Evolution Sunday

[SUTG]

Christian faith in the other good book
10 February 2007

Magazine issue 2590
Flocks of Christians in the US are to hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design". Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.

Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.

"For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science," says Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Sunday and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. (source.) (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19325903.000-christian-faith-in-the-iotheri-good-book.html)

Eh. It's a start.

[fool]

Wasen't that the impetus of the DBC tour of the museum last year and the curator who didn't exist or wouldn't say he existed or thought it was possible that he didn't exist or some such?

[bob b]

I told you it's a religion.

[Layla]

I told you it's a religion.

Religious people supporting a theory doesn't make that theory a religion.

[DoogieTalons]

Religious people supporting a theory doesn't make that theory a religion.
Indeed or that would make Creationism itself a Relgion in it's own right.

[Frank Ernest]

Religious people supporting a theory doesn't make that theory a religion.
People demanding unquestioning support for a theory does.

[icilian fenner]

People demanding unquestioning support for a theory does.
Who is doing that again?
You lost me.

[bob b]

Religious people supporting a theory doesn't make that theory a religion.

Evolution seems to have all the usual "trappings" of a religion.

BTW, I'm travelling up to Jackson Sunday. My daughter has invited us to the big dinner that night at the Episcopal church. She has a great sense of humor.

[Johnny]

People demanding unquestioning support for a theory does.Who does that?

[Evoken]

I told you it's a religion.

What's the matter bob? Afraid of a little competition?


Valz

[bob b]

What's the matter bob? Afraid of a little competition?
Valz

Bring it on.

Perhaps the cosmologists could get into the act with an "Einstein Day".

BTW, isn't it odd that Darwin was born on the same day and in the same year as Old Abe?

Coincidence?

[Evoken]

Bring it on.

Nah, to be honest i am not a fan of this Evolution Sunday thing. I am not against it tho.


Valz

[Frank Ernest]

Who is doing that again?
You lost me.
Evolutionists and Global Warmists.

[Frank Ernest]

Who does that?
Evolutionists and Global Warmists.

[Johnny]

Evolutionists and Global Warmists.Specific citation?

[Frank Ernest]

Specific citation?
"Evolution and Global Warming have become religions." - Frank Ernest

Make ya happy?

[noguru]

I told you it's a religion. :hammer:

[noguru]

"Evolution and Global Warming have become religions." - Frank Ernest

Make ya happy?

Well you do make me laugh. ;)

[Frank Ernest]

Well you do make me laugh. ;)
Good start! :D

[Skeptic]

Evolution seems to have all the usual "trappings" of a religion.
Where's the supernatural causation?
Evolution does not include such causation.

Where's the mysticism?
Evolution is based upon empirical evidence, not personal psychological experiences.

Where's the divinely inspired text?
Evolution has no such text.

Where's the unquestioning faith in dogma?
While creationists may claim evolutionists adhere to dogma, the theory of evolution is a dynamic scientific theory that is continually being modified in the face of new evidence. Not that it already does not explain a lot (creationism explains nothing), but a hundred years from now, the theory of evolution will be significantly modified to better explain many old and new detailed observations of the fossil and genetic record. This does not fit the meaning of "dogma" (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma).

Where's the mythological sequence of events?
Myths (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth) are based on traditions passed down over the generations, not on current observations and analysis. Myths are dogmatic. Scientific theories are constantly subject to revision based on new observations.

Evolution is does not have the "trappings" of religion (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) any more than modern astronomy has the "trappings" of astrology (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology).

[Frank Ernest]

Where's the supernatural causation?
Evolution does not include such causation.
It does not exclude such causation either.

Where's the mysticism?
Evolution is based upon empirical evidence, not personal psychological experiences.
Evolution is based on a series of logical errors, suppositions, etc. There is no empirical evidence. Evolutionists claim there is, but they can't point it out. Personal psychological experiences do not form the basis of a religion, unless you include Islam and some modern Christian sects.

Where's the divinely inspired text?
Evolution has no such text.
Charles Darwin -- "Origin of the Species"

Where's the unquestioning faith in dogma?
While creationists may claim evolutionists adhere to dogma, the theory of evolution is a dynamic scientific theory that is continually being modified in the face of new evidence. Not that it already does not explain a lot (creationism explains nothing), but a hundred years from now, the theory of evolution will be significantly modified to better explain many old and new detailed observations of the fossil and genetic record. This does not fit the meaning of "dogma" (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma).

