<But do you really think an eternal God is less likely to exist than a series of random processes leading to a world of order?>

Yes.

<Less likely than life coming from nonlife?>

Yes.

<Less likely than consciousness and morality arising from inert physical material?>

Yes.

<I am reminded of the saying "If a Princess kisses a frog and the frog becomes a man, that's a fairy tale. If a frog becomes a man without a woman kissing it, that's evolution." See the difference?>

Yes. I think they give an indication of a catastrophic event that caused a lot of life forms to die quickly.>

“Ask of me and I will give you
the nations for an inheritance
and the ends of the earth for your possession.
You shall rule them with an iron rod;
you shall shatter them like an earthen dish.”

Nevertheless, I ask: by what "carefully controlled experiment" has macroevolution been observed, tested, or confirmed?

<You Rang> Are you still bent out of shape about Christians accusing scientists of knowingly lying, etc.? They only do that to support Global Warming or some other political project. Seriously, though--I think you're wrong, but I don't believe you are purposely lying, or ignorant, or up to no good... But surely no one would claim that scientists NEVER lie. Being human, scientists and Christians alike, we all lie sometimes: and some of us make a habit of it.

As to ID: why should any theory have to "reflect the prevailing view of scientists"? I would think scientists, of all people, would object to that! As for not being testable, the same objection applies to Darwinism.

My objection to ID is that it doesn't go far enough, and that some of its practitioners are not being honest about promoting a religious belief. Why should anyone be embarrassed about promoting a religious belief?

If I were homeschooling children--I don't believe in public education--I would teach them ABOUT Darwinism, using the best materials available. I would also teach the flaws and limitations of the theory, and I would teach Biblical creationism.

"But you're trying to impose your ideas on children!"

Leaving aside the issue that "macroevolution" is a loosely defined term used more often by creationists than scientists, the fossil and genetic record provides overwhelming evidence for macroevolution having occurred in the past. There have also been numerous examples of observations of speciation and evolution in the laboratory and in the field.

You say you don't want to be branded ignorant by scientists, but you have to understand that you leave yourself open to this when you decide to pass judgment on scientific theories that you frankly know nothing about. Apparently you feel qualified to brand evolution a "myth", yet you appeal to me for evidence that is readily available. It is not difficult to educate yourself.

ID is *not* a scientific theory, by definition. It is untestable, and unfalsifiable (cf. YouRangism). Honestly, we've been through this, over this, around this, a thousand times over.

I misread <accept> as <consider> this time..>

Well, there are two choices: You either misread the quote from Apr04 or the one from Apr29. I take it that when you say "this time" that you refer to Apr29.

So (you say) on Apr29, you misread "accept" as "consider", and that this misreading supposedly affected your answer.

And yet, this doesn't make sense:

BEFORE I pointed out your self-contradiction (where you supposedly misread "accept" as "consider"): OhioChessFan chessforum

AFTER I pointed out your self-contradiction (where you supposedly realized that you misread "accept" as "consider"): OhioChessFan chessforum

Yest in BOTH cases, you state that you think science is biased for refusing to consider miraculous explanations.

OCF: The bifurcation of discovered and undiscovered errors will do nicely, thank you. Perhaps there's someone else who believes your explanation.>

This was my "bifurcation" explanation: OhioChessFan chessforum

If you had any reason to disbelieve it, you never explained why.

OCF: Historically, there really was very little objection to the Creation model. Do you want me to go back in time and insist those who held that position write scientific papers?>

No, I want you to answer my question: <What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? If there are none, how can scientists claim that it works as well as evolution?>

You still haven't provided an answer. Bringing up the idea that scientist at some point in the past didn't object to the scientific model is an irrelevant distraction.

< As far as what science is really doing, aren't they assuming life came from nonlife as fact, and then claiming *after the fact* that what we see now is a result? Don't you see this?>

Yes, I see that. To be more precise, scientists assume that there is a natural explanation for life coming from nonlife, and that it evolved according to theory, to what we see now.

However, you are being deceptive (athough I won't accuse of being so intentionally this time).

- When I said that you were "claiming *after the fact*", it was in the context of making a *prediction*.

Obviously, if I make a prediction today about something that happened yesterday (i.e. after the fact), it isn't really a valid prediction, is it? And yet that's what you were attempting to do.

