Atheist claim: War is caused by religion if participants are religious.

[Kidlicious]

Actually my point is quite clear. Your reasoning skills however are as murky as swamp water.

"But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people" is the central point of the article. Bye bye.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who still affirm evolution. So are you saying you affirm evolution but not fond of strict Darwinism?

[Kidlicious]

Show me where is says in that article that they affirm the theory or kindly move on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.

Gould believes in evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Jay_Gould

Gould's most significant contribution to science was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution.

As does Lewontin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin

In the adaptationist view of evolution, the organism is a function of both the organism and environment, while the environment is only a function of itself. The environment is seen as autonomous and unshaped by the organism. Lewontin instead believed in a constructivist view , in which the organism is a function of the organism and environment, with the environment being a function of the organism and environment as well. This means that the organism shapes the environment as the environment shapes the organism. The organism shapes the environment for future generations.

---

Other critics object to Darwinism for precisely the opposite reason. They fear that evolutionary theory, even when buttressed by modern genetics and molecular biology, does not make reality probable enough. Reality seems too precarious, too much a product of blind luck. No one has worked harder to solve the improbability problem than the biologist Richard Dawkins. Ironically, Dawkins has also revealed how deep and possibly intractable the problem is.

Dawkins is, of course, an evolutionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Instead, he describes evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics.

I think that's enough to show that these critics merely object to the specific evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but advance other evolutionary theories. They don't deny evolution has occurred, but just how it has.

Game. Set. Match.

[Kidlicious]

Game. Set. Match.

This is a strange opinion considering that my intention was to show that the tree of life is misleading.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You started by saying evolution wasn't true.

[Jon Miller]

I think it obvious that evolution is science, which makes it the best explanation for nature that reason and observation can give us at this time.

That makes it true, although doesn't mean that it can't change. That is the great thing about science, as we get more observation we can change (just like we might change Einstein's theory of general relativity). Evolution (grand) is focused on the why, so it could change very strongly.

But as I said, evolution is a true fact, as far as we can determine.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Just because evolution is a great theory, and completely and utterly true as far as we can determine right now, doesn't mean that there are not problems with it.

These problems may become catastrophes, or they may become some minor change in the theory, depending on theory and observatin.

I think a good book about a couple of these problems is "Why us?" by James Le Fanu. (blog http://www.jameslefanu.com/archives/502 )

I am obviously not a biologist, talked to a biologist friend who thought the problems discussed were relevant.

JM

[Kidlicious]

You started by saying evolution wasn't true.

I said there are problems with it. The atheists atleast addressed the real issue. You pulled a BK on me.

[kentonio]

I said there are problems with it. The atheists atleast addressed the real issue.

It's not hard to look back a page and see that you're being dishonest now.

[Kidlicious]

It's not hard to look back a page and see that you're being dishonest now.

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there.

[kentonio]

I'm sure you see a lot of things that aren't there.

Let's see..

Machine computation has found that the data actually says there has been no evolution of species just as loudly as it says there has been evolution of species.

This is a lie. You then posted several links/quotes which said quite clearly that you were wrong. When you keep posting things yourself that disagree with you, I really don't know what else to say.

[Kidlicious]

These problems may become catastrophes, or they may become some minor change in the theory, depending on theory and observatin.

A third possibility is that we could just go on like this indefinitely. The theory may not be falsifiable and it may not be true, but it's accepted as truth now. Science could go on indefinitely believing that a theory is true when it isn't.

[Kidlicious]

Let's see..



This is a lie. You then posted several links/quotes which said quite clearly that you were wrong. When you keep posting things yourself that disagree with you, I really don't know what else to say.

This post is only a restatement that you see things that aren't there.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think that's enough to show that these critics merely object to the specific evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but advance other evolutionary theories. They don't deny evolution has occurred, but just how it has.

That's the thing about Evolution, anything fits.