Greetings Schrafinator:
Sorry for the delay (busy schedule as you may imagine).
[That's pretty much in evidence in your posts so far. (Not trying to be a jerk here. Being blind to science doesn't mean you are a bad person. Just calling it like I see it.)]
What are you implying, really? I LOVE science; it's just that evolution is supported by popular opinion among scientists but not by actual first-hand research. First off, I am constantly asked to read peer-reviewed publications, but what's the point if they are going to speculate a theory based on THEIR interpretation of the evidence beforehand? As you may understand, majority opinion means nothing to the actual truth--is it true that the Aryan race is superior and further-evolved than the African-Americans or Semites? (Not being disrespectful to African-Americans or Jews, it's just that the majority opinion in Germany followed the ideology that Aryans are the superior, "fittest" race based on THEIR understanding of science at the time). Likewise, the majority believed, in the 18th and part of the 19th centuries, that being ill was a result of having bad blood and that partially-draining the body of blood would heal the patient. The majority of Catholics believed that the Muslims were evil during the time of the crusades (mind you, I would agree THOUROUGHLY that that was a time in which the Christian church performed many acts that were non-Biblical and not setting a good example for Christians). Majority consensus--whether seconded by peer reviews or not--can often blind people to the truth just as much as religious ideologies.
I am not bias AGAINST peer-reviewed work, (I believe there are many great scientific advancements being made as well as good observations). The problem is that when the majority of the population among ANY group of people decides to follow a specific belief (theory/doctrine/etc. depending on the context) I make it a firm point to try and understand what they believe, why it is what they believe, and if there is any logic against it or in favor of it. Thus, since I would never take the word of ANY scientist over first-hand observation of scientific processes (and I advise others to do the same) I conclude that the theory is often based on the interpretations of the evidence rather than the actual evidence.
[Well, Mendel and Newton don't count for two reasons; they do not invoke the supernatural to explain a single thing in their work as any good scientist today, and they did their work before Evolution was as well-documented and understood as it is today.
As far as I can tell, Thomas Barnes also did not invoke the supernatural in any of his legitimate scientific work during his career.
Jonathan Wells has credentials, but when was the last time he published any peer-reviewed work rather than popular press books and articles? Also, does he invoke any supernatural entities in his peer-reviewed work?]
I was merely pointing out that it is not imperative to believe in evolution in order to maintain a credible science career, recieve and accredited education in a science field, or provide for the world of science a compilation of legitimate research. Like I said earlier, most people I know, in my family and string of friendships, who hold a degree in a field of western science also believe in ID and have disregarded ToE.
[Origin of life or origin of species? These are two different topics.]
Well, I would not argue against speciation (obviously, if the observation of new species emerging from similar species has been documented in the last century in some cases, it would not go to prove that this speciation has been going on for millions of years.) It is entirely possible for speciation to have occured in some observable cases and yet the concept of young-earth-creation still be possible.
[Anyway, if a theory is scientific and has lots of evidence to support it suc as the Theory of Evolution, it should be taught in science classrooms regardless of how any religious sects feel about it.]
Like I've said, the theory of evolution and natural selection--as Darwin put it--was not based on evidence but on his interpretation of the evidence. Likewise, could you be so inclined to prove to me that the theory of evolution is based on evidence RATHER than yours (and most other scientists') interpretation of the evidence?
[Which theory of creation? There are hundreds.
If you mean which scientific Theory of Creation, there has never been one as far as I can tell.
Even the Federal Supreme Court has determined that Creation science bears no resemblance to real science in the least.]
We're talking about the most prevalent two theories of origins of the earth, life, and species: The theory of evolution (Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) and the theory of creationism (The Bible's first several chapters).
Also, the supreme court and people on it are part of government and are not scientists. Thus they are no more fit to make an assumption on creationism than they are to put a label on, for instance, the credibility of Galileo, Dr. Libby, or Judas Iscariot.
[Why should a very robust and very well-supported unifying theory of Biology be removed simply because some religious people don't like it?]
For one, Evolution and common ancestry are from the interpretation of evidence and not based on real observable evidence. Moreover, at least half of the population--based on a 2002 poll from MSNBC--believe in creation (Intelligent design) and that means that half the people who pay taxes so that evolution can be taught to their children do not even belive evolution is true. People who pay the money should have a right to control what their money is going to support--to an extent--and parents who pay local taxes for their school system to teach evolution should have the right (and do have the right) to request that their student be exempt from any instruction of origins that is inconsistent with their morals (a notary public will notarize a form and sent to the school requiring the classroom to recognize the parent's wish for the student to not be forced to study creation--provided the parent is a tax-payer and the student is in a school that is tax-supported and thus the parent may bring up a lawsuit against the school if the student is quizzed or tested or given any assignments pertaining to evolutionism).
[The fact that religious people have always tried to control what is taught in schools in order to IMPOSE their particular religious dogma UPON ALL CHILDREN, it is imperative that our secular government regulate what is taught. Children used to have to recite and memorize Christian Bible passages and also participate in school led Christian prayer.] (Emphasis added)
If evolutionists want their theory IMPOSED upon children, they should withdraw from tax-support and open private schools where they can teach evolution all they want.
[when discussing where nylon-digesting bacteria came from, or why whales are sometimes born with hind legs, what explanation do you propose we tell children accounts for these events?]
First off, nylon-digesting bacteria are still bacteria--evolution FROM a bacteria to a more complex-than-bacteria organism has never been observed and therefore only proves a mutation has occurred (not necessarily a mutation that will lead to production of a new genus).
Also, whales being born with hind legs is a HINDRANCE-related mutation and is not beneficial to the animal, just like turtles being born with two heads. That is not evidence for evolution (it's the OPPOSITE of beneficial advancements through mutations).
Till next time,
Servant
™ Version 4.2
