Let's see just how pathetic these answers really are...
Ftwasher--no, wrong, on the very first assumption. The scientific theory of biological evolution has nothing to do with origins. Hypotheses have been proposed, but none have been treated fully enough to be even close to inclusion in the theory.
>>Oh, and look into punctuated equilibrium. The answer may be phylogenic gradualism, or punctuated equilibrium, or both--either or both are consistent with geologic timescale, molecular clocks, etc.
Christ_ian777--You're probably thinking of the peppered moth population studies by Kettlewell. Adaptation is evolution on a shorter time scale.
Jo--It's just as easy to believe in magic. Belief does not make anything true in the light of science.
Prophet--The point of science is to investigate the real world without ad hoc assumptions. God is one of those assumptions. If you want to believe, be my guest, but it makes no difference to science.
Theresa N--The carbon dating argument is old. In fact, no good scientists rests on just one form of dating things as old as fossils. (By the way, C-14 dating is only reliable to about 50,000 or so years...that's why we have these other forms of dating--U-Th dating, K-Ar dating, isochron dating, Rb-Sr dating, just to name a few--for things older than 50,000 years.)
>>additionally, the firmament? Really? There are probably a dozen reasons why that is less likely than evolution.
dinger--Always a pleasure to see cut and paste jobs from icr.org or aig.org, two completely worthless sites in terms of science. Peer review is worthless when you only consider God your peer.
>>additionally, Darwin was a naturalist (a natural scientist), even though his degree came from Christ College, Cambridge. He was even an avid fan of William Paley (an earlier advocate of Christian design), until he realized Paley was wrong. Which one's theory has been upheld more often by the evidence?
R Rosskopf--Well, no, creation and evolution are not mutally exclusive (unless you take a literalist approach to Christianity), but, again, the theory of evolution has never tried to explain origins. Darwin himself said that all life probably evolved from one or a few species. The primary historical figurehead, principally seen as the father of the modern evolutionary theory, didn't even include origins in the plan.
Martin S--Please, do everyone a favor and read the transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. It is well documented that most of what you repeat from Behe has been completely destroyed in the light of science and within a court of law. And it was done right in front of Behe. Primarily by a Catholic evolutionary biologist (Kenneth Miller). And decided on by a right-wing, Bush appointed circuit court judge. Irreducible complexity is one of the weakest ID arguments.
notthemamas1--Good try. But, as I said before, science, at its purest, truest form, denies all ad hoc assumptions. Science only works when there is naturally occurring evidence to support it. Naturally occurring, not supernaturally occurring. Therein lies the problem. But you are correct, in that it is important to understand the "opposing" side's assumptions. Science starts with none. Christianity/creationism starts with one big, non-falsifiable one.
SONS OF THUNDER--Let's see, hepatitis is an STD. Good one. I'll make sure and let my anatomy students know that tomorrow. They'll love that one.
joannlynne2--Um...great. But I do agree--this is the worst forum for any argument with evolution. Because evolution is not religion, nor is it spiritual. It is science, and as such should be addressed there.
Mark E--Strangely enough, any biology teacher that teaches that linear progression of an ape transitioning from one form to another to another to our modern form is either grossly oversimplifying the process or is trying to deceive. Any biology teacher that uses that artist's rendering today should be fired.
>>And, yes, there is a possibility that the universe always existed. I tend to "believe" that Smolin selection theory is the best explanation for the Big Bang, though, although I personally have no way to justify that belief. (That is why I don't claim it to be true in any way...just what I like.)
>>And you do realize that this universe is practically a breeding ground for black holes, don't you?
>>Oh, and, by the way, none of the laws of thermodynamics are violated by evolution. Only people that don't really know the laws of thermodynamics claim this to be the case.
Leroy H--Well, you see, the first individual organism didn't actually have to be alive when the first speciation took place. Who ever said an individual organism had to live for millions of years to evolve? A species has to, a population has to, but not an individual. So, species A may become species B, but organism A does not become organism B--that, my misinformed friend, is creationism.
Questioner--again with the aig.org bunk? One of these days, you might actually need to look at what they are saying there and realize that there isn't any science worth writing home about on any of those pages. Certainly not any (or no more than a few) that are worthy of publication in an actual scientific journal after peer review. And, no, you don't get to redefine the term science to make creation theories fit into science. You don't move the goal posts in the middle of the game.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edit: Thanks, Questioner. I didn't think anyone was going to take the bait. (Just kidding.) Sorry about that. I shouldn't have come off as so condescending. And, by the way, no, I don't believe that I am any smarter than anyone else answering this question. I just use what little I have differently.
First off, we will probably never agree to what science is and isn't. I have always known it to be the most logical, reliable, and repeatable way of investigating the natural world, relying on only that which we can know in the natural world. You would say "That's naturalism." I would say "I never said it was anything different. And I don't have a problem with it." And we could go on and on about the strengths and merits or whatever of naturalism versus anything else. But you don't bring a machete to a boxing match. You put everything on as level a playing field as possible. And naturalism is about the fairest set of rules--to *everyone*, metaphysically (in my opinion)--that there is. I only say "in my opinion" because I'm sure you won't agree, and I don't claim it as fact, because just about anything metaphysical is purely relative, subjective, and opinion.
~"When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model, they claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But, if they can point out even one problem in the creationist model, it should instantly be abandoned as absurd!"
>>What, precisely, is the problem with the creationist model, if I may ask your opinion? Is it the lack of evidence? Is it the ad hoc assumptions that must be made? Is it the mysticism involved? Do I have to go on? You act like scientists only have *one* problem with creationism.
As for the creationists problem with evolution, well, I don't know what to tell you. Outside of the things that are pure fallacy (like "Why are there still monkeys?" or "Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics."), biologists are working on the answers. You can investigate these "holes in the theory" as much as any other biologist, geneticist, ecologist, whatever (etc.) can, and come up with your own conclusions--as long as they are backed by evidence. We "evolutionists" just aren't afraid to admit we don't know, and we don't have to settle on an answer that stagnates us in ignorance (i.e. 'God did it' or 'His ways are mysterious').
~"I love the circular reasoning used by evolutionists: No real scientist rejects Darwinism (because as soon as they begin to question Darwinism, they are labeled as a pseudo-scientist)."
>>No, the evidence is what is most important, not whether Darwin is accepted or rejected. In fact, very few scientists subscribe to strict Darwinism anymore.
~"When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by random-chance processes and natural selection, they are often accused of invoking a "God of the gaps"."
>> If you are referring to irreducible complexity, you are just completely mistaken. Irreducible complexity has never been shown to even exist outside of IDers heads. It was completely demolished in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
~"Listen to Dawkins admit to his “faith”: http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg"
>>Who cares about Dawkin's "faith"? Not me.
>>The rest of the thing is appeal to authority...nifty, but of almost no use in science, especially *without evidence*.
>>I almost began to respect you a little more, because I thought you had acknowledged the *true* difference between "evolutionists" and creationists--not what we know, but ***how*** we each know that our own side is correct and the other is absolute hogwash. But then, you slipped into all the same old creationist rhetoric: wringing hands about "fairness", false reasoning (although, I hadn't heard that particular "circular logic" argument for a long time), the complete absurdity of irreducible complexity, and then unnecessary appeals to authority...the standard creationist's play book.