Right here above along with an attempt to change the subject.

Where's the mythological sequence of events?
Myths (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth) are based on traditions passed down over the generations, not on current observations and analysis. Myths are dogmatic. Scientific theories are constantly subject to revision based on new observations.
Evolution depends on two myths: 1) that random chance determines order and, 2) diverse speciation results from common progenitors.

Evolution is does not have the "trappings" of religion (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) any more than modern astronomy has the "trappings" of astrology (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology).
Evolution is a religion. Q. E. F. Evolution bears the same relationship to science as astrology does to astronomy.

[Vision in Verse]

It does not exclude such causation either.
Random mutation (not supernatural) and natural selection (not supernatural) cause the species to gradually change. You're proven wrong.
Evolution is based on a series of logical errors, suppositions, etc. There is no empirical evidence. Evolutionists claim there is, but they can't point it out. Personal psychological experiences do not form the basis of a religion, unless you include Islam and some modern Christian sects.Evolution is based on induction and empirical observation of the world around us.
Charles Darwin -- "Origin of the Species"Modern biologists admit that Darwin was wrong on some things.
Right here above along with an attempt to change the subject.Lol. The point is, science shouldn't be dogmatic.
Evolution depends on two myths: 1) that random chance determines order and, 2) diverse speciation results from common progenitors.Let's revise that shall we?
1)Input of energy from the sun causes order.
2)All species came from previous species
Evolution is a religion. Q. E. F. Evolution bears the same relationship to science as astrology does to astronomy.No.

[bob b]

1)Input of energy from the sun causes order.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Vision in Verse]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:Bob, can you please look at what you've written before you press submit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html

The consensus seems to be pretty clear: Energy input into a system decreases local entropy.

[bob b]

Bob, can you please look at what you've written before you press submit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html

The consensus seems to be pretty clear: Energy input into a system decreases local entropy.

There seems to be great confusion between thermodynamic entropy and logical entropy.

The word "order" applies to logical entropy.

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

[Vision in Verse]

There seems to be great confusion between thermodynamic entropy and logical entropy.

The word "order" applies to logical entropy.

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htmI was referring to entropy. You misunderstood my statement.

[bob b]

I was referring to entropy. You misunderstood my statement.

I don't think so.

You said: "1)Input of energy from the sun causes order."

That statement is false.

[noguru]

I don't think so.

You said: "1)Input of energy from the sun causes order."

That statement is false.

Does not energy from the sun create order through clorophyl?

What in your opinion is responsible for order, then? Is the supernatural the only factor responsible for the order we see?

[bob b]

Does not energy from the sun create order through clorophyl?

What in your opinion is responsible for order, then? Is the supernatural the only factor responsible for the order we see?

Intelligence.

[noguru]

Intelligence.

So your claim is that intelligence is the only source of order?

And can you answer my question; Does not chlorophyl serve as a differential that enables energy from the sun to produce order?

[Skeptic]

It does not exclude such causation either. While evolution does not rule out supernatural causation, it is not included in the theory. It excludes supernatural causation as a necessary explanatory factor.

Evolution is based on a series of logical errors, suppositions, etc. There is no empirical evidence. Evolutionists claim there is, but they can't point it out. Try reading non-creationist sources on evolution.

Personal psychological experiences do not form the basis of a religion, unless you include Islam and some modern Christian sects. Feeling "saved by Jesus" is a personal psychological experience. Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is a personal psychological experience.

Charles Darwin -- "Origin of the Species" Not divinely inspired.

Right here above along with an attempt to change the subject. Belief in evolution does not require an unquestioning faith in dogma.

Evolution depends on two myths: 1) that random chance determines order and, 2) diverse speciation results from common progenitors. Evolution depends on evidence that random chance in certain environmental and historical contexts can generate order, speciation occurs, and species share common progenitors.

Evolution is a religion. Q. E. F. Evolution bears the same relationship to science as astrology does to astronomy. Does astrology change in the face of new discoveries in astronomy? ... No.

Does our understanding of evolution change in the face of new scientific evidence? ... Yes.

[bob b]

So your claim is that intelligence is the only source of order?

