Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

You can hide behind logic games all you want, but that does not change the facts.There is simply no good evidence for the supernatural.

---

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

Paulk writes,

quote:

---

In fact your posts display a pattern of evasion and avoidance. You have utterly refused to back up your original accusation of a double standard, showing that it was completely baseless. And that illustrates the lack of moral and intellectual honesty typical of the ID movement - which all too clearly illustrates it's devotion to apologetics and dogma over true Christianity

---

What you term "evasion and avoidance", was an attempt to understand the postions of various posts.
As far as lacking moral & intellectual honesty I don't think your the one to judge my moral or intellectual honesty.You are correct I did not back up my original postion that a different standard of proof was being applied to natural scientific theory.
Science will not even allow ID to present a theory.It was admitted on this board that Behe was a qualified scientist. That his scienctific statements in re molecular findings have not been falsfied, but were questionable. Yet he presents a Theoretic opinion that there is based on his findings a Limit to what evolution can do, and he is rejected out of hand because he is not now able to prove his theory.Einstenin could not prove his theory of relativity when he enuciated it, yet it has been accepted now by science.Your reply may be that Behe will never be able to prove his theory. I have read scientists who state that the theories of the Origin of life may never be proven.
Are these theories nonsense?
I believe your posts show your devotion to naturalistic materialist beliefs.
That doesn't make your wrong or does it make me wrong.Edited by shadow71, : spelling typo

ID has no theory to present.I suspect that you are confused between "theory" and "hypothesis". ID does have a hypothesis. That hypothesis is all over the internet, and in many other places, so I don't see that ID has been prevented from presenting an hypothesis. Behe presented an opinion and hypothesis. He has not provided a scientific theory that would back his hypothesis. Again, I am suspecting confusion between "theory" and "hypothesis." Einstein's theory of relativity actually was a theory, rather than a hypothesis. It is of the nature of theories, that they are not proved.My reading of history, is that Einstein's proposed theory met with substantial criticism and opposition. However, it worked very well, and such pragmatic considerations are what drive science. I don't know about PaulK, but my reply is that his "theory" is really an hypothesis.If ID wants to become scientific, then

• it needs to provide an actual tentative theory;
• its theory needs to be compatible with the empirical evidence;
• its theory needs to be at least as useful and effective as a guide to biological research as is ToE.

Hi Shadow, I wil say it again; if Behe were to unambiguously submit his evidence for design to a major peer reviewed journal, they would jump at the chance. Nothing would please Behe's critics more than to publish his evidence. It would be hilarious.Nothing is stopping Behe from publishing his evidence except for the fact that he hasn't really got any science to offer and he knows it. Not true. A number of Behe's claims have been falsified. His claim that the human blood clotting system was "irreducibly complex" was proven wrong for example, right in front of his face, at the Dover trial. His claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex was likewise demolished. This doesn't seen to worry Behe or his supporters as much as one might hope it might, given that honest scientists are supposed to discard falsified notions. He is rejected because he cannot or will not (probably both) provide evidence for his theory. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you have to do science. When it comes to ID, Behe refuses to play by the rules. He wants to rush straight ahead to pushing his junk science in the classroom, without ever having done the groundwork. No wonder he is rejected. But there is a huge difference. Einstein's ideas had predictive power. They made predictions which could be tested against observation. Those observations matched the predictions, thus providing strong evidence for Einstein's hypothesis.What predictive power does Behe's work give us? What observation would support or falsify his claims? A hypothesis about the origin of life can be tested. One can set up the experiment and attempt to replicate the event, to create new life. This may not demonstrate exactly how life actually formed, but it at least tells us that it is possible in principle.Behe doesn't even offer us this much. His claims cannot be tested or falsified. they have no predictive power. they have never been presented for peer review and they are clearly intended as religious apologetics. Are you really still wondering why he is not taken seriously?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod