Comments on: Texas reaches evolution compromise: who won, who lost? http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/28/texas-reaches-evolution-compromise-who-won-who-lost/ Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Kieran http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/28/texas-reaches-evolution-compromise-who-won-who-lost/comment-page-1/#comment-11457 Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:39:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=5014#comment-11457 Evolution is as certain as any fact in science, and has survived for 150 years without a single piece of evidence against it emerging. If we’re going to teach alternatives to evolution, we should also teach alternative theories to natural childbirth (stork theory) and alternatives to gravity (intelligent falling).

Science is sufficiently humble to admit that it doesn’t know everything, which is illustrated by its use of the word “theory” to denote the highest degree of certainty. But that doesn’t give other groups carte blanche to fabricate alternative theories with no evidential backing and claim that they deserve an equal voice.

Intelligent design is simply a fraud. It doesn’t meet any of the scientific definitions of a “hypothesis” – it can’t be tested, can’t be falsified, and makes no predictions. In other words, it’s utterly useless for anything.

The judge in the Dover case had a lot of scathing things to say about the “Intelligent Design” movement. Essentially, he found them deceitful at every turn.

Creationists are fond of drawing a spurious distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is no difference between the two – macro-evolution is merely the accumulation of changes from micro-evolution.

]]>
By: jd http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/28/texas-reaches-evolution-compromise-who-won-who-lost/comment-page-1/#comment-11394 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:21:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=5014#comment-11394 microevolution (intraspecies) is irrefutable; macroevolution (molecules to man) is pure humanistic materialistic metaphysics – iow religion. that most scientists believe it is irrelevant. science is supposed to be based in an helathy scepticism and free enquiry rather than blind acceptance to pseudoscientific hadith issued by the academic establishment. once questioning is closed and questioners silenced, true science dies

]]>
By: David Buckna http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/28/texas-reaches-evolution-compromise-who-won-who-lost/comment-page-1/#comment-11384 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:31:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=5014#comment-11384 Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html

Teaching Evolution – Is There a Better Way?
by Ian Taylor
http://www.creationmoments.com/articles/ article.php?a=21

]]>