And can you answer my question; Does not chlorophyl serve as a differential that enables energy from the sun to produce order?

Yes, but the sun is not a requirement: artificial light will do. The "magic" (intelligence) is already in the plant. Without the plant (or the seed), the order would not appear.

So which came first, the seed or the plant?

The Law of Biogenesis: "Life comes only from life".

[noguru]

Yes, but the sun is not a requirement: artificial light will do. The "magic" (intelligence) is already in the plant. Without the plant (or the seed), the order would not appear.


Well that seems to be what you are claiming, but I doubt that you have evidence for this.

So are you also claiming that intelligence is the only source of order in nature?

[noguru]

So which came first, the seed or the plant?

The plant. If are only requirement to classify a plant is "having chlorophyl".


The Law of Biogenesis: "Life comes only from life".

Yes, and as of yet no one has provided any evidence that supernatural intelligence is required for this to happen.

[bob b]

The plant. If are only requirement to classify a plant is "having chlorophyl". Yes, and as of yet no one has provided any evidence that supernatural intelligence is required for this to happen.

Correct, but this assumption would appear more logical in the light of zero evidence that it happened "naturally".

The only known mechanism for generating information, such as that contained in DNA, employs an intelligent agent.

Anything else is wild speculation.

The discovery of DNA and the enormous amounts of information contained in even simple lifeforms should have put the gabosh to fanciful ideas like abiogenesis and evolution, but it didn't.

Reason: by the time DNA was discovered the "fanciful ideas" had become frozen into dogma.

Evolution in effect had become the "religion" of atheists. The "Darwin Day" celebrations around the world should tell us that.

[noguru]

Well that seems to be what you are claiming, but I doubt that you have evidence for this.

So are you also claiming that intelligence is the only source of order in nature?

bump

[noguru]

Correct, but this assumption would appear more logical in the light of zero evidence that it happened "naturally".

There is lots of evidence to logically justify the assumption that it happened naturally. 99.9% of what we observe on a day to day basis in nature happened naturally.


The only known mechanism for generating information, such as that contained in DNA, employs an intelligent agent.

What "Intelligent agent"? Which "known mechanism" can we use to explain the generation of information such as is found in DNA?



Anything else is wild speculation.

Wild specualtion only abounds when one employs the explanation of "the supernatural". Speculation about natural processes is firmly based in our day to day experiences.


The discovery of DNA and the enormous amounts of information contained in even simple lifeforms should have put the gabosh to fanciful ideas like abiogenesis and evolution, but it didn't.


It did not for a good reason. Namely that that there is no logical and rational reason to assume that anything supernatural is involved.


Reason: by the time DNA was discovered the "fanciful ideas" had become frozen into dogma.

Assumptions that natural processes are involved and that supernatural processes cannot be addressed in the material sciences is not dogma. It is based on our day to day experiences regarding the biological world and the material universe.


Evolution in effect had become the "religion" of atheists. The "Darwin Day" celebrations around the world should tell us that.

I disagree. This does seem to be your dogmatic believe on this subject. Given that many here have demonstrated that this is certainly not true.

[bob b]

There is lots of evidence to logically justify the assumption that it happened naturally. 99.9% of what we observe on a day to day basis in nature happened naturally.

I would put the percentage at 99.999999999999999% or higher.

But 100% of life that we observe in nature came from prior life (Law of Biogenesis).

What "Intelligent agent"? Which "known mechanism" can we use to explain the generation of information such as is found in DNA?

According to what we observe in nature, information is always created by an intelligent agent (lifeforms).

Wild specualtion only abounds when one employs the explanation of "the supernatural". Speculation about natural processes is firmly based in our day to day experiences.

The only alternative is "dumb luck". But the odds are such that I wouldn't count on that method.

It did not for a good reason. Namely that that there is no logical and rational reason to assume that anything supernatural is involved.

If you want to be so stubborn as to reject the obvious, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Assumptions that natural processes are involved and that supernatural processes cannot be addressed in the material sciences is not dogma. It is based on our day to day experiences regarding the biological world and the material universe.

No. It is based primarily on the fact that the origin of the universe and the creation of life are two things which science cannot by its very nature determine, for the simple reason that science is restricted to dealing only with natural processes.

