Those 6 questions define what CMI is really about, and it isn't about a scientific debate. Those questions are as loaded as asking people "Why do you beat your dog?".
To use the courtroom as an analogy . . .
Imagine that the prosecution presents fingerprint, DNA, ballistic, tire print, shoe print, and fiber analysis evidence all of which links the defendent to the murder scene. The defense attorney looks at the jury and says, "See, they have no evidence that my client is guilty." I think the jury would scratch their head in disbelief, and yet this is exactly what CMI is doing. There is 150 years of accumulated evidence. Their response? What evidence? An honest person would at least address the evidence that has been presented, but CMI is not interested in an honest debate.
Of course, CMI will never actually attend scientific conferences where these things are debated and discussed. It is not a scientific movement. It is a political movement, and an extremely dishonest one at that. By their fruits you will know them.
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.
We will do that once CMI supports the assertions in their questions. For example, they claim that "living fossils" are identical to their fossilized bretheren. Where did they support this? They also claim that there are no transitional fossils. Where did they support this assertion?
If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution.
Like others have said, laws and theories are different things. I would suggest you read Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory". It is short and easy to understand. Here is my favorite quote from the essay:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Scientific laws are the facts. A law is a formalized description of the observations. A law is a description of the world's data. Theories attempt to explain the observations. The law of gasses tell us that as temperature increases so too will pressure. The theory of atoms attempts to explain why we observe this relationship. We observe that humans and chimps are different while still sharing a common ancestor. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how this can be.
Sorry crashfrog. I didn't know this was such a sore point for you, and for that matter everyone. Questioning evolution.
The sore point is loaded questions. For example, they ask why living fossils are identical to their fossilized bretheren. They aren't. Even then, the theory of evolution does not insist that every species MUST change, only that they can. When you have some honest questions that you are willing to discuss then we will be happy to have a discussion.
I also and amazed it takes so much explaining. You say "quite a bit of research" and cavediver says (IIRC) should he explain the thousands of papers on the subject.
Yes, science is a bit more complicated than "God did it". Get used to it.
Everyones answers are really great and I would love to submit them to CMI to show that this is a fine campaingn as evidenced by this thread.
Even tho it's not my thread I think it's a huge success thus far.
So I see that you support the dishonesty over at CMI. That's too bad.
Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it...
Quite the opposite. You refuse to read the explanations. Just go to www.pubmed.com . Search for "evolution". There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers waiting for you. You should really take responsibility of your own education and not blame others for your ignorance on a given subject.
Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right?
It would appear that they're not teaching grammar as well as they used to, but yes they are teaching the basics of evolution. Descent with modification and natural selection are the basics. Even then, CMI fails to even understand high school level biology. Their knowledge of biology is more on the 3rd or 4th grade level.
Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going.
So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq?
What kinds? Please list the genetic and morphological criteria for determining whether or not two species belong to the same kind.
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.
Then I would contend that we also see it in evolution. Humans and chimps are both apes, as was their common ancestor. Humans and chimps are variations of the ape kind. Humans and bears are both mammals, as was their common ancestor. Humans and bears are variations of the mammal kind. Trout and humans are both vertebrates, as was their common ancestor. Trout and humans are both variations of the vertebrate kind. It would appear that we observe descent with modification as well, just as Darwin claimed.
The reality is we are here. Nothing cannot create something.
Since evolution is descent with modification, I really don't see how this applies. Evolution clearly states that new species are produced through imperfect biological reproduction that is filtered through natural selection. Both the parents of the next generation and the selective pressures are something, not nothing.
We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim.
I can grab a rock and claim it supports the existence of Leprechauns if I want. Anyone can say anything they want. Demonstrating that something is true is another ball game entirely. So why don't you show us how creationists have demonstrated that the fossil record supports their claims? A good place to start would be to tell us what a transitional fossil should look like so that we can determine if they really exist.
Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations.
Getting back to the OP . . .
The major problem with the 15 questions is that it inserts lies into the questions. For example, it asks why there are living species that are identical to long dead fossil species. This is a lie. They are not identical. Very similar, yes. Identical? Absolutely not. There are quite a few questions within the 15 that follow this pattern. We are simply pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of creation science given the fact that they have to lie about the facts in order to have a point.
As a more general point, ID/creationism ignores the facts and reality. I have gone on and on about the nested hierarchy in several of these threads. My point in doing so is to show that ID/creationism does not address this issue. It never has. It simply can not explain the facts. Evolution does.
So the problem is two fold. First, ID/creationists make up facts (i.e. they lie). Second, they ignore the real facts.
Then we also have "Gould" facts. Stephen Jay Gould once defined fact as "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". If we accept this definition then we also bring many other facts to bear, such as the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. As Gould stated it:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
The genetic evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Withholding provisional assent is perverse in this instance. It is a fact. Many ID/creationists refuse to accept this fact based on religious dogma. Any model of life's history must include the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. If the model does not include this fact then it is a failed model.
As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully.
That's not it at all. You have to produce the same amount of evidence to support your claims as has been produced for evolution. The problem is that you have to counter 150 years of accumulated evidence backing evolution. You are complaining that the facts don't back you. Perhaps you should think about that.
Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
No. I think that the major problem with the 15 questions - and evolutionists are mssing this point too - is that science needs unanswerd questions.
More importantly, science needs HONEST questions. CMI is not providing honest questions. Instead, CMI is offering loaded questions that are more rhetorical in nature, and they are based on a serious misunderstanding of the facts.