I know I haven’t been posting much. I’ve been working quite a bit lately and most of my work involves writing. I’ve been writing the equivalent of 4 or 5 blog posts a day for work and just don’t feel like it once I get home.
Today, however, I got a comment on a really old post. I thought I would eviscerate it here. It won’t be too challenging as it is simply a rehash of arguments that were destroyed will over 50 years ago. Unfortunately, they are the only arguments creationists have and so continue to use them, quote-mining, and out-right lying to promote their point of view.
Of course, if they had actual evidence to support their notions, then they could publish it in actual peer-reviewed research journals. Funny how they never, ever do that.
Anyway, on to the comment.
All this says is that everyone should be entitled to their opinion on the matter. What could possibly be illegal about that? As a scientist and a Christian, I object to evolution more on scientific than Biblical grounds.
Why are we treating a theory with next to no proof as a law? It’s just bad science. And just because more bad science had been built upon it is no reason not to examine it critically.
What is illegal about a bill promoting creationism is that it is a religious belief that the state cannot support (there’s this thing called the First Amendment). Why are creationism and intelligent design a religious belief? Because the people who promote it have explicitly stated it to be so.
William Dembski has publicly stated that any form of science that doesn’t have God in it is wrong.
Note that I never said, and no one ever said, that you (and everyone) isn’t entitled to your own opinion. You can think, indeed, even say, whatever you like. What the GOVERNMENT cannot do is support one religion over another in any way. That is the basis of the First Amendment.
Now, on to the rest. You must not be much of a scientist if you object to evolution. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that evolution is in any way shape or form incorrect. If there was, the creationist crowd would be constantly shouting about it. They aren’t. There isn’t a single peer-reviewed research paper (and there are tens of thousands on evolution published each year) that doesn’t find supporting evidence for evolution. In spite of the constant quote-mining and cherry-picking from creationists.
Your statement about a theory with no proof just shows how ignorant you are of how science actually works. There is no “proof” in science. Proof is saved for mathematics and alcohol. There is supporting evidence. And evolution has a truly epic amount of supporting evidence. I suggest you review some of it, before commenting further.
Please. Let’s examine it critically. Let’s also examine the “other notions” with equal amounts of criticism. Are you willing to do that?
Come now, do not tease us. That is unseemly. I would suggest that you present your notions on the development of life on this planet and the evidence supporting your notions. I would require that you provide peer-reviewed research to support each of your points of evidence.
Further, as all good theories do, I would ask you to make some predictions about living things using your ‘theory’, with all of your ‘supporting evidence’.
I would caution you about attacking evolution in any way in this discussion. I have reminded many, many creationists of this simple truth and I will remind you as well.
Even if you completely, 100% discredit evolution, right here, right now, it does not mean that creationism, intelligent design, or the flying spaghetti monster is correct. Only positive supporting evidence can do that. And there isn’t a single piece of positive supporting evidence for any form of creationism or intelligent design.
I await your reply.