I disagree. This does seem to be your dogmatic believe on this subject. Given that many here have demonstrated that this is certainly not true.

Technically a religion requires belief in a deity, so I usually put "religion" in quotes to indicate that it has most of the "trappings" of a religion except belief in a god.

But "Darwin Day" is a sign that Darwin is well on the way to becoming a psuedo god at least.

[Skeptic]

The Law of Biogenesis: "Life comes only from life". The Law of Natural Genesis: "Natural comes only from natural".

Does one of these two laws have less empirical support than the other, Bob?

[bob b]

The Law of Natural Genesis: "Natural comes only from natural".

Does one of these two laws have less empirical support than the other, Bob?

The Law of Biogenesis has 100% observational support (Life comes only from prior life) and was well respected until some scientific mavericks came along and claimed that they had evidence that refuted it. But they never "delivered the goods". All they had was blind faith.

Nobody had ever heard of "The Law of Natural Genesis" until some jokester mentioned it on an internet forum. ;)

BTW, isn't "natural" an adjective?

[Skeptic]

The Law of Biogenesis has 100% observational support (Life comes only from prior life) and was well respected until some scientific mavericks came along and claimed that they had evidence that refuted it. But they never "delivered the goods". All they had was blind faith. Who said they had evidence to refute the Law of Biogenesis?

Can you refute the Law of Natural Genesis? Or do you have blind faith that it is false?

Nobody had ever heard of "The Law of Natural Genesis" until some jokester mentioned it on an internet forum. Now that you have heard of the Law of Natural Genesis and understand what it claims, why should anyone be less inclined to accept it than the Law of Biogenesis? Is there less empirical support for its claim?

[bob b]

Who said they had evidence to refute the Law of Biogenesis?

Can you refute the Law of Natural Genesis? Or do you have blind faith that it is false?

Now that you have heard of the Law of Natural Genesis and understand what it claims, why should anyone be less inclined to accept it than the Law of Biogenesis? Is there less empirical support for its claim?

How can anybody understand what it means? It isn't even a sentence. ;)

The Law of Natural Genesis: "Natural [adj.] comes only from natural [adj.]".

[Skeptic]

How can anybody understand what it means? You know very well what it means.

Do you agree that natural things and events are observed to come from other natural things and events, just like living things are observed to come from other living things?

[Frank Ernest]

While evolution does not rule out supernatural causation, it is not included in the theory. It excludes supernatural causation as a necessary explanatory factor.
You just contradicted yourself -- yet again.

Try reading non-creationist sources on evolution.
I have! See, there's an example of your closed-minded prejudice. That folks such as me must be ignorant of the "truth" because we don't read your stuff through fear of it. I have, most likely, read much more about evolution from evolutionist sources than you have about Creationism from Christian sources. It is YOU who fear the truth, not me.

Feeling "saved by Jesus" is a personal psychological experience. Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is a personal psychological experience.
So what? Feeling "saved from God by evolution" is also.

Not divinely inspired.
How would you know? You are an atheist and have admitted that you were fortunate in not being "infected" by Scripture or anything near it. That alone verified your narrow-minded view of the world.

Belief in evolution does not require an unquestioning faith in dogma.

Evolution depends on evidence that random chance in certain environmental and historical contexts can generate order, speciation occurs, and species share common progenitors.
Random chance does not generate order, it generates random theoretical events. Historical context is not science and can be, and is, manipulated to fit whatever theory one is obliged to. (See Atheism.) Since there is no proof of evolution with 100% certainty, and no certainty of historical context within which evolution might occur, it requires unquestioning faith in the dogmatic assumption of evolution.

Does astrology change in the face of new discoveries in astronomy? ... No.
You don't know anything about astrology either. The answer is - yes, it does.

Does our understanding of evolution change in the face of new scientific evidence? ... Yes.
No, it doesn't. The only evidence allowed in evolution is that which confirms evolution. No other evidence is allowed either consideration or scrutiny.

Evolution is a religion. Q.E.F.

[Skeptic]

You just contradicted yourself -- yet again. Excluding supernatural causation as a necessary explanatory factor is NOT the same as ruling out supernatural causation as a possibility.

