[utherdoul]

I don’t get what the big push is about evolution. It’s at least as plausable that we evolved over millions of years and that life was conjured out of thin air and we were created from dust.

[Paleo Conservative]

Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The Big Bang theory is metaphysical cosmology. Unfortuntely there is very little good philosophy in either the American or British educational system.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[acliffhang3r]

Yes, let me see if I can simplify this AMAZING revelation.

If there is debate, then it is not Science.
However, what is not debatable is Science.
Genesis is not debatable.
Genesis is Science.

I respectfully think not.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ooops, forgot to put in link:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/opinion/story/794342.html

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages."

One quibble with this, leaving aside Petrarch's metaphor from philology
and rhetoric. The "scientific method" didn't bring "man out of the Dark Ages."
Charlemagne did.

And liberalism, scientism, and moral relativism will send man right back.

[doc1019]

GOD created the world (universe) in six days … nuff said. Call me a religious fanatic if you want. This I read in His holy word, this I believe. All else is anathema.

[valkyry1]

Evolution debate persists because it's not science

Insightful observation 

[ketsu]

Translation: crazy Crevos find something they don’t want to believe, come up with cockamamie theories that only other dumb crevos believe. Thereby sentencing anyone educated by or around crevos to further ignorance and making crevo areas even greater economic backwaters.

[gondramB]

>>But did you ever wonder why Darwinism’s general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution?<<

If there were a better theory than moden evolutionary synthesis, then the biofood, biochemistry and biomedicine industries would not be based on it.

we’ll know that ID or some other theory is better when they start developing new drugs based on ID.

Its sort of like global warming - people can claim the earth is not warming but the seas are rising. When the seas start dropping you’ll know global warming is over.

[DoctorMichael]

Another-stain-on-Conservatism Bump.

[allmendream]

Geology debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because creationists disagree with its findings.

Astronomy debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because creationists disagree with its findings.

Physics debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because creationists disagree with its findings.

[RC2]

150 years? Let it alone. Not worth wasting the time or money on this. Allow those....if you really have to allow them.....to believe whatever they want to believe.

[Moonman62]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science.

The non-surprising answer is that there are certain religious people who want to keep people ignorant, and deny the truth of God's creation.

[tacticalogic]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

That's looks like a double-edged sword that's going to cut down ID, right along with "macroevolution".

[editor-surveyor]

Removing the foundation from Neo-Atheism.

Is your fire suit deployed?

[ChessExpert]

I think this article was too ambitious. It tried to cover too much. I found it a bit choppy as it quickly went from one element of the debate to another, without fleshing out any particular element. Still, it had it’s good points.

I have sympathy for the author. Sometimes one wants to cover a lot of ground quickly. However the gulf that separates people is sometimes too great.

For example, last night I spoke with a liberal relative and suggested that the new deal did not work. He responded that he was well aware of recent “partisan” interpretations of the new deal. When I said Reagan turned the economy around. He said Reagan left the country bankrupt. When I mentioned that government recently pressured banks to make subprime loans, he responded with incredulity that there was “no regulation” in some financial markets. If I mention socialism in America, he laughs. If the economy ends up stinking after eight years of Obama and Democratic Congresses, he will conclude that Obama inherited a really big mess. It is not surprising that he gets a lot of liberal news; the news industry is liberal. It just isn’t possible for me to convert him in one conversation. So there. I vented. But I also tried to make the point that it is just about impossible to quickly get through to someone who has a different world view.

Can this author, in a single article, convince generations who have been indoctrinated on “the fact of evolution” in high school and college? It just isn’t possible.

I enjoyed parts of the article. Other parts left me confused:

“Three decades after his gene theory was rejected by the scientific community, he ridiculed scientists that touted intelligent design theory.”

Is the author referring to Dawkins (of the previous paragraph)?

There are many fields of interest to mankind. Some are amenable to repeatable laboratory experiments. Some are amenable to frequent field observation. Some are amenable to firm reason, logic, and mathematical analysis. Some are amenable to introspection. Some “explain,” some “predict.” The differences are in the subject matter, more so than the skills of the individuals who pursue the topics.

I read Darwin’s Origin of the Species and found it to be highly speculative. Since it was written, generations have followed his leads and searched for evidence for evolution. The subject remains speculative.

Gould and Etheridge revised the theory to dispense with the need for fossil evidence. Then they admitted that the fossil record did not support change (Darwin’s evolution) but stasis. In one fell swoop, the supposedly massive fossil evidence for evolution was declared null and void. No one was too upset with Gould and Etheridge because they were on the right side: they believed in evolution and Gould, the more outspoken, ridiculed creationists. Is this science where people first agree on the answer, then accept or reject facts at their convenience? I think not.

[Buck W.]

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

[do the dhue]

If I said it once, I said it twice: evolution makes a monkey out of you and I.