I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution. You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position.
I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution.
***Ok, good challenge. In a nutshell, evolution sees itself as a scientific deductive pursuit where facts are the overriding concern. The factual weight of the overall theory is gigantic. The main thing is that there was one common ancestor that all creatures descended from, and there even appears to be some genetic evidence for this. The mechanism for speciation is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Before life was formed, evo has nothing to say about that, the theory is one aimed at how species came about. In the evo theory, mankind is a species of ape that was smart and started to build tools to survive, passing this knowledge onto the next generation and gaining a significant foothold.
You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position.
***OK, go ahead and post your understanding. But what will that get us? The social policy stuff is really what I would prefer to discuss, and whether or not I understand that theory of yours isn't as significant as you make it out to be. Do evolutionists understand the OBVIOUS moral implications that their disturbing theory generates? If they did, they would probably state something like what Dinsdale says, "This punching should be done in philosophy classes after the students have a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. " If someone like me can't understand the theory well enough to pass muster in a forum like this, why is there an attempt to teach this to kids? That is indoctrination.