Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, I missed that he was quoting someone else, I thought those were his words in red. My apologies.

Understandable. Some people do put links at the bottom instead of the top from sources they quote from and it can get confusing.

 

[Bradskii]

Not all of them. There are many honest and informed YECs...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse...etc

That is just the weirdest position. The guy admits that there is a galactic amount of genuine evidence to support evolution. But then says 'But hey, I'm going to reject it all anyway.'

It seems that he just wants to bolster his bona fides as a scientific literate and open minded individual so that it cuts off any arguments that accuse him of not being knowledgeable enough and close minded. Those two positions are not incompatible. Maybe he knows more about evolution than any of us. But his final statement proves that he is, by definition, close minded.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is just the weirdest position. The guy admits that there is a galactic amount of genuine evidence to support evolution. But then says 'But hey, I'm going to reject it all anyway.'

It seems that he just wants to bolster his bona fides as a scientific literate and open minded individual so that it cuts off any arguments that accuse him of not being knowledgeable enough and close minded. Those two positions are not incompatible. Maybe he knows more about evolution than any of us. But his final statement proves that he is, by definition, close minded.

He's honest about it. Like Dr. Harold Coffin, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Gerald Aardsma, and many others, they admit what the evolution indicates, but prefer their understanding of scripture. If every YEC was that honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Bradskii]

He's honest about it. Like Dr. Harold Coffin, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Gerald Aardsma, and many others, they admit what the evolution indicates, but prefer their understanding of scripture. If every YEC was that honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

It's still a problem. There are those that argue from ignorance. The 'how come there are still monkeys' group. But this guy seems to be saying that he accepts the evidence for evolution. But then, at the same time, rejects it.

It's like accepting the evidence that the world is round but still insisting that it's flat.

Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's leaning on the fact that theories are only provisionally true. No matter how mathematically certain we are, there is always a (perhaps infinitely tiny) chance that we are wrong. And there's his out.

"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives."
Dr. Todd Wood

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@The Barbarian I'm so sorry: I got my threads mixed up.

 

[Job 33:6]

He's leaning on the fact that theories are only provisionally true. No matter how mathematically certain we are, there is always a (perhaps infinitely tiny) chance that we are wrong. And there's his out.

"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives."
Dr. Todd Wood

This makes me wonder why he denies it if he acknowledge its success?

 

[The Barbarian]

This makes me wonder why he denies it if he acknowledge its success?

Well, that's a good question. One prominent creationist I had an email discussion with, actually published papers in which he assumed evolution. It wasn't Dr. Wood, but he likewise agreed that the theory had great explanatory power.

 

[The Barbarian]

We should not be distracted by their grift. "ID" *IS* creationism. It's not the same as YEC, but neither is OEC the same as YEC, but it all three are creationism.

Michael Behe claims to be an evolutionist. Michael Denton even asserts that living things were produced by natural processes built into natural laws. So there's a wide disparity in opinions among IDers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Michael Behe claims to be an evolutionist. Michael Denton even asserts that living things were produced by natural processes built into natural laws. So there's a wide disparity in opinions among IDers.

I find their bleatings unconvincing.