Your reason for accepting evolution

Not true.Creo/ID apologists use a substantially different body of evidence than that used in science.The Creo/ID criteria for acceptable evidence differs from the criteria used in science. Science demands falsifiability, replication, and prediction. The faith-based criteria of Creo/ID apologists do not meet this standard.Creo/ID apologists dismiss or ignore much evidence that is scientifically compelling. At the same time they accept material as conclusive that lacks any scientific validity.For this reason, Creo/ID 'theories' are not science._________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Taking Admin's counsel (issued a few posts up) to address the title of the thread rather than the error-filled speech in the OP, here's why I accept evolution:

1. Because the evidence supports it. The theory represents solid science and has enabled--in spectacular fashion, for over a century now--the prediction of new discoveries. This includes the discovery of transitional fossils and the genetic relationships among modern creatures.

​

2. Because no other theories exist that can compete.

Note that I said evolutionary theory is solid science. It is indeed. And that's all it has to be.The theory does not have to be theology of any kind. Scientific theories are not theological ideas. They are scientific ideas, by definition.Certainly evolutionary theory--along with that of other prevailing theories (expanding universe, relativity, plate tectonics, etc)--has to be accounted for in any theological system one puts forward if that system is to claim any credibility for itself. But doing so is not the task of science. It is the task of theology.This is why you err, Beretta, when you say you 'have to assume' certain things about what scientists 'worship' and whatnot based on the professional work they do. It's a fallacy of false categories. You are called upon to assume nothing of the sort.It is a great mistake to expect religion to do the work of science, and science to do the work of religion._____________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

(sigh) Selective breeding, Beretta. Like seedless grapes.You could have Googled this, you know. It would have taken you less time than typing rhetorical questions.Some genuine curiosity about anything would serve you well at this point._______________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Talking about what nature 'knew' is an unnecessary anthropomorphism.If you're curious about the evolution of plant reproduction, look it up.Then you can discuss a subject you know something about.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Wrong again. Someone has sold you a bill of goods that scientific theories work like the creo arguments in your Sunday School: assume the position, observe a fact, rationalize it, then repeat the rationalization until everyone in the club buys into the pretty story. Not so.I mentioned the ability of a sound theory to predict. This is crucial. Do not overlook it.A good example of evolution's predictive ability is in the way the genetic relationships of all living things fell out in the way predicted by the theory. This breakthrough--a stunning validation of the theory--has happened just in the past generation.If creationists has been correct, geneticists in the latter part of the 20th century would have discovered distinct genetic blocks. The genetic material within each block would have shown a great deal of similarity. Genetic material beyond each block would have been strikingly different from the material within--so distinct that no mutations across block boundaries would be possible. These genetic blocks would have corresponded, of course, to the biblical 'kinds' creationists had been predicting for years that science would find once all the data came in.The data came in. The prediction was wrong.Genetic discoveries showed the theory of evolution got it right. All living things have a great deal of genetic material in common. Genetic change over time is inevitable. Relationships between species can be traced by the same mechanisms you would use to trace relationships in a family. And of all the millions of living things on the face of the earth, guess which creatures showed the closes genetic relationship to human beings? Apes. Exactly as predicted by the theory.That's not storytelling. That's data. This ability to predict discoveries is the hallmark of any good scientific theory. And this predictive power of evolutionary theory is all the more remarkable when you consider how very far genetic science had o go when the theory was first introduced.Genetic science reaped a harvest of data. That data confirmed the theory of evolution and falsified the notion of distinct 'kinds.' No, they find what the theory predicts they will find over and over again.Another example of the way the theory proves itself is in the location of transitional fossils. The tracing of whale evolution, for example, was achieved by just such a process. As recently as the 1970s the theory, which said whales descended from land-based creatures, had sparse support in the fossil record. Creationism said, of course, that no land-based ancestors for whales would be found. Since then the fossil has been filled in, and guess what. The facts show again that science got it right and the creationists got it wrong. We can now trace the whale line back through Basilosaurus and other species to Ambulocetus, the 'walking whale.' You can see the forearms evolve into flippers as the back legs and pelvis diminish to the vestiges we see today.But here's the kicker. How did scientists know where to look for these transitional species? By looking in the strata where the theory said the fossils should be. There they were.Valid scientific theories predict, time after time, new discoveries that yield solid data. The theory of organic evolution is a solid theory. In fact, it is one of the greatest successes in the history of science.Once the data come in, it is the creationists who make up the stories. Wrong again. Invoking 'supernatural' causes automatically makes the proposal non-science. This will remain the case until you can tell scientists how they may go about running a test for God.Read Judge Jones's ruling from the Kitzmiller trial at Dover. It's on line. Jones was very clear: invoking the supernatural makes a proposal religion, not science.My statement stands: no other scientific theories compete. You are free to believe whatever you wish. But if you intend to make a scientific case, you have to do all the things that will make science out of it. This means more than telling stories.You need data. You can either predict it or produce it. Your choice.Otherwise you offer nothing any different than I do, scientifically speaking, if I say the universe was created three minutes by Hello Kitty. I can account for all phenomena by referring to my Hello Kitty theology. My arguments will be irrefutable. I can say over and over again how reasonable I think my Hello Kitty belief is. I can accuse anyone who fails to adopt it of discrimination and idolatry. But the fact remains: Hello Kittyism will never be taught in a science class. It has no place there because, free as I am to believe it, the idea is not science.Hello Kittyism is not science because no one can predict anything based on it. Does Hello Kittyism tell anyone where to look for a transitional fossil? No. Does it predict the new creative acts Hello Kitty will perform tomorrow? No. It is a just-so story. Just like your story.If you intend to take your beliefs out of the realm of religion and turn them into science, you need to do more than tell a story. You need to make predictions that can be tested.If you need suggestions, here are a few things scientists have been asking creationists for:

1. define the genetic barrier that determines 'kinds' and prevents evolution;

​

2. describe how to run a test for God;

​

3. describe the process by which coal, shale, limestone and marble form in water over the course of a year.

When you can do any of these things, come back and start a thread. If you need more ideas for ways to turn your beliefs into real science, just ask._____________Edited by Archer Opterix, : evolving text.Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing creation.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

This is, of course, an a priori assumption on your part. You speak of material you refuse to read.And it is fraught with problems for you.

​

1. It is self-invalidating. If a priori assumptions themselves make a proposition invalid, your statement is invalid.

​

2. It is illogical. You can't know a priori assumptions exist in material you don't read.

​

3. It stands falsified. Basic research would have informed you, for example, that the modern domestic banana results from neither natural selection or special creation.

​

4. It is self-invalidating. Evolutionary ideas are what you asked to see. You invalidate yourself if you now say you don't want to see any.

It took me 15 seconds to find this lecture material about plant reproduction on Google and only a few minutes to read it. I'm glad I did it. I learned something.Your mileage may vary. But the best antidote to fear is curiosity.__________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.