The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

Hey commike, good to have you back. "Through the dominant paradigm" is a bit vague, but it is the case that all scientific evidence should be viewed in relation to the prevailing hypothesis or theory, in order to see if the new evidence falsifies, confirms, or alters the prevailing theory.I find it hard to believe that you are claiming that dominant paradigms are essentially unchallenged, since you yourself started a thread ("Mendel wasn't entirely right") regarding a scientific finding that did just that, and suggested a hypothesis that would could count as a potential "quantum leap" in our understanding of inheritance, if it remains unrefuted. You've got it backwards. New found evidence is not adapted to prevailing theories; theories are adapted to new found evidence.You should also realize what you are implying here by claiming that scientists "adapt evidence" - you are essentially calling them frauds and liars, since they simply change the evidence that doesn't fit a prevailing theory. All other theories are NOT unscientific until they are refuted by evidence. Untested theories are simply untested theories.I'm going to make the not-too-bold assumption that you are referring to Intelligent Design as a 'paradigm' that is considered unscientific simply because it stands in the shadow of other prevailing theories (Big Bang, Evolution...). I'm also beginning to surmise that you are using the word 'paradigm' rather than 'theory', because you may just be now realizing that the Intelligent Design community doesn't have a falsifiable theory.If the Intelligent Design camp produces a falsifiable hypothesis or theory, it can be tested, even if just by considering existing evidence - then and only then can we truly determine the potential scientific merit of Intelligent Design.I fear the Intelligent Design camp will never allow this to happen, and thus Intelligent Design will remain forever untested - the stuff of philosophy.

commike,You claim: Then you give an example of dogmatism in molecular biology that in no way refutes evolution. Perhaps that is why you source can only quote the problem as "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." But your source is dishonest; regarding the Scientific American article it states: Funny that, since the dogma that Scientific American says it responsible is this, quoted from that article, under the subtitle Perils of Dogma: DNA and RNA and protein were unknown at the formulation of the Theory of Evolution, so this is not a dogma associated with it.In fact, the Scientific American article instead suggests that the Theory of Evolution was key in discovering functional "junk" DNA:Do you get that? Because of the Theory of Evolution, functional "junk" DNA was discovered, not in spite of it.Your source misrepresented the article to the point that I can only consider it lying: No! The article clearly states that evolutionary predictions allowed the discovery of the function of "junk" DNA. Without the Theory of Evolution, the existence of function of "junk" DNA would remain unknown, therefore "junk" DNA can only "make sense under evolution".How do you feel about the fact that your ID source, Idea Center, lies in order to make its point? They don't even tell the truth about an easily accessible popular magazine article - Idea Center must assume that its constiuents are moronic enough that they won't follow up on any references.Are you beginning to figure out why ID is not scientific yet?(I give you a clue: it's not because it is "alternative.")

Hi Faith,Unfortunately it isn't just that many creation science / ID sources are the wrong type of references, it is that they are intentionally dishonest.I don't label someone as "dishonest" lightly, but sometimes there is no other way to intepret the situation. I would be interested to see your response to Message 37: the Idea Center lies.I detail in that post how the Idea Center claims that the Theory of Evolution prevented the discovery of functional "junk" DNA, when in fact the opposite is true - the Theory of Evolution was used to discover functional "junk" DNA. That claim by itself I wouldn't call dishonest, though maybe ignorant or misguided. But the Idea Center claim is based upon a Scientific American article, and they use quotes from the article - if one reads the Scientific American article you'll see it repeatedly credits the Theory of Evolution as being key to the discovery, and that the supposed anti-evolution quotes were mined from statements about dogma in molecular biology.I perused the Idea Center website a bit more - the other claims they make are similarly absurd and dishonest. To some extant they just list discoveries made as a result of the Theory of Evolution, and then claim that Intelligent Design can explain them better or would have found them first. If that was the case, then why hasn't the Intelligent Design camp "predicted" anything that hasn't already been discovered?Since the Idea Center (I believe a fairly high-profile ID organization) needs to lie brazenly to make its theory seem sound, the assumption that they don't have any valid scientific evidence is not overreaching.Faith - It's not just the sources, it is that by-and-large the sources used in support of ID and creation science are nothing but dishonest propaganda machines - it has become a culture of dishonesty among these supposed scientific groups that easily reveals the non-scientific nature of the undertaken.There is no lying in real science.

Faith-Sure, commike makes some very intelligent and reasonable points and supplies the evidence he bases those points upon.Unfortunately, the evidence he uses is wrong.This is NOT a nitpick - if the source/evidence on which commike bases his intelligent and reasonable points is wrong, then his points are no longer valid.Also, have you had a chance to read over my post regarding the Idea Center claims? Do you see how they are being dishonest?

No. I did not deem it INFERIOR. It was WRONG. The Idea Center source commike used claimed that the Scientific American article states exactly the opposite of what it did state, and used deliberately dishonest quote-mining to make its point. No, it was NOT a matter of ANALYSIS, it was a matter of pure DISHONESTY.The Idea Center article claimed that the Theory of Evolution prevented/prolonged the discovery of functional "junk" DNA, and they were stupid enough to repeatedly cite the Scientific American article describing the research.The Scientific American article clearly states that the Theory of Evolution was used as the basis of the discovery, so it could not have been a hindrance. It is not a matter of "analysis" when someone directly contradicts the content of its sources.The Idea Center insults anyone who follows their writings - they fill their essays with boldface lies, yet reference the truth. Anyone checking their references will easily find the misrepresentation.In fact, why don't you do that?: Here is the Idea Center source.Here is the Scientific American article they base it upon.Here is my analysis pointing out the dishonesty.Faith - I am not trying to trick you; I am not trying to make some point about different types of sources; I am not dismissing ID claims.I am simply trying to let you know that at least one ID organization, The Idea Center, is a dishonest propaganda machine that lies to make its points.Admitting this point in no way refutes your beliefs/philosophy on the point of ID - but I hope it will open your eyes to the deceitful tactics used by many ID groups.