Jerry Avins wrote:
> jim wrote:
>
>>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting assertion. What taints it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well you could try reading the part that you snipped instead of asking
>> me to
>> repeat it.
>
>
> I saw nothing in but unfounded assertions about unrelated issues. I
> snipped it because it is irrelevant to the question I asked.
>
>> It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.
>
>
> Emotions don't taint a theory. I suspect that you don't know what a
> theory is.
>
>> Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your
>> emotions you
>> assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never
>> said
>> one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.
>
>
> You can't cite a message in which I claim that Hackney proposes ID. I
> haven't written one. You need to distinguish imagination from reality.
>
>> One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The
>> argument
>> is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so
>> way to
>> important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one
>> everything
>> changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the
>> evidence and
>> says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.
>
>
> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
> is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
> believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the currently
> touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can generate testable
> predictions are properly subjects of science.

How about string theory?

Some creationists
> denigrate evolution by saying that it is "only" a theory. If course it's
> a theory; it would not be scientific otherwise. I have little use for I
> have little use for Revealed Truth in matters of scientific inquiry.
>
>> The same thing, of course, applies to the proponents on the other
>> side,
>> but you already knew that.
>
>
> Jerry