them admits he read it "just for kicks". I read Dilbert just for kicks, which means I do not go into it with an open mind that I may be convinced of something!

[mikeh]

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

if you and mike are reading the same books and if those books impart to him certitude while leave you still wondering, there must be a reason... maybe you're just a naive fundy idiot... you know what they say, put a thousand chimps in a room full of dawkin's books and one of 'em would - oh wait, i think that was something else

I use strong language to express myself, but the one thing that I AM certain about is that my understanding of the questions that we discuss here, and just about everything else I think I 'know', is subject to revision if and when convincing evidence arises... and I am prepared to accept, for these purposes, accounts of new evidence by reputable investigators who make their research and findings available for scrutiny and testing by others.

 

So, my understanding of the scientific validity of evolution is based on my understanding of the unanimity of the reputable scientific community to the effect that evolution by natural selection is a valid, tested theory supported by the evidence. There are still, and probably long will be, areas of intense debate amongst scientists about some of the more arcane aspects of the theory, but the basic principles are understood.

 

As an analogy... when I studied physics at the university level in the later 1960s and early 1970s, quantum mechanics was viewed as a very powerful means of understanding the universe on a sub-microscopic level. Yes, it had proved impossible to that time to find a theory that reconciled quantum mechanics with relativity.. and gravity was a real theoretical problem, but I accepted, as did countless thousands of students in a similar situation, that quantum mechanics was the most accurate theory we had.

 

Now, string theory has upset the applecart. QM is still extremely useful for many aspects of physics... at its heart, as I understand the issues, QM is based on a mathematical concept that the smallest particles (using the term loosely) are dimension-less points. String theory posits that the smallest particles are actually one-dimensional strings... with a determinable 'length'. Except at scales where that length becomes significant, the theories give rise to the same, or much the same, predictions and results... certainly so far within experimental capacity to discern. Ask me what I currently accept as the most accurate theory of the physical universe and I will say 'string theory'. Ask me to do any of the math, and I will just laugh at you.

 

Only zealots have certainty... it is what makes them zealots. Strong opinions, if held subject to a change of opinion when underlying facts change, are just strong opinions.

 

A refusal to accept demonstrated facts suggests zealotry. I recognize the difference... do you?

[HeavyDluxe]

Perhaps the reason is that one of them admits he read it "just for kicks". I read Dilbert just for kicks, which means I do not go into it with an open mind that I may be convinced of something!

Wow...

 

If you read the post I was responding to, you'll see that Mike asked if I'd read anything by Dawkins, Gould, etc. I was trying to say that I had, including a book ("The God Delusion") that even the author would admit is not a scientific book but a philosophical one. I read that particular book for my own edification - not because it's required for anything else I do.

 

I have read, critically and open-mindedly, many major books from the last 15 years of the evolution/creationism debate. I, because of my profession, interact with journal articles written from an evolutionary standpoint regular. In so far as any of us are truly able to empty ourselves of bias, I've given all of these a fair shake.

 

EDIT: Quoting Mike:

Only zealots have certainty... it is what makes them zealots. Strong opinions, if held subject to a change of opinion when underlying facts change, are just strong opinions.

 

A refusal to accept demonstrated facts suggests zealotry. I recognize the difference... do you?

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

[jdonn]

I have read, critically and open-mindedly, many major books from the last 15 years of the evolution/creationism debate.  I, because of my profession, interact with journal articles written from an evolutionary standpoint regular. In so far as any of us are truly able to empty ourselves of bias, I've given all of these a fair shake.

I was just waiting for you to tell me that, because despite what you think, I DO believe you. :)

 

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

I agree both sides are showing some hubris. I do not agree that both sides are conducting science.

[Al_U_Card]

One side is conducting "science" the other side is conducting faith, disguised as "pseudo-science".

 

Evolution doesn't replace a divine creator....CREATOR, but ID attempts to replace evolution.....with faith....gaah!

