Quote:

Inderectly based on evidence? Like what? You can actually derive from these fossils that they must have been transitional. All evidence points in the right direction and everything that should be true if the theory is true ís true. The parts of the evolution theory that are questionable moreso have to do with early life, not so much with wether or not fossils are the evidence of transitional animals. Your statement about 'indirectly based on evidence' doesn't make much sense anyways, since we're talking about the long gone past. However remnants of that past are direct evidence. Take a murder scene for example, if you find the blood covered weapon, that would indeed be indirect evidence for a murder perhaps, but it's still solid evidence that it has actually happened. Can't say that about the bible.



Ok, I think you're kind of getting my point, then. I'm assuming for the sake of the discussion that all the evidence lines up with evolution. My point was that, even so, many things about the theory are believed indirectly, based on the evidence. So, I don't think we're really disagreeing so much as you seem to think I'm attacking the validity of evolution which I'm not.



edit:

Apparently Ken Miller either lied about what Behe said, or he helped spread a lie without checking his sources. When he said that all the papers written on the evolution of the immune system "weren't enough", what was actually stated was: "It’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject."

This is the same sort of rap the judge tried to push on Behe, but it was a misrepresentation pulled right out from the ACLU's "findings". What's also interesting to me, is that the judge was praised for his "decision" which was apparently ripped straight from those same ACLU "findings".

Also, Ken Miller has missed the boat on why ID is rejected. There are some scientists who have conceded that ID is a valid theory, and others who say it can never be a valid theory because it isn't naturalistic.

But to say that IDers can get their theory into textbooks through the peer-review system is ridiculous. Considering that guy who was fired for allowing a ID paper to be published, and even our legal system (typically favoring evolutionists) has shown that his rights were infringed on numerous accounts and that what was done to him was illegal. But after that, who would dare even try and publish anything mentioning ID?

Now, I'd like to hear the real story behind the supposed comments from Behe that science should include astrology. Because it appears to me that evolutionists are doing little more than "politicizing" science.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 02/27/07 17:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."