Hey dude, I just noticed that you’ve censored my post above:
…
What’s your problem? Can’t handle what other folks have to say about your pet theory? Couldn’t deal with a couple of quotes, eh?

And once again Kevin ignores all facts and thinks he’s being persecuted. “Oh noes!! It’s because I’m a Darwin doubter!! Boo hoo!!”

Sorry, dude. Censoring you isn’t worth the effort. The best defense against your ideas is to let everybody see them. They’ll wither on their own, because nobody here is stupid enough to fall for what you call “evidence”.

Your post was deleted because you violated the terms of the comment policy, which is clearly spelled out on the About page. These are the rules that everybody lives by on this site, not just “Darwin doubters” (read: fools). This policy has been in effect for several months now. If you scan through the comments of some of the more controversial subjects, you’ll see that I’ve occasionally had to enforce the rules.

If I were trying to censor you, I would have deleted all of your other comments, too.

You have a lot of nerve claiming that I’m trying to suppress dissenting opinions. Your own blog (Access Research Network) doesn’t allow comments at all. What’s wrong? Afraid too many people will leave sensible comments pointing out what’s wrong with every single one of your posts?

My question is a fair one: which issues do you have a problem with? Remember, I’m not willing to discuss any religion-based content, but prefer to stick strictly with science, logic, mathematics, probablity, etc.

Okay let me see if I got this straight…

What part of a pseudoscientific religious belief do I have a problem with… But, you are not willing to discuss anything related to religious beliefs but will stick strictly with real science.

How the hell can I even respond to that?

Hey dude, I just noticed that you’ve censored my post above:

Kevin Wirth Says:

May 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
[Deleted by admin for violation of comment policy]

What’s your problem? Can’t handle what other folks have to say about your pet theory? Couldn’t deal with a couple of quotes, eh?

OK, I think I’m done posting to your site.

Have a nice life.

I’m certainly not going to re-state what others have already stated. I’m assuming you’ve already read widely and are pretty acquainted with the arguments, otherwise you wouldn’t be so snotty about it. My question is a fair one: which issues do you have a problem with? Remember, I’m not willing to discuss any religion-based content, but prefer to stick strictly with science, logic, mathematics, probablity, etc.

Actually, in a different post, I already pointed to a book called “The Design of Life” by Dembski and Wells, published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008.

I would prefer to solicit YOUR problemtaic commentary with any of the issues raised in that book or any of the following resources:

No Free Lunch, by Dembski, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002

Darwin Retried by Norman MacBeth, Gambit, 1971

Signs of Intelligence, edited by Dembski and Kushiner

And of course, any other peer reviewed journal articles like “Dogma and Doubt” by Ronald Brady, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 17 (1) , 79–96 doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1982.tb02015.x

So now, it’s YOUR turn to put up.

Why keep it if it doesn’t work?

I can answer that one! ID proponents think we keep it because it’s what they are used to. The bible predicts nothing accurately and offers very little modern moral guidance (I’d rather not stone Sarah to death for speaking out). But it’s a tradition and it’s a dogma. IDers mistakenly assume that “darwinism” is the same for the scientific minded. It’s not. If tomorrow the theory of gravity was turned upside down by some new amazing discovery, how can I deny it? The same is true for evolution. If the designer left a “made in China” sticker with maybe a warranty card for the Earth deep in the crust and there was no natural way something like that could have gotten there, we would be forced to re-examine what we know — AND WE WOULD. But that’s just not likely to happen. And that’s what burns up the IDers.

YOU guys have the responsibility to respond to reasonable challenges to your pet theory. You’re so sure of yourselves. If you can’t come up with any, haven’t heard any, don’t believe there are any, then just say so and I’ll let you speak for yourselves (or not).

Actually, no I don’t. I’m not an evolutionary biologist. I’m a network engineer. lol. All I do is advocate on their behalf from a political (ie, voting, writing, calling) perspective. You are also reasonably in a similar position, but I would never force you to do the research yourself. All we ask is you point us to the research that supports your argument. A debate is not a scientific publication, it is a structured argument where you are required to present facts to backup an assertion. Now, many MANY times on this blog Ron has done JUST that, and then the rest of us as well in the comments. You, on the other hand, have mostly spat forth logical fallacies, quote mined (frequently out of context), and “yelled” really loudly. But there is no evidence. It is the burden of the person making the extraordinary claim to PROVE the extraordinary claim. That doesn’t mean I personally have to find evidence for evolution, millions of people much smarter than I am have already done that. It’s up to the challengers to do that. Since you are advocating for them here, provide some proof. Every time you have attempted to do that, it’s been dissected for what it is: BS. Because there IS no proof for ID. If anybody ever finds some and it passes scientific scrutiny, you better believe I’ll start believing it. But I’m not holding my breath.

Let’s do this a little differently. You show ME that you’ve done your homework by going out there and looking for arguments that challenge evolution. If you can’t find any, then come back to me, and I’ll help you out.

I’ve looked at a lot of stuff. It’s all laughably bad. The only thing that came even remotely close was Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. The guy established his credibility by demonstrating that he understands how cells work. But then he fell short when he attributed everything to God a designer. All Behe managed to demonstrate in that book was his lack of imagination.

I’m not talking about ID here, or the Bible, or religion - or any challenges or arguments from any of those sources. I’m talking about reasonable challenges to any aspect of your pet theory - evolution - from respectable sources.

We have. Like I said, it’s all crap. So now you have to put up or shut up. Where’s the proof for ID creationism?

If evolution did not work (and link up with every other biological theory) then why are there so many successes in the field of medicine? Why are we able to find so many similar genetic sequences among species? What about viral infections that are found in the SAME places along the human genome and that of a chimp? Why keep it if it doesn’t work? What is the point? Do you see any advantages to this (other than the “oppression” of religion)? Science isn’t politics, because unlike politics, there is nothing to gain by lying and cheating.

And no, science is not opinion, it follows the evidence trail. If science was truly opinion, then evolution would have been thrown out by now and replaced by creationism (Because despite what many people think, ID is popular, but thanks to all the court rulings saying that it’s religion…which it pretty much is, ID is not taught in most public schools).

If science were opinion, then Galileo’s theory would have never been looked into again after he was forced to denounce his life’s work by the church.

If something is kept in science, it is because it WORKS. Once evolution does not fit the evidence found then that like many other theories, will either be modified or tossed away, but most likely (considering how much evidence supports it today and how long it has survived scientific evaluation, criticism, etc) this will never occur.

So, I’m not redirecting anything here — you simply were not thinking in the same vein I was.

I’m not talking about ID here, or the Bible, or religion - or any challenges or arguments from any of those sources. I’m talking about reasonable challenges to any aspect of your pet theory - evolution - from respectable sources.

YOU guys have the responsibility to respond to reasonable challenges to your pet theory. You’re so sure of yourselves. If you can’t come up with any, haven’t heard any, don’t believe there are any, then just say so and I’ll let you speak for yourselves (or not).

And that will tell the rest of us how well read you really are.

1. Why should we do YOUR homework?
2. How does challenging any aspect of evolutionary theory validate intelligent design? Where’s the evidence for ID?
3. Goddidit != Reasonable (which is about all I’ve ever seen from IDers, personally)