[jdonn]

BTW just came accross this so what the heck, it seems on topic. Which came first, the chicken or the amoeba?

[HeavyDluxe]

What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

I agree both sides are showing some hubris. I do not agree that both sides are conducting science.

I was trying to be courteous. I think both sides risk failing to conduct science at all.

 

Part of this is my scientific training. A old mentor (and not friendly to the ID/Creationist viewpoint) hammered into my head that science must be careful not to blindly omit possible explanations. Instead, research must be willing to consider all options - disproving the 'wrong' ones clearly to leave the best explanation standing.

 

I think both sides are guilty of shoehorning results into a predefined framework.

• Evolution is the way it is, so any inferences of design must be explained away through evolutionary means (no matter how improbable).
  
• Intelligent design is the way it is, so any inferences of macro-evolutionary processes must have fundamental flaws if I just look hard enough.
  

*That's* my problem. I'll admit to having a horse in the race re: how life came into being (I'm even more radical than the IDer, FTR), but my primary concern in this thread is the way both sides stab each other for the same sin.

 

BTW, thanks for believing that I've read/considered a few things, even if I'm not bright enough to get it right. :)

[HeavyDluxe]

One other thing... I should apologize for the ongoing threadjack, too. Sorry! :)

[Al_U_Card]

Evolution is rational, ID is mythical.

 

Remember my analogy with the sunrise? C'mon people, ID is the sun going 'round the earth POV except that the Sun is really a chariot pulled by winged steeds and the earth is a tabletop on the back of a turtle.... sheesh.

[mikeh]

*That's* my problem.  I'll admit to having a horse in the race re: how life came into being (I'm even more radical than the IDer, FTR), but my primary concern in this thread is the way both sides stab each other for the same sin.

 

Well, I think that this explains a lot about your posts. Let me go out on a limb and suggest that your thoughts on how life began are based in faith, not science

 

It seems to me that it is impossible for faith-based believers to engage meaningfully with scientific thinkers, and vice versa, for a simple reason.

 

A faith based believer starts with the proposition that the world and all of its manifestations have to accord with the faith. Any observation that contradicts the faith is in error (altho religious organizations have demonstrated the ability to have new truths revealed that account for the inconvenient and unavoidable reality that might, if not accomodated, cost the organization some of its power).

 

The faith remains, in the short term, constant and not susceptible to modification in the light of observed phenonema.

 

A thinker starts with the proposition that the world and the universe... our very existence... is a fascinating question, and that our opinions about these issues is going to be formed based on observations. As observations become more detailed, as evidence accumulates, our opinions change. We have no pre-conceived immutable view of how the world should be.. we take it as it really is, as best as we can determine it.

 

Thus it is that both Richard and I have stated that we would happily abandon our support of evolution through natural selection if the theory was falsified by observation. So far, that hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed... shown to be based on inaccurate and misleading assumptions as to reality.

 

But, I suspect that your belief in the origin of life will prove and has proven so far resistant to the lack of verifiable, testable evidence in support of it. Of course, if you KNOW the 'truth' then evidence is unnecessary.

 

Oh, and claims, no matter how valid, and I accept yours without reservation, to scientific training does not make faith-based positions any more rational :)

 

On that note.. why not elucidate for us any of the 'possible explanations' that compete with evolution and that are or have been scientifically testable?

[HeavyDluxe]

Mike,

 

Based on your comments, you seem to say it is impossible for a rational person to interact (objectively) with scientific evidence and come to a 'faith-based' position on origins. Perhaps that's true, though I would at least claim there should be room for a rational mind to reach different conclusion.

 

To be sure, one is right and the other is wrong - at least as ultimate explanations of origins.

So far, {the refutation of evolution} hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed...

No room for an "in my opinion" there? Is that really an absolute fact?

Oh, and claims, no matter how valid, and I accept yours without reservation, to scientific training does not make faith-based positions any more rational.

