Confidence in evolutionary science

Hi mod and everybody in here.As an introduciton i would say i admit being an evolution believer (not an evolutionIST - i can't stand -isms - and to moderate my supporting behaviour i always try to remember i'm quite new on the topic. I got interested in it while having my first discussion about darwin, mendel and consorts on a forum where i was supposed to talk about music. it was more a creationist nest where some people liked to use their rethoric magical tricks to put an end to the discussion by finally saying: "read the bible" or stuff like that.So i try to find other places on the net that give some room for intelligent, intelligible and open chat about evolution and creation.The first thing i want creationi/ID supporters to know about me is this: if one day god comes down or appear to me and show me in undeniable way that he exists and that yes, our science is failing to give a proper answer to our questions, then i would stop my reflection. Until this happens, i will support the evolution theory, i guess.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.

Unfortunately it's always a one-against-many on this topic. proportions can be reversed as i had the opportunity to experience it on another forum, that had a strong religious AND creationist connotation. Sometimes whatever you say, you can't change nothing about the single-direction-ness of the chat. I can't help but noticing that evolution theory supporters show a lot more openness in general, when confronted with intelligent design supporters.As for the confidence i put in the evolution views: on the mentioned forum where i first started talking about it, i was told that evolution was a propaganda, in the contemporary or popular sense of the word, that means for many people: lies and all kinds of techniques to fool people in order to conquer hearts, minds, wallets, markets. My opponents seemed to be hesitating about calling evolution theory some sort of "djihad" which is, as you know, non-sense, moreover when you see their way of placing religion into the debate... when you try to be clear about the fact that belief in one theory is not faith as a religious indivividual can conceive it, you're not really heard or understood. Actually you're often ignored, as if atheism, even in its own explanation and legitimate self-defense couldn't be considered! that's why the U.S.A. tend to scare lots of people in europe: Obama, Bush, Kennedy, etc swore on the bible, around 30 percents only of the people are said to believe in evolution, etc. May be not so true. i hope. From my french point of view, it's hard to make myself a serious painting of all this.nevertheless there are interesting tracks to be followed, as Ken Miller showed. you have the right to believe in a god, but not to deceive people.

Modulous, i don't want to sound like a stupid worshiper but i really wish i could have sent posts in your fashion to those with whom i was debating lately on another forum. Well, i don't see why i shouldn't mention it: the Magle International Music Forum. It's the one forum where i realized how strong the creationist position could be. I'm not saying this in terms of arguments or power of conviction but in terms of stamina and incredible "mauvaise foi" ("bad faith" in french).Rethoric is the only real tool they (creationists) can use until their opponent gives up when he's not tenacious enough. I've been tenacious and really willing not to change their minds (i always have the Zappa quote in mind*) but to try to swap points of view, in order to have some reflection, knowing that scientific research is by essence not over, and might never be, and thus being able to go beyond this indestructible wall separating faith-based conviction and will to go further in knowledge. I've not been tenacious enough, and found myself copy/pasting lots of things found after more or less long net and library research, that were hardly read. The worst feeling i got was when one of my opponents suggested that i get some degree in scientific fields (astrophysics, biology, paleontology, you name it). I mean, it was a legitimate suggestion since i virtually know nothing. So, this guy sounds very informed and all. But everything he said was cleverly made for supporting the intelligent design view only. A rethorical champion. Sometimes i wondered how i could realize that he was using hypocrisy when he at first seemed to be honest while displaying his knowledge about this or that. Well, each time i gave an answer that was fully satisfying, wether it was about exctinct species, types of mutations or anything , he just gripped to his holy book, eventually. So a quite scholar man can also be a very obtuse man, and now i've stopped posting, because i understood the goal was not to have the last word or to change anything, but to try to practice honesty in a real reflection. As you might have noticed, there rarely is such a value displayed by creationists, and that's what makes me sad.Anyway i still hope on EvC it's less rare.*Frank Zappa: "One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.

Thank you for welcoming me and thank you also for taking the time to visit the aforementioned forum. My nick is Sunwaiter. Robert Newman has been quite polite and respectful towards me but i have to admit the title of the thread itself (of which he is the originator) doesn't seem to invite any discussion, so it was partly my fault if i got into useless and circular chat. Moreover, i gave in to the temptation to post funny but even more useless links, thing i would not do here, having read several threads already, and having seen the spirit in wich they have been growing.