Evolutionists claim that evolution is as "true as gravity," and that there is no significant dissent among scientists on this point. NOt. The Discovery Institute first helped create the Darwin Dissenter’s List for PhD’s, and now, they have another for MDs (Physicians and Surgeons For Scientific Integrity). Why MDs? Well, they are also highly educated scientists. They’ve started with 17 "charter" members. We’ll see how big the list gets.
The purpose of the list is to undercut the Darwinist claim that there is no scientific controversy over Darwinism, and to provide support for embattled scientists in the academy skeptical of Darwinism.
The Jones ruling was largely idiotic, and has been thoroughly critiqued. ID is not dead – evolutionists only wish it would go away.
Largely idiotic? because he found that the supporters of ID within the district outright lied?
What i find idiotic is the so called critiques. The latest one from Casey Luskin (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05/my_dream_interview_with_judge.html) asking interview questions that he would like to ask Judge Jones and this is the best you guys can come up with?
I am not worried for evolution one bit if calling a conservative republican judge's ruling "idiotic" and posting criticisms of the ruling that are full of errors and accusations.
Seventeen doctors!
Seeker, seventeen doctors, along with the much larger group of 'scientists', still amounts to totally insignificant amount of "dissent".
Look at it this way: There are over eleven million people who believe that the American continents were populated by a lost tribe of Israel that found its way to the New World (via the Pacific, no less) 2100 years before Columbus made his comparatively-short Atlantic excursion. Eleven Million People!
Now, of those eleven million Latter Day Saints, how many do you suppose are doctors or scientists? I'd guess there are a lot, though I'm sure somebody at Brigham Young University could give you a better estimate than I could produce.
The point is that they're still all wrong. LDS trots out archaelogical and anthropological experts all the time, and while their explanations are often clever, seemingly-plausible, and certainly entertaining, that doesn't make them true. Your ID movement is no different, apart from the fact that you probably have even less supporters than our less-political friends in Salt Lake City.
I don't understand this numbers game that you're trying to play. It's like an eight-year-old walking into Fenway park with a plastic bat, saying "I have a bat! I can play baseball now!" Yes, you have a bat, but the Red Sox have bats too. There are also a lot more of them, and they're better baseball players than you are anyway.
Oops, I forgot to close my em-tag. Sorry.
Uhh, just shoot me, okay? I'm clearly HTML-incompetent.
I don't understand this numbers game that you're trying to play.
That's because it is not a numbers game at all, but it is to you. You won't yield to reason, so we must convince others and speak the language that you do understand – numbers! For you, the majority does rule.
Because evolutionists refuse to admit or acknowledge the obvious and significant weaknesses of their positions and the impact of evolutionary nonsense on other disciplines, as well as the underserved hegemony they exercise over modern science, not to mention their elitism and hubris, us unbelievers must attack from all sides – not just logic, but numbers, legislation, and public propoganda ;)
Let me get this straight: I argued that this numbers game was meaningless, and your retort was (1) to agree with me, but (2) to blame me for having to engage in it? That's ridiculous. I didn't realize that I was forcing you to engage in poor logic.
People do not willfully deny the truth. We may not recognize it, in the context of our own understanding, but we can't help but accept it once we finally do. So my advice to you, as if you wanted it, is to stop acting like a child about this.
Stop blaming other people (i.e. most everyone) for your inability to convince them that creationism is true. If you can't persuade someone that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that's your problem, not theirs. And, similarly, if I can't convince you that God doesn't exist, on the merits of my argument alone, I can hardly blame you.
The reason that "evolutionists" aren't admitting the obvious and significant weaknesses of their position, is that they are neither obvious, nor particularly signficant. You can keep claiming they are, but the evidence and the argument you're presenting just aren't that compelling when compared to the alternatives.
It's plausible that your beliefs are correct, and that everyone else is just deluded. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that a minority position was actually correct, although this would be an unusual case where the "truth" was milleniums older than the modern belief system. But even if you are right, you can't blame the public for thinking that you're loony; we have very good reasons to think so:
First, the most visible and forthright observations of our planet suggest that it is very, very old. That's not to say that your alternative theory is entirely implausible; just that it requires more than a little explaining away of what would otherwise be considered modern understanding of the nature of the Earth.
Second: given that we can readily observe the processes of natural selection and genetic variation through breeding, the idea that these processes can and do extend to the species-level is intuitive. It's not intuitive to you, perhaps, but it very clearly is to many, many other people. Get used to it, get over it, and adapt your argument to suit.
Here's the important part: the most visible creationist and anti-evolutionary explanations, including your own, are not particularly convincing to most of the world. If they were, people such as myself would believe them. If you want to convince us that the earth is 6000 years old, you're simply going to have to do a better job of arguing your case. And you're going to have to take responsibility for this task on yourself, instead of blaming the people who think you're just a religious kook.
You could probably learn a lot from the Mormons.
Stewart,
Seeker accused you of refusing to yield to reason. What I love about (Some) Christians is this absurd notion that the Bible is reason enough for pretty much anything. Reason doesn't seem to mean anything more than "Is what you're saying in agreement with the Bible? If not, its unreasonable."
[Censored]