"But some of it was on the basis of reading both sides of the controversy, which I enjoy doing. Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward."
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
"Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided."
Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
"If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back."
The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
Hey, I like your login AND your tagline.
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***For purposes of social policy discussion, that doesn't really matter. I think I had a rudimentary understanding of the theory at the time, and I also think that I'm running into a lack of understanding from the proponents of TOE/abio that their theories have implications in the inductive realms that they need to address.
Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes.
The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
***I'm not saying that he is. In one stroke, it became a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed. Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy.
I gotta run, talk to you folks later.
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***This is one of the dangers of the haps side of the evo philosophy. It takes experts to be able to discourse on the subject matter. So the attempt to teach children this stuff is really just an attempt at indoctrination, kinda like the NAMBLA guys trying to access youngsters with their thoughts on certain subjects. Now I grant that this isn't as spiritually dangerous as NAMBLA, but the hyperbole helps you to see that there is some danger there.