I have! See, there's an example of your closed-minded prejudice. That folks such as me must be ignorant of the "truth" because we don't read your stuff through fear of it. I have, most likely, read much more about evolution from evolutionist sources than you have about Creationism from Christian sources. It is YOU who fear the truth, not me. I have read plenty of creationist material. In such material I have found no substantiated empirical evidence to support creationist hypotheses.

In my experience, if you want good scientific evidence for or against evolution, you won't find it by reading non-scientific creationist nonsense.

Since creationist hypotheses are pretty fantastic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fantastic) and are not supported by any evidence, the prudent thing to do is accept, at least tentatively, that which has empirical support.

So what? Feeling "saved from God by evolution" is also. Evolutionists (especially the theistic ones) do not turn to evolution as a way to be "saved from God." The scientific method attempts to rule out undue influences from personal psychological experiences. ... Something "creation scientists" do not do.

How would you know? How do I know that Darwin's "Origin of the Species" is not divinely inspired? .... I don't. ... But, then, I have no reason to suspect it is.

Of course, the same holds true for the Bible.

You are an atheist Agnostic.

and have admitted that you were fortunate in not being "infected" by Scripture or anything near it. Oh, but I was "infected" once. ... I was cured by reason.

That alone verified your narrow-minded view of the world. What could be more narrow minded than to feel that one is 100% certain that some all-powerful supernatural eternal entity with a personality magically poofed the universe and all life forms fully formed and is waiting for you to spend eternity with Him after you die? .... Sounds like the belief of someone who has made their mind up.

Do you think there is any possibility you could be wrong about your religious view, Franky?

Random chance does not generate order, it generates random theoretical events. Wrong.

Since there is no proof of evolution with 100% certainty, Only religion encourages one to think they have found 100% certainty. Science deals with probabilities, not proofs.

and no certainty of historical context within which evolution might occur, it requires unquestioning faith in the dogmatic assumption of evolution. Questioning the observed evidence, such as the fossil record and the distribution of species, is how the theory of evolution was developed in the first place. Those who stubbornly refused to ask the questions Darwin and others were willing to ask were the ones who retained their unquestioning faith in religious dogma.

You don't know anything about astrology either. The answer is - yes, it does. The underlying premise of astrology is that the positions of celestial objects in the sky influences our daily lives. New discoveries in astronomy do not change this premise. Some astrologers fabricate new human/celestial-object relationships, when new astronomical discoveries are made, but such relationships have no empirical basis. Astrologers still retain their dogma, regardless of new discoveries in astronomy.

No, it doesn't. Wrong.

The only evidence allowed in evolution is that which confirms evolution. No other evidence is allowed either consideration or scrutiny. The only evidence that is allowed is that which is falsifiable and can be empirically tested. If there was such empirical evidence that could falsify evolution, scientists would be very interested in it. So far, evidence brought forth by those (creationists, of course) who think they have found a way to falsify evolution has not turned out to be a serious challenge to evolution.

Evolution is a religion. Q.E.F. In your dreams.

[Skeptic]

:jump: .... Just thought some bouncing was in order.

Sometimes, it's good for you.

[Frank Ernest]

Excluding supernatural causation as a necessary explanatory factor is NOT the same as ruling out supernatural causation as a possibility.
Take out the NOT and it is one of your prime points of argument. Backpedalling, are you?

I have read plenty of creationist material. In such material I have found no substantiated empirical evidence to support creationist hypotheses.
Then you didn't read it. Q.E.D.

In my experience, if you want good scientific evidence for or against evolution, you won't find it by reading non-scientific creationist nonsense.
Of course not. You are biased and predisposed to reject it, ergo, you reject it. That's easy enough.

Since creationist hypotheses are pretty fantastic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fantastic) and are not supported by any evidence, the prudent thing to do is accept, at least tentatively, that which has empirical support.
Biased and dismissive allegation.

Evolutionists (especially the theistic ones) do not turn to evolution as a way to be "saved from God." The scientific method attempts to rule out undue influences from personal psychological experiences. ... Something "creation scientists" do not do.
Yes, they do, especially the atheistic ones. Your charge against creation scientists being unduly influenced by personal psychological experiences is just another example of your bias and dismissiveness.

How do I know that Darwin's "Origin of the Species" is not divinely inspired? .... I don't. ... But, then, I have no reason to suspect it is.
That a nothing statement and one you rely on quite frequently. I have no reason to suspect that Darwin is scientifically inspired.

