EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

We all agree that hoaxes, mistakes, and press/discoverer over-enthusiasm were involved in the cases cited. Can you show evidence of your claim that these cases contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science (presumably in the public eye)? If anything, so far you have only shown how they have harmed the public acceptance of evolution.Indeed - there are significant numbers that reject evolution and if you ask them why they reject it you will probably hear about hoaxes and frauds from a good number of them.Can you show that significant numbers of people cited any of the frauds, misidentifications etc you name as significant or primary reasons to accept evolution?

Hah! He didn't do anything of the sort. He simply said that if earthly life were intelligently designed that doesn't demonstrate that a god did it. Exactly as Behe said, "Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being" This seems the only part of your 1800 word rant that is anything to do with frauds. We all know that frauds have occurred, and it is interesting that you raise medical research as an example of 'true science' since it is generally agreed that medical research has a significant amount fudged results and outright fraud! (Source).We all know about examples of hoaxes, misinterpretation, frauds and overeager reporting in both pro-creationist and pro-evolution related circles (I've lost count of the number of times the newspapers have told me that we've cured AIDS or Cancer (since we are presenting cartoons at the moment allow me to present this)). Do you have any evidence that they have been a significant contributing cause behind the public acceptance of evolution? I have no stake in the matter: If everybody in the USA that believed evolution was true because of Piltdown man then that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of evolution.So are you able to support your claim? If you think defending your position is a waste of time, I advise you stop engaging in debate and instead set up your own blog or website or write a book where you can tell the world about the dishonesty of whomever you like. You'll find that in a debate format you don't just get to 'tell it as it is' without getting challenged that the way you are telling it is indeed the way it is.Edited by Modulous, : added note about medical research and science journalism including cartoon.

You really think so? There were several editions of the book, and later editions were not made because the author of the work had the tenacity to die.Anyway here is something Darwin wrote in that book,

quote:

---

there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited

---

There are a number of things Darwin said that were wrong. He was a man who clearly paid attention to detail - and managed to hit the nail very close to the head with many of his ideas. Darwin's key area of blindness was the mechanics of inheritance which he got quite wrong (though it wasn't an inherently bad idea given the information he had in front of him).

Hi Archangel. Do you have any evidence that the examples you raised in the OP had a significant contribution to what public acceptance evolution has? Who do you think the culprits are? The media? A small group of scientists? The whole scientific community? Liberal professors trying to convert people to atheism? Who? Why? I am genuinely interested in what evidence you have regarding this topic.