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. The difference is that I see an equally 'faith-based' position in much of evolutionary biology today.

 

Like I've said, two sides, same error.

But, I suspect that your belief in the origin of life will prove and has proven so far resistant to the lack of verifiable, testable evidence in support of it.

There's no way I can respond to that, you know. If I claim that I've considered (and will continue to consider) the "verifiable" evidence and still don't buy in, either I'm ignorant or I'm letting faith trump my reason. So, I'll just let you take your pick which one you think applies.

why not elucidate for us any of the 'possible explanations' that compete with evolution and that are or have been scientifically testable?

I really wasn't trying to make this a ID/Creation/Evolution debate. My original point was, at least loosely, on topic with Winston's post. In presenting evolution as the 'absolutely right' framework for processing all biological inquiry, scientists are guilty of the same error they claim "IDers" are trying to introduce into the classroom.

 

So, with that in mind: (Macro)Evolutionary theory - as an explanation for ultimate origin - is no more experimentally verifiable than so-called 'intelligent design'. That natural selection occurs or that particular mechanisms have 'evolved' is something I'm willing to concede. But I'm unwilling to state that this means taking evolutionary logic as our default paradigm is a good move.

 

Let me loop to where we started. You asked for examples, but already said above that they've been "resoundingly rebuffed". Perhaps, "A[n evolutionary theory] believer starts with the proposition that the world and all of its manifestations have to accord with the [theory]."

 

Maybe we're not that different, despite your fervent arguments to the contrary.

[mikeh]

So far, {the refutation of evolution} hasn't happened... the semi-literate ideas of the ID cult have been resoundingly rebuffed...

No room for an "in my opinion" there? Is that really an absolute fact?

 

The resoundingly was, as I would have thought was obvious, an expression of opinion. As to its being rebuffed:

 

1. The court in the US case (I think it was in Ohio or Pennsylania) that struck down a local decision to teach ID did a very good job, imo, of describing the issues and the evidence.. yes, I read the judgement

 

2. I watched a lengthy documentary on PBS that allowed proponents and opponents of ID to speak... and, while I may be in error, the producer, director and editors of the documentary seemed to lean over backwards to be even-handed.. no narration critical of one school or the other, allowing each speaker to give fairly lengthy answers, rather than editing them down to sound bites. Again, I recognize my own bias, but I have to say that the opponents of ID seemed to have the stronger argument.

 

One argument was the issue about the development of flagellae... the ID'ers said that evolutionary theory could not explain how this happened in a particular lifeform. The evolutionists countered with specific examples of precursor mechanisms, and plausible modes of adaptation whereby this could happen. IOW, one school said: we are right because the other side has no explanation, while the other side said.. yes we do... here it is, in detail.

 

Another argument was that the organization behind ID had calculated the number of genetic evolutionary steps it would take for a single celled ancient bacterium to evolve into man.. and had calculated the probability of each step. The result was that the odds of man arising by random mutation mediated by natural selection was astronomically remote.. indeed, astronomically is an underbid. Since we are here, the argument went, it is SO unlikely, so improbable that we arose through chance, that ID was the far more plausible explanation.

 

Of course, the fallacy is that this argument depends on the assumption that in some manner we were an intended consequence.. that nature had us in mind all along. A more logical approach would be to say that chance mutation (and it is not actually purely random as to which parts of the genome are susceptible to mutation) mediated by natural selection was probably reasonably likely to give rise, ultimately, to lifeforms significantly more able to replicate and impact their environment than the original bacterium. It is maybe surprising but certainly not astronomically implausible that at some point on some planet with the same initial conditions as the earth, complex, semi-rational, thinking, conscious life forms would arise. That we are they is happenstance... we were not the 'intended' result.. there is no such thing as intentionality in evolution, which is why Freud said it would be so hard for it to be accepted.. it demotes us to the status of a contingent developement, rather than being 'created' by some god.