Of course, the same holds true for the Bible.
Only for you and some others who think of science as a god.

Agnostic.

Oh, but I was "infected" once. ... I was cured by reason.
:darwinsm: Sure.

What could be more narrow minded than to feel that one is 100% certain that some all-powerful supernatural eternal entity with a personality magically poofed the universe and all life forms fully formed and is waiting for you to spend eternity with Him after you die? .... Sounds like the belief of someone who has made their mind up.
You have decided with 100% certainty that such (ignoring your obvious bias) is not the case. Sounds like you have made your mind up.

Do you think there is any possibility you could be wrong about your religious view, Franky?
Yes, about 1 in several quadrillion quadrillion.

Only religion encourages one to think they have found 100% certainty. Science deals with probabilities, not proofs.
So what? Science is science. It is designed to gather and increase knowledge. In science I would not encourage 100% certainty either. So, what you're implying here is that a religion that rests on probabilities would be acceptable to you. OH No! You would immediately spring back to the "I have no reason to ..." mantra.

Questioning the observed evidence, such as the fossil record and the distribution of species, is how the theory of evolution was developed in the first place. Those who stubbornly refused to ask the questions Darwin and others were willing to ask were the ones who retained their unquestioning faith in religious dogma.
Seems that Darwin was one of "those."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -- Darwin, Origin of the Species

The underlying premise of astrology is that the positions of celestial objects in the sky influences our daily lives. New discoveries in astronomy do not change this premise. Some astrologers fabricate new human/celestial-object relationships, when new astronomical discoveries are made, but such relationships have no empirical basis. Astrologers still retain their dogma, regardless of new discoveries in astronomy.
Not entirely true, but no matter. I realize your "knowledge" about such things are limited to your biases and that you read only that which reinforces your biases. Not much sense in trying to correct you as you "will have no reason to believe ..."

Wrong.
:darwinsm:

The only evidence that is allowed is that which is falsifiable and can be empirically tested. If there was such empirical evidence that could falsify evolution, scientists would be very interested in it. So far, evidence brought forth by those (creationists, of course) who think they have found a way to falsify evolution has not turned out to be a serious challenge to evolution.
:darwinsm: Since evolutionists, such as yourself, immediately dismiss and ridicule any such evidence without considering it on the merits, I'm not surprised.

In your dreams.
Actually, in yours. Evolution is a religion. (That's my return mantra.)

[lucaspa]

Yes, they do, especially the atheistic ones.

But that doesn't address the 50% or more of evolutionary biologists who are/were theists, starting with Darwin. Why would they have bias?

I have no reason to suspect that Darwin is scientifically inspired.

You have reasons to conclude that Darwin was both divinely and scientifically inspired. Both conclusions come from the vast amount of data -- his own and other peoples' -- that are in Origin. Remember what Darwin and other scientists study: God's Creation. You believe that God created. That means that everything in Creation was put there by God. So scientists study God's second book. As Francis Bacon said:

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Your problem is that God tells us in His Creation that He created by a different method than you want Him to use. Too bad for you.

Science is science. It is designed to gather and increase knowledge. In science I would not encourage 100% certainty either.

Because science can disprove, the negative statements in science are 100% certain. The earth is NOT flat. Proteins are NOT the hereditary material. And species were NOT specially created.

Remember that creationism was THE accepted scientific theory from 1700 to 1858. The reason scientists abandoned it is because they were able to disprove it. They didn't disprove God exists or created, but they did disprove that God created by creationism.

Seems that Darwin was one of "those."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." -- Darwin, Origin of the Species

This is where we separate evolution and "religious dogma". Darwin rejected "religious dogma" of creationism. What you have shown is that this does NOT entail rejecting God.

Since evolutionists, such as yourself, immediately dismiss and ridicule any such evidence without considering it on the merits, I'm not surprised.

But that isn't true. If you look at the arguments against creationism, scientists ALWAYS did what science does: assume the position (creationist in this case) is true and then test it. The problem is that the testing showed creationism to be false.

Evolution is a religion. (That's my return mantra.)

And, as your quote from Darwin showed, your mantra is wrong. Now, if you want Skeptic to abandon mantras in the face of refuting evidence, shouldn't you? ;)