Gear up for the backlash, though, when these young'uns grow up.

(Hey, I'm just the messenger.)

When they get to university, the ones who are interested learn real science. For the rest, it really doesn't matter.

This is a small battle and if I have to drop back ten and punt on creationism/evolution in the schools, perhaps I can make greater inroads on basic math, reading, writing, spelling and grammar instruction.

Bart:

Who cares if they know the three Rs if they're not good citizens?

Because if you don't know the 3 R's you can't be a good citizen.

Barry: I think you are wrong here. My guess is that the total class room time that would be spent on the speculative portion of evolutionary theory (as opposed to breeding fruit flies and understanding population genetics) is fairly small if the teacher covers the entire book. There really is not all that much to say about it. Hundreds of hours can be spent on molecular genetics, cellular phisiology, imunology, embryology, and other aspects of modern scientific biology.

I just went over the requirements for a biology major at one major American university and other than a portion of one 3 hour course labled genetics and eveolution which has a lab, and must therefore do fruit flies, it is entirely possible to go through the program without any further instruction in the issue. Clearly, high school courses, even advanced ones, do not need to spend time on eveolution, there is too much real science to cover.

The kids who study hard will be sufficently challenged by the scientific material that is presented that they will not miss the material that is not presented as it is not that important. The ones who aren't paying attention (i.e. the vast majority) won't notice anyway.

Is it the Brothers Judd & Friends position on biological macroevolution that since evolution is a theory (i.e., not fact) and some people use it as part (or all) of their creation myth, it is therefore inherently a type of religion and that it therefore doesn't belong in the science classroom? Or do I not quite have that right?

Bret:

Evolution is a fact (at a minimum God made life from the earth and Eve out of Adam). Darwinism--for which there is no more evidence than I.D., Creationism, Lamarckianism, Genesis etc.--is a religious sect. There's no problem introducing it to the classroom along with all the other faiths nor with excluding them all since none are science.

Bart:

We were a great nation when we were mostly illiterate, less so when folks learned to read but bought into secularism. Now we've the best of both worlds: the four Rs.

oj:

If "evolution is a fact" then why are you happy that teachers are afraid to teach it?

Bret:

They're afraid to teach the Darwinist faith, not the fact of Evolution.

Bret:

Not I. I'm all for teaching evolution, although not until high school. Those silly pictures of life progressing from slimy little critters to man through various predictable stages are attempts to brainwash the little ones.

But I can't figure out why, if the proposition that life in all it's infinite complexity could have evolved by natural processes without design or direction is a scientific statement, the proposition that it couldn't have is not. It seems the last thing evolutionary biologists want the kids to learn is the philosophy of science.

oj,

OK. Let's see if I've got it now:

Darwinism, a theory (not fact) of biological evolution attempting to explain how all species came to be, is used by some people as part (or all) of their creation myth, is therefore inherently a type of religion or religious sect, and therefore doesn't belong in the science classroom, or at least doesn't belong in the science classroom any more than other religious explanations of creation. The concept of evolution, which is a process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another, is utilized within Darwinian theory, but by itself is a reasonable subject to discuss in a science class.

Is that your view?

Bret:

Close. It doesn't belong in a science class because it isn't scientific. To put it in a science classroom tends to establish one particular religious sect. That constitutional objection is mitigated if other faiths are presented alongside.

oj,

Are you saying that Darwinism isn't scientific because it's a creation myth or religious sect? Couldn't a theory be both scientific and a creation myth?

Science, according to this definition, is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It seems to me that Darwinism fits that definition quite well. Granted the "experimental investigation" has not produced a lot of evidence to support macroevolution within the biological realm, but neither is there much in the way of contradictory evidence. Also, there is evidence of large scale evolution from other realms such as social systems or simulations (e.g., artificial life, etc.).

I think that it is perfectly accurate to describe Darwinism as a creation myth, but that doesn't inherently make it non-scientific.

By the above definition of science, Intelligent Design is also scientific. The hesitation most people have with ID is that scientific theories are usually prohibited from utilizing supernatural forces as part of their explanation. Same for Creationism.

