It's rather like democracy - it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we humans can manage.
Precisely why an inhuman process is the only thing capable of changing us.
"When humans should have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch." (C.S. Lewis The Weight of Glory)
"Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." (C. S. Lewis)
What do you mean? You put out a name, I replied that I had never heard of him/her and now you've forgotten who we're talking about?Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
Although I don't see why Rob thinks he fits into this conversation.
Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence. I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them. I'll list them below.
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public -
You don't say!
2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science -
NOoooooo, you're kidding me, right?
Most of the time, Creationists don't really put forth these statements in such bold language, but they are, indeed, the logical consequence to the claim that they make; that Evolution is not supported by the evidence or is false.
You mean, Young Earth Creation Scientists can't exist? Nonsense.
One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.
We address this every time we talk about Origin Science! Stay away from Dr. Kent Hovind, and its not too hard to miss this.
If concept A, is discovered, replicated, and overall shown to be reliable, this will lead to concept B, which is based upon what we know about A.
If B also turns out to be reliable, this is also confirmation of concept A. And so on, and so on and so on...
Well Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation have all turned out to be pretty darn reliable. But Evolution...not so much.
If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years? The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail. Research using it as a guide should never advance much, if at all.
Can you say, Microbiology? Evolution hasn't done squat except for pull up some of the biggest shams in the history of mankind, like Piltdown Man, the Scope Monkey Trials, Archaeoraptor, Nebraska Man, etc.
How is it that predictions keep being made based upon the ToE that are subsequently borne out? -
Like what? Hearsay doesn't help us understand your points. The Transitional fossil record has been a complete joke.
Are scientists really all liars and crooks, maintaining an elaborate deception on not only an unwitting public but also upon the entire scientific community? -
No, only the Evolutionists.......
Or, are Biologists simply so incredibly poor at doing science that they don't realize that all of their experiments have failed?
Well, blind men can't see...so I guess so.
Is it Science?, please.
No, I will not accept your special pleading fallacy. Nor your no true Scientist fallacy. Thanks anyways.