Scott Lurndal wrote:

Tim Daneliuk writes:


If it were "demonstrated" there would be no contention on
the matter *within* he scientific community. But there is,


You are making this up. There is no contention within
the scientific community over the idea of evolution. There
are competing theories and hypothesis for various elements
in evolution, but the scientific community uniformly and
universally embraces evolution.

There are still, I believe, non-ID motivate scientists
who have a problem with current evolutionary orthodoxy.
I need to do some catchup reading to get current before
I go down this road further. But let's just say you're
right and evolution is more-or-less "embraced universally."
That means it is the currently regnant theory - much
of which cannot be experimentally verified and thus
must use "weaker" forms of indirect proof. Does this
mean no one ought to dare question the theory? Is it
not open to scrutiny both as a matter of science and
as a matter of philosophical points of departure?


Like all communities, there are fringe elements of the
community that do not believe in evolution, but almost
exclusively such beliefs are based upon their religious
convictions.

If 98% of scientists believe in evolution and 2% don't,
it doesn't imply any lack of concensus or any contention
in the scientific community.

Science is not about "consensus". It is ultimately about
what you can verify. The "scientists" of a great many
portions of history hand consensus on all matter of
nonsense such as a flat earth, but just because they all
agreed at the time didn't make it so.


Just because the Discovery Institute says there is doesn't
make it so.

This is ad hominem - again, the sign of scared debater. I am not now, or
have I ever been, a member or supported of the Discovery Institute and
have only very recently started reading some of their stuff to get some
perspective on the matter. Moreover, just because "the Discovery
Institute says is ..." doesn't make it *wrong* either.

With- or without ID, you mode of argumentation is supicious. You argue
vehemently to defend the portions of science that have the weakest
evidence to support them - the stuff that cannot be experimentally
verified and thus must be examined indirectly by use of induction. This
is an entirely valid mode of reaching new knowledge but the ferocity of
your defense is - IMHO - out of proportion with the actual level of
knowledge we have in these areas. It is a truism of human psychology
that we argue the most about the things we understand least. I find your
regular appeal to authority, consensus, and use of guilt-by-association
ad homina more in keeping with defenders of religious fundamentalism
than objective inquiry. But that's just my opinion, I could well be
wrong ...


scott


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/