Of course. In public, they clamor to remove from "in God we trust" from our money. They don't want our President participating in a National Day of prayer. In private, they'd just as soon not hear about God from anyone else.>

<<YouRang: And yet *every* great scientific discovery in history started out as the "guise of some yet to be discovered natural explanation.">

OCF: Please cite which of those were based on an assumption not observable, not testable, not repeatable and not proveable.>

If you take out 'proveable' and have a proper understanding of the other terms, then the answer is "none" -- including evolution.

<OCF: That is what we are discussing here. You default back to correct statements like this: <A theory may be proposed that explains the observed fossil record.> while we are discussing a theory that has never been observed. I really can't believe you don't see that you are doing this.>

It is well established that current definitions for access to scientific acceptance have since long been dominated by the promoted material being in concordance with scientific consensus. Regrettably often arbitrarily applied facing little main stream criticism.

Point is that both Maths desires more precise academic rigour from applied mathematical Physics, whose demands are in turn miles away from a Theory that even can not formulate a definitive definition for what a SPECIES is. I'll elaborate later on.

Questioning contemporary "wet" Biology is obligatory and inserting it into Neo-Darwinism requires the same critical attitude and scientifical firmness.

That regretfully, as per what should be expected, isn't there. Emotions related to- and forming age old axiomata rule.

ENdoctrination.

I have to stress that the apologetics link by <OCF>, IMO, lacks in density and would be thrashed in an imaginary objective court of law.

<OCF> can, and will, do better.

I will try - and will do - better, in the near future.

I stated that I was in agreement with <whatthefat>'s statement:

<It [the fact of evolution] has been observed, many times. Whether it is the mechanism by which all species developed is the theory.>

<OCF: Please cite which of those were based on an assumption not observable, not testable, not repeatable and not proveable. That is what we are discussing here. >

<YouRang: The fact of evolution has never been observed. The theory of evolution has been tested.>

I'm glad I don't have to pay someone every time they toss that unaccompanied statement out.>

Given the discussions here, I thought the flaws of the article were self-evident. But if you need me to elaborate:

<The song has been playing like a broken record for decades: “Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact....” As long as this mantra is repeated by enough intellectuals, it seems many will become and/or remain enamored with evolutionary theory—even when the underlying evidence is shown continually to be inadequate and at odds with reality. Many evolutionary-laden science textbooks declare that natural selection (e.g., English peppered moths), mutations, embryology, homology, the fossil record (e.g., the horse “family tree”), etc. all prove the General Theory of Evolution. In actuality, none of these proves what evolutionists claim.>

1. It is impossible to "prove" a scientific theory (as discussed ad nauseum here).

2. No evolutionist claims that these observations "prove" the theory of evolution (as discussed ad nauseum here).

3. The author (like all creationists, it seems) can't distinguish "facts" from "theories" (as discussed ad nauseum here).

The author then goes on to say:

<Creationists recognize the fossil record, similarities among living things, natural selection, and mutations, ...>

[Amusingly, if he were competent in scientific terminology, he would realize this literally equates to "Creationists accept evolution as fact"]

<... but we have observed nothing that proves humans descended from amphibious creatures that crawled out of the water hundreds of millions of years ago.>

Ah, a misunderstanding.

I was led astray by your phrase: <...while we are discussing a <<theory>> that has never been observed.>

You seem to be referring a *theory*, so I assumed you meant evolution, which is a theory.

To my knowledge, there isn't yet a theory yet that deals with life coming forth from nonlife.

At this point, the existence of a natural explanation for how life came from nonlife is just an *assumption* -- not a theory.

I thought I already explained that.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.

Not as the world gives do I give it to you.

Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.

You heard me tell you,

‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’

If you loved me,

you would rejoice that I am going to the Father;

for the Father is greater than I.

And now I have told you this before it happens,

so that when it happens you may believe.

I will no longer speak much with you,

for the ruler of the world is coming.

He has no power over me,

but the world must know that I love the Father

Evolutionary science does not assume that "life came from non life" is a fact. Most evolutionary scientists working on this particular issue, at the present moment, find the idea that "life came from non life" to be the most likely, or plausible, explanation. But nobody has proven this is what happened. It's not an "assumption derived from fact." It's an informed guess derived from plausibility or liklihood. This liklihood is in turn derived from what material facts are known at the present- viz, the nature of polypeptide chains and how they may have come to be in the first place.

However, at the end of the day you don't even need the assumption that "life came from non life" to explore evolutionary science. It's not a requirement to solve this issue in order to understand speciation or any of the other topics that evolutionary science explores.

With regard to the relationship between ID and science, there *is* no relationship.

It's the central assumption of ID that makes it "not science."

"Biological structures are too complex not to have been designed by an intelligent agent."

That's the original premise of ID, and there's nothing more to ID than this one premise/assumption.

That's precisely because this assumption is <not observable, not testable, not repeatable, and not proveable>.

That's precisely why ID is not science, and it's precisely why ID should not be allowed to be taught in a science class at a public institution.

The originary assumption/premise of ID can't be disproven either, which is another reason it doesn't belong in a science class.

Further, I find the argument "it couldn't possibly exist unless <a> and <b> are true" to be counter intuitive.

Why? Because the objects under scrutiny *do* exist.

The ID argument starts on exactly the same epistemological ground as does Eric Von Daniken's argument that space aliens built the pyramids.

Von Daniken: The pyramids couldn't have been built unless aliens supplied humans with the technological know how.

???

Why not "The pyramids couldn't have been built unless five legged demons from Hell supplied humans with the technological know how."

That's actually precisely the same argument, and not one whit less silly than Daniken's original argument.

The pyramids *do* exist. They *were* built.

Science attempts to explain how they were built by first exploring the most likely, or plausible, scenarios.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

It's possible that aliens told humans how to build pyramids. However, it's such an implausible notion that, in the absence of strong evidence, or any evidence for that matter, why on earth would anyone suppose the notion to be true?

This is the reason- the sole reason- that pyramid scholars aren't spending time and money pursuing the "Aliens had to have built them" theory.

It's also the reason- the sole reason- why evolution scholars aren't spending time and money pursuing the ID theory.

Post script for Von Daniken fans:

He publicly admitted in a televised interview that he not only didn't believe his own theory, but that he had fabricated it in order to "have a little fun" and "sell a few books."

;p

And if it then will distract you from the contents and addressing of the rest of the post, then yes.

Are you even processing... Oh wait! You brought up the same argument here, and here, and here...

causation <---> natural selection

Now I may be speeding ahead, and wouldn't want to confuse "matters" by skipping posts and the problems I referred to within and among related fields in Science, eg I could expand it to the fields of Biology and (neo-)Darwinism.