Question Evolution!

Hello!My name is Jimmy Stephens and I am very excited to be a part of Christian Ministries International's new grass roots movement, Question Evolution! It is a bold campaign seeking to rid our schools, media, and politics of evolutionist indoctrination and spread the 15 questions which evolutionists can not adequately answer. Hopefully, you too will join CMI's campaign to refute the falsehoods of evolution. Please found out more at creation.com/question-evolution and discover the promising efforts against the pseudoscience of evolution.Also, please check out the Question Evolution! blog and keep up-to-date about the creation versus evolution debate, the Question Evolution! movement, and the lies of evolution.

Thread copied here from the Question Evolution! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Really?This is obviously a hit and run, and we'll end up talking to ourselves with no further input from little Jimmy.

To be fair to the evolutionists, that's some pretty strong language, such as pseudo-science, and, "lies".Even if we don't agree with evolution, it is not a pseudo-science. It is not false science as it fall in line with qualifying as a theory according to the rules. (Obviously, personally, I don't see it as a good theory, logically.)Welcome, I like you am not evolutionist, but a lot of people here have done a lot of thinking and know all about both sides of the debate. There are a lot of ignoramuses on both sides, but generally, not here, this is a concentration of relatively informed people.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi brother Jimmy. A hearty welcome to the Biblical minority constituency here at EvC. We need a few more good bonafide Biblical creationists. The fifteen questions pretty much cover what I've been advocating for the last eight plus years here at EvC in my unique Buzsaw hypotheses. What pleases me about your cite is that it articulates what I've been asking, specifying problematic aspects of ToE.I hope you will stay with us here at EvC and help us debate the majority secularistic membership,If you care to read some of my stuff, just click on my username and you'll get the archived profile of it over the years. Perhaps you may wish to bump forward some of it that you may find problematic for further discussion and debate.

Whether or not Jimmy stays with us, likely Admin sees it as a lively debatable topic. I would agree, if that's his reason for promoting it.

No it isn't.It's another opportunity for the science side to show why creos are wrong and creos to ignore what science says.

Maybe Chuckles will 'adopt' this thread instead.But a list of 15 questions sounds like a direct request for an unfocussed discussion on everything. It isn't. They aren't. They don't. It didn't. It isn't. It isn't....
Well - that's 6 answered.

It's hard to tell if he will aggregate wth us. I myself, in 2003, was completely ignorant and would post similar messages as I had swallowed creation without thinking. Now I have done the thought, and although I am still creationist, and disagree with the evolution, for me the interest of this debate might be to highlight the limits of science.Is evolution a pseudo-science? Might be a better topic?Personally, I am concerned with the limitations of inductive reasoning. It's not that evolution is science that bothers me but that with methodological naturalism comes methodologically removing any undesirable conclusions pertaining to an all-wise God. Those assumptions are fairly great. Science by definition exists to explain things empirically but some matters are not only empirical. If there is, truth to a designer, only we can't analyze this truth scientifically, is this a fault of science, or a limitation of it?

Hi all,Should have mentioned up above, I put this in the Coffee House forum because it didn't sound like Jimmy was interested in a discussion. Keep in mind this isn't one of the science forums. If things get too weird I'll move it to Free For All. I'm working with Chuck over at Proposed New Topics to see if he's interested in a more focused thread.

This is a perfect opportunity for our resident creos to prove me wrong.For anyone who disagrees with Panda's comprehensive answers to the 6 questions he's chosen, give evidence to support your position. I don't think I'm asking for much. Just evidence. If you actually believe there are "living fossils" that haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years, identify them. If you actually believe that science teaches that blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality, provide citations and/or quotations of scientific papers advocating these beliefs.Keep in mind, the key word here is evidence. Not rambling screeds. Not opinions based on last week's sermon. Evidence.If you can't understand the difference, you can't even begin to intelligently discuss anything to do with science. Here's your chance to pony up.

Wonderful. I'd be delighted to explore that with you for a while.What are the characteristics that you generally look for to determine whether something is pseudo-science? I'm not asking you why you think the ToE is, I'm asking for an abstract list that we can use to evaluate any random field of inquiry.Conversely, what do you see as the defining characteristics of science?Please, take your time putting together answers to these two questions. I'm in no rush.

I would add, what is evidence? Logically speaking?It is the consequent in a modus ponen. The antecedant is represented as the theory or postulation. The falsification evidence is the modus tollens rejection of the consequent.As far as I am aware, there is an ignorance of evolution by lot of creationists, and what it says, but there is also an ignorance of what evidence is. Whether it is qualitative or quantative.An induction of confirmation evidence is inductive reasoning because unless you own 100% of the evidence, epistemologically and logically speaking, you can not know or deduce respectively, you can only proceed via abductive inference. According to your JTB, justified-true belief, you can justifiably believe evolution happened, depending upon how compelling your evidence is.But to discuss the actual evidence is something as a creationist, I can no longer do.I tried, several times, to explain what evidence is, and how complicated the logical variables are, I can't be a punch-bag for evolutionists forever.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I do not think evolution is pseudo-science, as I believe I stated. Empirical, neutral, methodological investigation generally are the defining characteristics.Problems arise between operational science and historical science, respectively, in that you can repeat and experiment with the latter, but the former is limited.My problems with evolution are logical ones, but as I have said, it seems pointless to try and explain what I mean.

Natural selection is not taught as 'evolution' as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life. It is taught as a very important part of evolution which combined with other factors explains the diversity of life. I'll answer this question in as broad a stroke as the question itself is asked. Mutation. They are designed. By a process that is not intelligent. And that's what they look like. To almost all biologists. There are no fossils at all expected under evolutionary theory. They just happen to exist, quite happily giving testimony to the natural history of life.I'm not sure you are really interested in the answers, but they are out there if you take the time. These questions are set up to look like there is some serious doubt over evolution, when this is not in reality the case.The answer 'evolution did it' is equally as good as 'god did it'. Only there is some evidence that evolution actually exists. And usually the answers are much more detailed than 'evolution did it'. Creationism never gives details for how malaria came to exist in the world, other than by some divine will. This doesn't explain how, it doesn't explain how divine will works, what the mechanisms for actualising that will, or propose any evidence that there is such a thing as divine will.If you actually want in depth answers to any of the 15 questions, you are free to start a thread (1 for each question, if you please) and we can really get to grips with them. One thing that creationists are often criticised for is the 'Gish Gallop' which is throwing lots of things out there hoping something will stick. This question list looks like a Gish Gallop to me. My prediction is that therefore you will shy away from in depth discussion about any of the questions listed, and hope to score rhetorical points by just waving the list around.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.