The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

How does anyone track causes of mutation to the atomic level?In any case, I thought that one of the points of ID was that most mutations resulted in horrific flaws such that mutation cannot account for diversity of species? Not to mention that some characteristics are so complex that mutation couldn't account for them anyway? Why am I getting this image of a deck of scientists and creos simply pulling from the top and when they don't work to win the game, tossing them away and redrawing from the deck?Is there no sense that Behe and Dembski's work were worthy now that they've been shown to be incapable of surviving a court battle to get religion in the classroom? If their science was as good as everyone was claiming, why isn't their work being continued just the same and these guys remain the leaders?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think their work is fine. I am just not as familiar with them, and winning or losing in a court-room means nada to me. I think the modern interpretation of separation of Church and State is wholly at odds with a free soceity and with the intent and words of the Constitution, but I am not surprised that evolutionists use the courts to try to force their views on the public, and do so all the while falsely accusing their critics of doing the same.

The main problem is that evolution is not based on actual facts and data, and so it is harder to get evos to drop their beliefs since they are more asserting prejudicial views than actual observed facts. Basically, evolution is a method for viewing the data, and as such defines what is an acceptable view of the data. If you look at the data without the evo assumption, a different picture emerges, but evos insist that you must first accept the conclusion prior to viewing the data. They've basically inverted the concept of empiricism.

It's you evos using the courts to force your views on everyone else, not IDers. Frankly, when you've devolved into using courts to thwart scientific opinion, you can clearly see that evolutionism is not science but is primarily an ideological movement using scientific data.If it was just science, you guys would not resort to courts to silence your critics.

I grant you that there may be no real reason for me to think that, but YEC was my image of you also.What we need is another field on the profile page. Call it something like "Debate Position". There members can declare themselve to be "Flaming liberal YEC" or "Neo-con Raelian" or "Vegan masochist Republican theistic evolutionist" or whatever.This information could be displayed under the registered date information at the left side of the message postings.But I guess this should go in the "Feature Suggestions" topic.Moose

The theme of this topic may well be poorly defined, especially as far as what the creationist side input should be.That said, let's keep the debate of specific aspects of evolution/creation/ID at the topics devoted to the specific themes.That said (part 2), maybe this topic needs to be closed.Adminnemooseus Edit: Fixed a spelling error and a typo.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2005 03:17 PM

1.Which nuggin told you Richards isn't even talking about its impact on the ToE, but on embryology2. because that whole thing was utter nonsense, and you are making a mountian out of a molehill3. which is utter nonsense and you still are twisting what people say4. which you have never been able to back up, jus made wild claimsby the by i've read enough to know that, most people claiming the negitive never bothered to read what science produces, just skimed parts they can use to convince people of thier viewsThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-23-2005 02:23 PM

You're getting off topic here.However I never mentioned the courts. Political action can and does take place outside the courtsHowver it is utterly false to say that evolutionists have used the courts to force evolution on anyone. THe first relevant trial was part of a campaign to overthrow a rule forbidding the teaching of evolution. Later cort cases have been about the teaching of YEC as science and now ID as science - as well as attempts to hamper the teaching of evolution.The claim that the courts are used to silence critics is a blatant falsehood. And absolutely typical of the smear tactics employed by ID supporters. f

I disagree but you make a very strong point. Evolutionism uses scientific data. ID and YEC does not.

Which just shows you how ignorant you guys are, and moreover, on other threads, nuggins has conceded embryological development is used to argue for evolution. In fact, all arguments for evolution touch on some other related field such as paleontology, genetics, etc,...To actually argue that because an argument for evolution also touches on another subject means the evo argument "isn't event talking about its impact on the ToE" just shows how deeply ignorant and twisted some evo minds are.

Ever hear of the Scopes-Monkey trial?Evolutionists used the courts first to allow for equal time to present evolution, and now years later, they argue the exact opposite. Evolution has always been steeped in propaganda and remains so to this day, which is why evos have to resort to courts to try to silence their critics and force their views on people.This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 02:55 PM

Adminnemooseus is correct that we're drifting off-topic, so I'll just say that what you say appears contradictory to me, and certainly in contradiction to what the bright lights of ID believe, so if you're interested in resolving these apparent contradictions please start a new thread. Yes, we know, everyone here is always slandering you for no good reason. You could only hold mistaking you for a YEC to be slander if you considered the YEC position to be a seriously flawed view. But this contradicts what you said just above, that the Biblical account is consistent with the YEC view, and therefore perfectly respectable. If you don't want to be clear about your views then that's your choice, but in that case don't blame others for thinking the contradictions in your viewpoint stem from confusion.Oh, and regarding slander, who was it that typed the subtitle for this subtread? By the way, buffoon has two o's.--Percy

Yes, I;ve heard of the Scopes trial. It was held because a US state had banned the teaching of evolution in science classes. But evolution wasn't forced on anyone - it was simply that science teachers were allowed to teach science rather than suffer a religiously motivated ban.The pother cases you refer to are similar in that they are also attempts to manipulate the curriculum to the detriment of teaching science, motivated by religious belief.The clear fact is that evolution was established science BEFORE the Scopes trial. Neither "Creation Science" nor ID have achieved that. And that is a crucial difference.n

Also remember that the outcome of that particular trial was that Evolution lost.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think the reality of this topics nature is that it is suitable for evolutionist side input only. There is not much (on-topic) room for creationist/IDist input.There is (IMO) an element of ID in all creationist positions, ranging all the way from YEC to theistic evolutionist. But, as typified by the recent Dover case, ID is primarily part of a theistic evolutionist position.I suggest that someone propose a "Young Earth vs. Old Earth Intelligent Design" topic.Closing this topic down.Adminnemooseus

---