John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


"John Brock"


Fletis Humplebacker


John Brock


I've got a question for you Fletis. The people you are quoting
are in fact strong believers in evolution, whatever caveats they
might have about the details. You seem to believe that you are
sufficiently sharp that you can see implications in their words
that they themselves are not clever enough to see. Why do you
believe this?

I'm sorry that it escaped your attention. Many quotes specifically
stated that they themselves see problems. You are minimizing things
quite a bit by calling them caveats of detail. The point is that the
fossil record doesn't fit the beliefs. There's no scientific evidence
that can demonstrate how evolution could have happened on its'
own. That's the point.

You have ignored my question! I already knew that *you* believe
these quotes undermine the case for evolution. But the quotes come

from highly intelligent and well informed people who in fact believe

that the theory of evolution is true. So how do you account for
this apparent contradiction?

Let me break my question down into smaller pieces that you might
have less trouble with. I'm going to make a series of statements
-- please let me know if you disagree with any of them:

1) The scientists that are being quoted do in fact support evolution
and reject Intelligent Design. Yes? No?

I have no idea what their view is of ID and I posted them
because they support evolution. You seem to believe
that one excludes the other.

I'm surprised and gratified to find that you understand this. Though I'm
puzzled because it's the first sign you have shown that you do.


Then you were reading too carefully. I said from day one that
evolution occurs at some level and if species can make the
drastic changes that are claimed it wouldn't be a natural process.
I'm surprised that you didn't understand that.



Previously you had seemed to suppose that ID requires separate creation
of species.

I don't know what you mean. ID doesn't require anything but a creator.



Now you need to reinterpret Brock's question. If you aren't using those
quote to cast doubt on evolution, what are you using them for?


I told you why. The evidence doesn't support a natural process at work.



2) Unless they are hypocrites (or joking), people who believe in
something do not *knowingly* make statements which would imply that
the things they believe are untrue. Yes? No?

3) As a rule scientists are not hypocrites. The vast majority
actually believe the things they say they believe. Yes? No?

4) As a consequence of 1, 2 and 3, it can be concluded that the
scientists you are quoting do not themselves believe that their
statements cast doubt on the theory of evolution, or open the door
to Intelligent Design. Yes? No?

5) You on the other hand *do* believe that these quotes cast doubt
on the theory of evolution, and *do* open the door to Intelligent
Design. Yes? No?

6) If you are right about this, then it follows that these quotes
have implications that the scientists who made them did not see,
but which you *do* see. Yes? No?


Did you follow that? If so, let me repeat my question. Why do
you believe that you are capable of seeing implications in quotes
that were missed by the scientists who made them? Do you feel you
are more perceptive than those scientists? Smarter? Better
informed? What? Scientists in general are very smart people. Do
you believe that you are as smart as the scientists you are quoting?
(That wasn't a rhetorical question. Do you?)


I answered your question. They see problems with various aspects
of evolution so you can only say it's all nailed down as a statement of
faith. None of which necessarily rules out an Intelligent Designer.


What aspects of evolution did they see problems with,

I posted them a number of times. If you want to revisit them please use
google if your reader has been purged.


and why does this
require evolution being a statement of faith? Are you saying that
general relativity and quantum mechanics are just faith because they
can't now be reconciled with each other?


It depends on how far you stretch what is known.