quote:

---

Pressure to temper the teaching of evolution in public schools has come overwhelmingly from conservatives; the Kansas board's re-examination of its evolution standards resulted from Republican gains last November that put an anti-evolution conservative majority on the board. So we were curious: How do leading conservative thinkers and pundits feel about evolution and intelligent design? We asked them. Here's what they said.

---

Read the rest here.

(get a username & password here.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by firecaptain:
I for one do NOT believe the creationist ( including those who beleive in inteligent design) or the evolutionists. Neither group has been able to fill in all the gaps.

---

quote:

---

So until one can come up with something more then conjecture, theory or blind faith, I will continue to dispute there so called proof.

---

From wikipedia: "In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data."

[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

Albireo wrote - the theory of evolution provides a convincing explanation based on evidence. Creationism, by contrast, is based on myth (ie. on stories). You really cannot equate the two.

---

First of all I do not debate one over the other. I simply beleive both evolution or creation have NOT proven their case. So in answer to your statement I am NOT equating the two. They are both unproven. I feel leaps of faith are also required to fill the gaps that seperate the so called evidence presented by evolution.

quote:

---

From wikipedia: "In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data."

---

quote:

---

Well the very fact nothing is absolute proves my point.

---

What point? There's a big difference between saying "nothing is absolute" (or, better, "nothing in science can be known with absolute certainty") and saying "nothing is reasonably knowable."

quote:

---

I simply beleive both evolution or creation have NOT proven their case.

---

Then I guess you'll forever wonder. It's not like there's a third theory that's going to come along and satisfy your inquiring mind.

quote:

---

Then I guess you'll forever wonder. It's not like there's a third theory that's going to come along and satisfy your inquiring mind.

---

quote:

---

No the reverse is usually true. Observations and experiments are catalogued and studied. Then a theory is postulated to fit the observations. Like you also state theories can never be proven because of newer data which might even totally disprove the theory. Well the very fact nothing is absolute proves my point.

---

In real life, one submits grants based on previous work by oneself or one's colleagues, suggesting hypotheses and experiments before one is accorded the means to perform experiments.

You see, we don't have to reproduce observations by Darwin, Marguilis et. al; they have already been made and have only strengthened (and modified) the initial theory.

Evolutionary biology was not originally an empirical science, but rather arose from a theory developed by attempting to account for what amounted to historical observations by Wallace and Darwin.

quote:

---

They are both unproven.

---

quote:

---

When molecular biology, climatology, biogeography radionuclide dating, paleontology etc. etc. produced an avalanche of data the supported the essentials of "descent with modification and natural selection", only the scientifically illiterate and religious nuts took to questioning evolutionary theory with straight faces.

---

"We're not religious; we're scientific because although we say complex life was created, we're not saying who did the creating." Coulda been faeries, right? Religious wackos don't attribute stuff to faeries,right? Only to God. Saayyy... coulda been brownies too, right? Or leprechauns? See, we're totally scientific, bwahahaha!"

Getting back to firecaptain: you'd have had a lot more credibility with me if you'd said you were a Bible-believing YEC, instead of your "I'm too smart to be taken in by religion OR facts stance." Just says to me you don't know enough about either to have an informed opinion.

[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Word. "Intelligent design" is a farce. And the idea that, because he doubts natural selection and doubts (yeah, right) creationism, the truth must be "between the two extremes" -- what illogical moronic gibberish.

---