 

3. I have read a number of books, and articles, criticizing ID... based, so the authors write, on actual evidence.. either they are lying or ID has been shown, factually, to be based on illogic, and mis-information. These authors, generally, hold solid academic credentials... they are widely renowned, and not mouthpieces for religiously funded propaganda outlets... unlike the ID

ers.

 

So, it is not my opinion, alone, that ID has been resoundingly rebuffed.

[jtfanclub]

What alternative theories??? Does anyone have one other than ID.. which is no theory at all..merely dogma dressed up to look (to illiterates or religious believers) like one?

Didn't I already talk about this?

 

It's environmentally-altered genetics. The oldest version of it was Lamark's Theorem, that giraffes that needed longer necks to survive would not only gain longer necks (through stretching), but their children would have longer necks (through genetics). That version has been disproven.

 

But there are others, such as if there is a village ravaged by an illness and one person has a genetic immunity, both the elders and the children are more likely to gain a genetic immunity from it, even though they aren't related to the person. That viruses can actually pass genetic material from one person to another.

 

How about the theory of deliberate selection? You may have noticed alpha dogs having sex with other dogs, male and female, even if the female isn't in heat. This could be altering the genetics of the subject, either through mixing (some of the actual parent, some of the alpha male), subborning (some of the father's sperm are effectively replaced by the alpha male), or randomizing (making mutations more likely in the parent). There's some interesting studies about foxes, where all of a vixen's kits will have the alpha male as the father even though foxes aren't all that choosy about mates. If there some magical power the vixen has to choose which male will actually fertilize her, or is this subborning in action?

 

Unfortunately, this hadn't been studied much when I studied it in college, except in trees, who have different methods of sharing genetics.

[luke warm]

Another argument was that the organization behind ID had calculated the number of genetic evolutionary steps it would take for a single celled ancient bacterium to evolve into man.. and had calculated the probability of each step. The result was that the odds of man arising by random mutation mediated by natural selection was astronomically remote.. indeed, astronomically is an underbid. Since we are here, the argument went, it is SO unlikely, so improbable that we arose through chance, that ID was the far more plausible explanation.

 

Of course, the fallacy is that this argument depends on the assumption that in some manner we were an intended consequence.. that nature had us in mind all along.

i believe this line of reasoning is itself the fallacy of diversion (or even straw man)... even if man wasn't the consequence it in no way affects the reasoning behind why man *wouldn't* be the consequence

[helene_t]

[*]Evolution is the way it is, so any inferences of design must be explained away through evolutionary means (no matter how improbable).

Who says evolution "is the way it is"?

 

If you can find evidence that contradicts some established scientific idea, the scientific community as a whole is eager to look at your suggested revision of the theory. I don't believe the community of evolutionary biologists is different from other scientific communities in that respect. I can say that as someone who has published an article (in a peer-reviewed journal of course) where I argued against the (at that time) dominant hypothesis of a certain pattern in gene expression profiles as being explained by evolutionary theory.

 

If what you say is that there are people who believe dogmatically in scientific theories then I am sure you are right.

[hotShot]

I would like to see some practical use of the ID-theory.

 

How does ID explain that bacteria develop immunity to antibiotics.

How does ID explain that illnesses that only existed in animals, suddenly infect humans.

 

It should be noted that real scientists usually don't claim to have prove that god does not exist. They watch nature, and than they try to build the most simple experiment that can reproduce the watched effects. After that they try to make a model/theory that explains their experiment and they design experiments to challenge their model/theory. If their model can predict the outcome of the new experiments it gets an accepted theory.

Real scientists know the limits of their knowledge and answer that they don't know if necessary. They have no method to know anything about the time prior to the big bang or what is outside the expanding universe.

 

They are usually very specific about what their theory is about.

 

Evolution has life as precondition, it explains how a single living cell could evolve into millions of different species. Evolution does not explain the creation of that first cell.

[Lobowolf]

Who says evolution "is the way it is"?

The Greek God Tautologous.