ID…That is faith based because there is and never has been any thing remotely scientific out there that supports a higher power (Outside of nature really, but that’s just me)

How do we know that evolution is a valid scientific theory? For one, all the biological discoveries that came before and after it have all managed to link up perfectly..and yet ID (creationists) believers are fine with those theories…but not evolution because it goes against what’s listed in their preferred scripture. Then there are all the upgrades in medicine (more specifically, microevolution, but still the same concept seeing as macroevolution is simply just an awful lot of micro taking place over a much grander time scale)

I’m not quite sure you even know what the definition of ‘faith’ is. Dictionary.com says:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability
2. belief that is not based on proof
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
4. a system of religious belief

Now for Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. systematized knowledge in general.
4. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

ID does not fit this definition because it does not follow the scientific method which has proven countless of other theories that your ’smart’ scientists admit are fact…so how can it be wrong here?
Here are the steps for ID to pass before it will EVER be accepted as even remotely scientific:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

And now for my closing argument: Which IDers are you talking about? The Christians? The Jews? Who? Which God? There are over 80000 religions (some with more than one God/Goddess) how do you know which one is the right one? Or maybe it’s one that hasn’t been invented by mankind yet?

Whatever, I believe I’ve done my part.

PS: Great whale article, Ron! I’ve only had the premises of evolution to go off of (A fairly skimpy 8th grade overlook on the subject…and currently, I’m still stuck on genetics which has got to be the most confusing subject ever!) and so I’ve never seen our side of the whale debate…only the fundies constantly saying ‘HA! Since there’s no transitional fossils for whales, we win!’

The creationist challenged us to explain how any species evolved, and he specifically excluded whales. Why? Because we have a better picture of whale evolution than many other species. Prove your claim, but don’t use evidence! I’m guessing that sounds like a reasonable challenge to him, because that’s how ID creationists go about “proving” intelligent design. Hard data is such a pesky thing.

For the benefit of anybody who swallowed his mind-poison, you can go here for the antidote. This article explains how whales evolved. It relies on more than just fossils, too. That ought to make our creationist troll happy. As the article points out, we know how whales evolved based on:

• Paleontological evidence
• Morphological evidence
• Molecular biological evidence
• Vestigial evidence
• Embryological evidence
• Geochemical evidence
• Paleoenvironmental evidence
• Paleobiogeographic evidence
• Chronological evidence

The article concludes:

Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or “intelligent design” scenarios entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence.

Hmm. Nobody home, just as I thought. He’s probably got a school board in Florida to pester, anyway.

This guy was advocating “over-unity” power production devices on sci.skeptic in 1999.

“Please, I’m dying to know why I was born with an appendix and tailbone.”

You probably don’t want the answer. lol. I heard a fundie once explain the appendix as an organ that was used in biblical times to help process the types of foods available back then (before our modern, cleaner agriculture). I guess it was sort of an ancient organ to fight Montezuma’s revenge.

It followed the “cannot add information into the genome” line of thought. As in, the appendix no longer functions because it’s purpose was lost or corrupted. You know… the same reason we can’t live to 900 years anymore, unlike Moses and the gang.

SHOW ME, and I’ll listen. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

Mr. Wirth, since your vast scientific expertise is sufficient to cast aside a century and a half of research (during which time scientists have diligently tried to find a fatal flaw with Darwin’s idea, and failed), please enlighten all of us dullards here by explaining biology to us. Please tell our feeble minds how the development of antibiotics and vaccines really doesn’t need that darned old evolution. Please, I’m dying to know why I was born with an appendix and tailbone. I can’t wait for you to explain how geology and cosmology are also dead wrong by dovetailing nicely with biological evolution. Instead of throwing quotations around, show us some damned research.

As to your next point: do you deny absolutely and completely the involvement of a supernatural agent in the biohistory of this planet? Just because you haven’t mentioned religion doesn’t mean its not the sinister, malevolent force driving you to embrace the absurd and deny the obvious. And don’t pretend to be so shocked that I brought it up. Religion has everything to do with this, and even your staggering intellect knows it. Religion, in nearly all of its odious forms, has a sad and woeful history of standing in the way of human intellectual endeavors. Why is it that only the faithful have a problem with evolution? It certainly is not because you have any valid arguments supported by evidence and confirmed by other scientists, otherwise we’d have moved on from this pointless debate a long time ago. Despite what your imagination tells you, science is ruthlessly self-correcting. Bad ideas are floated from time to time and in due course are shot down by others with better evidence and better arguments. You may spout assertions to the contrary all you like, and while those delusions might protect the fantasy world you’ve come to inhabit, they do nothing to change reality.

