TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

No. In fact there is no scientific evidence that would lead any thinking person to conclude that the mythology of creation is fact. Creation scientists don't do science. They begin from the conclusions and attempt to discredit any science that disagrees. Take Dr. Wells as an example. Yes. I read that article long before you even knew it existed. I read it at the time of the hearings. The question is whether you actually read it, and if you did, if you actually understood. You see, it is not about the research of any scientists. You might notice that when Dr. Wells is asked to describe his "research" he instead talks about a book he wrote. That book isn't actually based on any sort of scientific research. Do you know what is meant by scientific research? Did you read the cross examination? Did you read any of the 14 links that report the errors in Dr. Wells testimony? Did you follow any of the links to articles by Drs. Hurd and Theobald that explain why Wells is wrong? Did you understand any of it?Perhaps you could give us some links to actual research in "creation science" that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Such research will, of course, have the ability to falsify creationism, i.e., prove it to be false, if it is wrong. No. But is it the usual procedure in "creation science" to claim testimony before a committee as evidence without having actually read all of the testimony? Do creationists dismiss something before examining it? Did you read the cross examination? Did you read the links that show the stupidity of Dr. Wells' testimony? Bet not.

I don't think he's saying that at all. There are many christians who are real scientists. Probably the most famous is Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University (previously Harvard University). He has written text books about evolution. Moreover, Dr. Miller has done actual scientific research and has many peer reviewed articles. Jonathan Wells has stopped doing science. He writes books that distort science in order to support his preconceived notions of moonie religion. I don't know of any. Why don't you give a a list. Remember, "Icons of Evolution" is neither research nor peer reviewed. Again, where is this research published? All I am aware of is his gross misrepresentation of real science. Wells doesn't do science anymore.

This brings to mind "scientific" experiments into the efficacy of prayer. According to the "theory" of christianity, prayer is helpful. I have read of many such experiments, but when analyzed all have been found to be slanted in order to return a desired result, either that prayer works, or that it doesn't. The so called experiments were not blind or had no control.There was even the case of the science fair project by a young student who planted and grew identical potted plants - in the case of one plant the student knelt and quietly prayed for the well-being of the plant; in the case of the other, the student leaned over the plant and insulted, demeaned and cursed it. The results were that the second plant did far better. The student concluded that she was not worthy in the eyes of her god.But there has been one study about the efficacy of prayer that has been reveiwed and found to actually be scientific. This study involved coronary bypass patients. The patients were randomly placed into one of three categories. Category one were patients who were informed that they were being prayed for and who were submitted for prayer by a patient identifier to dozens of christian churches. Category two were patients who were informed that they were being prayed for but were not. Category three were patients who were neither told that they were being prayed for not told that they were being prayed for.The results were judged by the incidence of post operation complications. Categories one and two fared almost the same. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. Category three, however, had statistically significant fewer complications.That's why I have placed more faith in the skill of my surgeons than in any prayers. One 7 hour surgery with two surgeons doing a tag team, each doing their speciality, succeeded marvelously. I just said thank you to all of those who said they were praying for me. Another surgery, my burst appendix, resulted in no infection. It was the skill of the surgeon and the massive doses of antibiotics, and not prayer that prevented any subsequent infection. I know this because no one knew of my burst appendix until after the fact. There were no prayers.

Why would that be true. Most evolutionary scientists either are now or once were christians. Why would they wish to prove any theory at any cost? Do physicists have an agenda to prove the theory of gravitation at all costs? Do geologists have an agenda to prove the theory of plate tectonics at all costs? Do nuclear physicists have an agenda to prove the theory of radio decay at all costs? Why would any scientist wish to do so? Scientists observe the evidence, offer explanations, and then test those explanations. Explanations that fail the test are rejected.Specifically, what evidence are you talking about? How often do you need to be asked before you will actually present the evidence. That, of course, includes the predictions from that evidence and how it was tested. What other side? Are you talking about the mythology of bronze age nomads who believed that the whole universe was created in 6 days some 6000 years ago?Specifically, what dubious parts of evolutionary research are skipped over and where is it taught as "rock solid"? What "discrepinces"? What do you mean by "rock solid"? Don't you teach your creationist mythology as undoubted fact in your Sunday schools? How is that any different? Why don't you teach the theory of evolution as an alternative? Could it be that you teach religion in your Sunday schools and science is taught in public school science classes? But the fossil record isn't the only evidence for evolution. Darwin didn't even include any argument from the fossil record in his book. Darwin argued from his knowledge of living organisms. It was only later that the fossil record was found to support Darwin's theories. As time has passed, the fossil record has offered more and more evidence. Of course, other fields of biology have also supported the theories of evolution. Notably, genetics, molecular biology, population genetics, microbiology, paleontology, and on and on. In fact, there has not been discovered a single piece of evidence that does not support evolution. That's why I am so interested in your claim that there is some. Please present it. Really? Please cite the peer reviewed paper where this law was stated. What does the "law of recurrent variation" actually mean? What is a "genetically properly defined species"? What are those "real boundaries" of which you speak? Point out 5 species that are at those boundaries and how you know. Why can't those boundaries be crossed?Really. Trying to talk science only makes you look foolish.