Bret:

Yes, that's what I meant. If it were a science it would be perfectly acceptable to teach it as science to the exclusion of other Creation stories.

Darwin is not science under your chosen definition because it is not observed nor confirmed by experiment.

As the recently deceased Ernst Mayr explained:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

We have another name for historic narratives of Creation: religion.

OJ,

Since Protestantism, like Judaism, requires its practitioners to be literate, America was never a mostly illiterate nation. There was and there always will be illiterates, but certainly the property-owning males who made up the eligible voter class of the 1790s-1830s were not remotely illiterate.

DeTocqueville himself was pleasantly surprised that even the poorest settler in the Michigan wilderness was literate.

In a democracy, voters have to understand the issues. How can you understand the issues if you cannot read about them?

Orrin,

"We have another name for historic narratives of Creation: religion."

You're inserting a couple of words there that serve to obfuscate the issue: "of Creation"

It's not in Mayr's quote and, more significantly, the theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.

You can look at the theory of evolution as, among other things, a historic narrative, but you can say the same of a history book, which is not synonymous with religion either. Adding the words "of Creation" brings it closer to what one might term a religion (though it's not exactly synonymous either), but you can't do so without falsifying what the theory of evolution is.

"Darwin is not science under your chosen definition because it is not observed nor confirmed by experiment."

There are other scientific theories that are not confirmed by experiment, simply because the subject matter makes it difficult. Yet we call them scientific theories because they serve as plausible explanations of observable phenomena.

The modern theory of evolution falls into that category. If you want to call it a religion, suit yourself, but you're basically just redefining terms to serve your purpose of eliminating or weakening a world view that potentially opposes your own religious one.

re·li·gion

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I know in the past you've been fond of suggesting that Darwinists idolize Darwin to the extent that Darwinism should count as a religion; I am unaware of any proponents of the modern theory of evolution (which has moved on a little from Darwin's day) who think of Charles Darwin as anything more than a scientist, and certainly not a supernatural entity. If you know of any, could you post a link?

Bart:

The idea that you understand the issues because you can read is risible.

"The idea that you understand the issues because you can read is risible. "

Bart: You need legs in order to walk.

Orrin: Having legs means that you can automatically walk?! Risible!

creeper:

Yes, Darwinism, despite its belief that Natural Selection can shape all life in the universe, can't explain something so basic as how it initially created life. But Creation is everything that follows as well, unless you don't b elieve in evolution ande think the species were created as is?

Actually there aren't other sciences that can be supported by neither observation nor experiment. Indeed, when Einstein proposed his theories he offered the experiments that would have to work in order to support them.

Darwinists worship Natural Selection--Darwin is just the prophet. If you've any doubt though that they consider themselves a counter-religion to Judeo-Christianity just look at Richard Dawkins's book titles:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/104-6027844-4523950?mode=books&keyword=richard+dawkins&tag=juddsbookreviews

Orrin,

"Darwinism, despite its belief that Natural Selection can shape all life in the universe, can't explain something so basic as how it initially created life."

So what? That is clearly not its stated aim - otherwise it would be called "the theory of evolution and the origin of life". The Big Bang theory doesn't explain how life was created either; that does not make it a religion, nor does it mean it is not a scientific theory.

creeper said: "There are other scientific theories that are not confirmed >by experiment"

oj said: "Actually there aren't other sciences that can be supported by neither observation nor experiment."

There is quite a difference between a science and a scientific theory, and I can't think of anyone who ever seriously claimed that Darwinism was a science.

Dawkins' titles make use of religious terms, sure, but so what? Plenty of novelists do the same, without trying to compete as a religion. As for Darwinism being a "counter-religion to Judeo-Christianity"...

... first of all, Darwinism is not even incompatible with Judeo-Christianity, and neither is the modern theory of evolution. Both do, however, also fit into a secular worldview.