So I stand firmly by my assertion that you are simply a fundie pretending to know something about science. Gasp and swoon if you wish. Cry foul. Throw some more quotations around. Pretend the burden of proof does not lie with you and your superstitious ilk. Every blathering, inane comment I read from people like you only strengthens my conviction that creationists are walking, breathing examples of ignorance and credulity run amok.

You said:

“I am not a scientist. I do not play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, I do possess an understanding of, and a profound appreciation for the way science works. Evolution is not a difficult notion to wrap one’s head around if one has the curiosity and the wits to do so. Evolution is an elegant, intuitive, and awe-inspiring description of how we came to be. It’s amazing to me that no one before Darwin figured it out.”

That sounds oh so nice. I too understand something of how science works, and also something about how its NOT supposed to work (I trust YOU have some perspective on that as well…). Evolution is only elegant and awe-inspriring (to me) insofar as it reveals the incredible lengths to which people will go in conjuring up incredibly imaginitive stories and speculations about how many evolutionary processes “must have” operated in the past. What’s amazing to me is how so few people have actually taken the time to investigate just how intricately the web of evidence and speculation is woven into a fabric that is then alleged to be scientific fact. Fortunately, some have done this work, and I’ve noted some of them in the quotes I’ve presented here.

You said:

“What is not amazing to me is the fact that opponents of evolution are motivated in some degree by their obsession with religion. Their objections have nothing to do with reason or reality.”

Now hold it mister - right there. You are SO far out of line. First, in all of the comments I have made on this site, I have never ONCE mentioned religion, and have kept the discussion grounded to a philosophical and evidence-based approach. You have NO grounds to issue this charge, since no discussion of religion has been joined here. Second, it matters not one whit what the MOTIVATION of your opponent may be - what matters is the scientific evidence and philosophical arguments put forth. You hold “reason” and “reality” in such high regard - well that’s good to know - because you should. But you should also know better than to level this charge here and now.

You said:
“Evolution is the fight they constantly pick (and lose) because it is the most dramatic refutation of part of the Bible. It dares to suggest the man didn’t need a supernatural sugardaddy to get here. It also leads a reasonable person to conclude that if Genesis were not correct, perhaps other parts of the Bible, if not the whole damned thing, are also wrong. These are dangerous thought to a mind conditioned to accept ridiculous claims and stories “on faith”.”

Ok - and so I assume that as a “reasonable” person, you assume that if evolution cannot be demonstrated to account for the origin and development of life on earth, you would have only one recourse - a supernatural designer? Is that what I hear you saying? If so, then you have a vested interest in protecting evolution, with or without evidence.

I would suggest you think long and hard about this one. Because prejudice in favor of evolution is not a good enough reason to believe. You must be able to answer the hard questions that evolution currently has no answers for.

Surely, you MUST know what those are. If you don’t know what those questions are, then your “reasoning” is flawed, because you haven’t contemplated the most significant challenges to the theory. If you are truly committed to evolution, then you will be able to provide a well “reasoned” response for why you continue to support evolutionary theory IN SPITE OF not being able to answer those hard questions.

So let’s hear it. Come on - don’t be shy. Spit it out.

I do not “believe” in evolution. I accept it as a satisfactory explanation, literally supported by mountains of evidence, for the diversity of life on this planet. Should a better idea come along, supported by better evidence, I shall accept that instead. Anti-evolution rhetoric likes to portray scientists as having grave doubts about a theory they are told they must support if they want to stay in the club. People who manufacture these disputes are well-versed in the arts of deception and intellectual dishonesty. Moreover, they are an insult to my intelligence. If they wish to continue wallowing in ignorance and stupidity, so be it. But their efforts threaten the education of my kids, and I will oppose it at every opportunity.

If you want to snipe at the little stuff, then fine, I’ll leave you to your ramblings. But I’ve issued some pretty solid challenges here that have so far gone unanswered, and they are far more weighty than my use of the term “Darwinian”. Stop being an ankle biter and start showing me some solid evidence pal.

1) You show your complete IGNORANCE of your obligation in this argument. The side that proposes a theory - “established” or not, always, Always ALWAYS, has the responsiblity for the burden of proof for their idea. So stop your whining, get over it, and get busy - or else stop spewing your reactionary and ineffective bile.

2) And, you make ad hoc claims that my quotes are “out of context” without showing us how or why. Until you do the work of showing how and why, your claim on that point is also pretty much bogus. Anyone can make such a claim, but I guess that’s the way you guys like to operate.

SHOW ME, and I’ll listen. Otherwise, put a sock in it.