- When you say scientists are "claiming *after the fact*", it is in the context of making an *assumption*.

OCF: It's just sheerest coincidence the relationship between belief in Darwinism and atheism?>

I'll accept that there is probably a correlation, although I don't presume to know how strong it is, nor do I presume a specific causal relationship. Whatever.

<OCF: You think atheism is a positive for a society? You think kids shooting up schools has no basis in thinking there is no God and ultimately no consequences beyond this life time?>

Ah, well now you are leap-frogging in a whole new realm of discussion -- the supposed consequences of scientific inquiry.

But there's an obvious question that needs to be cleared up here:

Should science discontinue to search for a true understanding of nature because of some supposed consequence to society based on some correlation of religious beliefs?

It's likely that back in Galileo's day, there was a correlation between a rejecting geocentrism and atheism. And I'm sure that there were social ills that religious people pinned on atheism. Do you think science was wrong for pushing forward the truth that geocentrism should be rejected? I don't. I think truth is ultimately positive, even though some people react badly to it.

See previous post regarding "after the fact" reasoning.

Anway, regarding <If I do that...>, you've already made it quite clear what you do:

OCF: Let me summarize. You think there is a one in a gazillion chance Science is wrong on this, but you can still trumpet the wonderful thought that science thinks doubt is good. Got it.>

I'll take that as "unwilling to process".

I don't know if you even realize it or not, but you often use sarcasm as a substitute for reason.

Instead of taking on a specific point of my explanation that you disagree with, and explain why you disagree with it, you fabricate a wild exaggeration and evil motive on my part -- just so you can believe that you made a rebuttal.

You're beaten up a bunch of strawmen in this debate.

<OCF: Could you name some example of a future observation that would challenge the theory?>

Ah, a reasonable question! Thank you!

You are asking for potential falsifications of evolution. I'll admit that my own understanding of biology is not adequate to explain all points, so instead of copying & pasting, I'll provide a link to a site that lists a number of predictions made by the theory, and thus potential falsifications (they are clearly labelled as such):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...

In short, there are thousands of new species and new fossils discovered every year. For each discovery, there are a number of predictions that can be made about it, and there would be no reason to expect those predictions to be fulfilled (and in fact fulfillment would be highly improbable) *unless* the ideas of evolution theory are true.

It may be a little prejudicial to characterize me as "bent out of shape", but yes, I think it is a false accusation, it does serious damage to the reputation of Christianity, and it interferes with science. All good reasons to oppose it IMO.

<But surely no one would claim that scientists NEVER lie.>

I don't know of anyone who has made that claim.

<As to ID: why should any theory have to "reflect the prevailing view of scientists"? I would think scientists, of all people, would object to that!>

You are changing the context.

When I commented to you about the "prevailing view of scientists", it was in the context of *what is taught in schools*. Now you are putting my comment in the context of accepting *any scientific theory*.

Also, I question whether you and I have the same understanding of what "theory" means. You seem to have the idea that any seemingly plausible proposal qualifies. My idea of "theory" is much more rigorous -- that is, an idea that has is falsifiable, makes predictions that can be tested, passes those tests, and stands up to many such tests for some lengthy period of time. By my understanding, ID does not qualify as a "theory".

<As for not being testable, the same objection applies to Darwinism.>

Not at all. Who told you that?

I refer you to the same link I gave to OCF above.

<My objection to ID is that it doesn't go far enough, and that some of its practitioners are not being honest about promoting a religious belief. Why should anyone be embarrassed about promoting a religious belief?>

You are right, it is a religious belief, and they shouldn't be embarrassed about it.

But I don't think embarrassment is the issue -- the issue is that they want this religious belief to be taught as *science* in science classes. They know they won't succeed if they admit that it's religion, hence the need to be dishonest.

<If I were homeschooling children--I don't believe in public education--I would teach them ABOUT Darwinism, using the best materials available. I would also teach the flaws and limitations of the theory, and I would teach Biblical creationism. >

I refer you to the same link I gave to OCF above. >

To give a very specific example of an observation that would seriously undermine the current understanding of evolution:

<OCF: Yes. I think they give an indication of a catastrophic event that caused a lot of life forms to die quickly.>

<whatthefat: You didn't answer my question: how are you dating the fossils to determine that they all died around the same time? >