How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved

History News Network ^ | 20 December 2005 | Charles A. Israel

[PatrickHenry]

This article is ten days old, but it's by an historian, and it's a very good look at the history of the evolution-creationism-intelligent design controversy.

Bold, underlining, and links added by me.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[M203M4]

If the debate has evolved, then why are there still retarded arguments that keep getting rehashed after repeated debunking?

"Why are there still monkeys?"

[MRMEAN]

Let me get it started...

B1

D9!

and A9!...and A3...and B6!

Also C7 and C1!

[PatrickHenry]

He's referring to the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[eleni121]

Evolutionitis (aka Darwinian pathology): so many problems..so much EVO stubborness...so little willingness to self examine.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

[Oztrich Boy]

"Why are there still monkeys?"

So Peter Jackson can make movies about them

[msnimje]

I have decided I want to start the "Intelligent Evolution" school.

The hypothesis for my new scientific theory is the premise the Democrats refuse to evolve past the mentality of an adolescent and therefore only intelligent people move on to be Republicans.

[peyton randolph]

"Why are there still monkeys?"

So Michael Jackson can get a little chimp lovin' when there are no kiddies available?

[ThomasNast]

I'd like to see a scientific study to discover the origins of Symphony #40 in G Minor.

Of course, to ensure the science is preserved in its entirety, we must assume from the onset that there was no composer involved.

[furball4paws]

BINGO!

[grey_whiskers]

Let me get it started...

B1

D9!

and A9!...and A3...and B6!

Also C7 and C1!

BINGO!!!

[furball4paws]

He stold it from Salieri.

[ThomasNast]

I am pointing out that to be scientific does NOT necessarily mean you start with eliminating some possibilities.

When Newton studied science, he believed he was studying God's universe (granted -- that IS a bias).

But if God did create the universe, not allowing that as a possibilty is automatically eliminating the truth.

That's what the analogy is stating. If you eliminate the idea of a composer so you can perform a study on purely scientific merits, you will not come up with the right answer.

[Undivided Heart]

This is begging the question. A "reproducing self-organizing biological" system is or is not the product of a mind.

[Dimensio]

But if God did create the universe, not allowing that as a possibilty is automatically eliminating the truth.

Which "God", and why should any divine agents be assumed from the beginning?

[MeanWestTexan]

You need to add the "Can't be science if not in the lab" and then when natural speciation is repeated in the lab say "well, that's intelligent design because it was intentionally done in a lab."

(Most recently this occurred when referencing the 100 year project of the English re-creation of the natural speciation of wild Kale into broccli, asparagus, cabbage, and several other already existant species.)

[MeanWestTexan]

Oh, and then the fall back of "Well, those are all just plants.

"Macro evolution" is a change from a plant to an animal" (or somesuch).

[Havoc]

Seems to be nothing more than a puff piece on the wishful thinking of an evolutionist. ID isn't going anywhere. Evolution is in serious trouble and the author seems to be hoping ID would go away. Sleep peacefully libs and evokooks.
Smaug will get you in the end.. rofl.