Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

And if those "controversies" are phonied up by some creationist outfit like the Discovery Institute.And are completely unrelated to the actual controversies being debated within the field of study?And have nothing to do with established science?Then what?Edited by Coyote, : Unedit an edit.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Isn't the author of that site, Mel Gabler, a well-known creationist?Here is a paragraph from Wiki:

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Because of the level of accuracy and veracity I have seen from creationists, I take anything they say as subject to independent verification.The fact that the originator of this list is a creationist would lead me to believe it's the same old nonsense that's been refuted a thousand times dusted off and recycled for a gullible audience.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Forgive me for harping on this subject to the exclusion of many others equally good targets. I have some background in the subject.The "information" the creationist websites have on radiometric dating is liberally laced with nonsense. If some error appeared, say, in Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book (Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1992), you can be sure it is repeated time after time on the creationist websites.I have found a lot of errors in creationist literature dealing with radiometric dating.On two occasions I found errors dealing with radiocarbon dating that apparently first appeared in The Answer Book that later appear on at least six creationist websites. And they are bonehead errors, but the creationists didn't bother to check the original sources -- they were so overjoyed to find an error in radiometric dating that they just copied it into their websites as if it were accurate.And tens of thousands of creationists assumed these points were correct, and dozens or hundreds of them probably posted them on this and other similar websites as proof that radiometric dating is inaccurate.And now, these "errors" in radiometric dating are being used to sell this new nonsense, "strengths and weaknesses" as legitimate science.What we're seeing is creation "science" at it's best -- a mix of errors, poor scholarship, religious zeal, and outright propaganda -- all adding up to a huge collection of falsehoods.(If you are really interested I can document those two errors that showed up on at least six creationist websites, along with other errors which I have found in fewer than six websites. But I don't think anyone who knows creation "science" will doubt my claims, and most creation "scientists" won't accept my findings as meaningful no matter how well they are documented.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Please name five frauds in the fossil record.I'll even give you the first two: Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.Since there are so many frauds in the fossil record, you should be able to come up with three more?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Save your time. It won't help the creationist argument a bit.I had three seminars in grad school on "Problems in Evolution" (a few decades ago) and not a bit of any of those classes would cause a creationist to smile.And besides, studying evolution in that detail is not something creationists want to do anyway.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'll take a whack at this one:So what?Imagine the most horrible, deleterious mutation you could ever hope not to have. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations?None. It would kill itself off pretty much immediately. Must carriers of such mutations do not survive to be born.Now, imagine a mutation that is just slightly beneficial. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations?It would most likely have spread widely within the population, barring the individual being killed off before reproducing.Understanding how mutations spread makes this "weakness" in evolution look pretty weak itself.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ichneumon predicted one of three outcomes: I think you have managed to get all three into a single response!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A good example of what you are describing is here: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture)Researchchannel.org

and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of [emphasis added].

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In other words, you are unable to refute a single thing he has posted.Your bluff was called, and you failed.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes. And I am equally under the impression that you have dodged and weaved, and avoided posting a factual reply in return.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It would be more impressive to me if you actually addressed the details of Ichneumon's detailed post to you, rather than resting on the laurels of past thread counts and posts.Perhaps you could pick one issue at a time to debate? That shouldn't be too much of a strain on you.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think the "strengths and weaknesses" line is just the next attempt, in a long line of such attempts, to teach creationism in schools. It has nothing to do with science; it's the same tired old arguments with new lipstick.We went from creationism, to creation "science," to intelligent design, with "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" in there somewhere. Now we get "strengths and weaknesses."Who do these folks think they are fooling? The only school boards that adopt this are the ones already packed with creationists and looking to waste a couple of million dollars on a court case (after which they'll have to cook up another disguise for creationism).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Content hidden. Also, please use the standard quoting form, not the bright green boxes. No replies to this message. - AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

"This is how science as a whole is done..." That would be the case if the goal of various of these individuals was to do science. I believe that this is not the case.Because they are TRVE BELIEVERS they know the TRVTH without having to rely on science. All they have to do is figure out how to disable or dismantle science sufficiently so that they can convince others as well. The results of science disagree with their beliefs, so science must be wrong somewhere there anyway, eh? Don't have to study and figure out where, the results are wrong and that's all there is to it!That is where the "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" and the new "strengths and weaknesses" come from -- not a sincere effort to teach science but a dishonest effort to destroy those parts of science that disagree with particular religious beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.