... second, if you insist on seeing Darwinism as synonymous with a secular worldview: is non-religion really a religion? Is believing in something that is compatible both with the presence and with the absence of God really a religion? I think that's stretching the definition to the point of meaninglessness.

Where do these Darwinists worship, what supernatural entities do they adore? Or are you willing to cast such a wide net with your definition of 'religion' that anyone who believes in anything is part of a religion pertaining to same?

creeper:

Darwin's the one who said "Origin of Species." But you're right that he proved unequal to his task. A better title would be Processes of Subsequent Speciation after the Unexplained Origin of Species. Wouldn't have sold anyone though--they wanted a Creation myth.

You're absolutely right that Darwinism is just a theory not a science.

Themselves.

creeper:

Christopher Reeve had legs.

Orrin,

"Christopher Reeve had legs."

Exactly. You need legs in order to walk, but having legs does not automatically mean you can walk. That was the incorrect inference you drew.

Orrin,

"Origin of species" does not equal "origin of life".

"You're absolutely right that Darwinism is just a theory not a science."

Yup. And the modern theory of evolution fits the available evidence.

"Themselves" are not supernatural entities.

creeper:

How did the species originate?

As do I.D. and Creationism.

Of course they are. Note that Darwinism assumes Man has broken free of Natural Selection--we are, by theoir definition, supernatural.

creeper:

Having legs doesn't mean you can walk. Reading doesn't mean you can understand.

Orrin,

"How did the species originate?"

The title "Origin of Species" refers to species being created through the process of Natural Selection.

"As do I.D. and Creationism."

Creationism, and to some extent I.D., will always fit any and all evidence, since the answer is simply always "The Lord works in mysterious ways". Why do we have an appendix? Why does a horse have 'thumbs'? The answer that a Creationist will give you every time is "The Lord works in mysterious ways", a.k.a. "just because". Nifty.

"Note that Darwinism assumes Man has broken free of Natural Selection--we are, by their definition, supernatural."

How does the theory of evolution feature the assumption that Man is not subject to Natural Selection?

"Having legs doesn't mean you can walk. Reading doesn't mean you can understand."

Correct. The existence of the prerequisite does not guarantee the outcome. That was the incorrect inference you drew earlier.

OJ and creeper,

Maybe you can read and not understand the issues, but you certainly cannot be illiterate and understand the issues. That is why literacy matters.

Bart,

Amen to that.

Bart:

Of course you can be illiterate and understand the world perfectly well. You're succumbing to mere temporal bigotry. We don't understand things any better than our illiterate ancestors did.

Orrin,

"Of course you can be illiterate and understand the world perfectly well."

If you want to compare an illiterate person in Western society today to an illiterate person at a time when nearly everyone was illiterate (and therefore knowledge and information were communicated in a completely different way) and make yourself believe that that is in any way an honest and useful comparison, then that is of course your prerogative.

To be illiterate in such a past society would be normal, and the level of discourse would be commensurate, ie. far more oriented towards oral rather than written exchange and transfer of information. To be illiterate in today's Western society means that one is either of extraordinarily low intelligence or has been deprived of even the most basic schooling (with one exception which I mention below).

But where, in this day and age, would you even begin to discuss, say, the privatization/personalization of Social Security and the various models pertaining to 'fixing' Social Security with someone who lacks even the most basic schooling and therefore is either extremely unintelligent or, even if innately intelligent, has had little opportunity to develop his or her critical thinking skills?

(I draw a big distinction between illiterate and dyslexic, however. It is possible for someone to have had the benefits of a good education and have great difficulty reading... and still be highly intelligent and successful. Richard Branson is the perfect example of that. Someone like this has benefited from modern schooling, has become aware that they lack the ability to read, and if their overall intelligence allows them to overcome this, they manage to compensate for this by adjusting their learning/thinking strategies.)

Orrin,

I was wondering if you had a response to this question I asked you earlier:

How does the theory of evolution feature the assumption that Man is not subject to Natural Selection?

Wow! This discussion really moved right along while I was taking a few hours to do some real work!

I think that evolution and Darwinism should be taught because they form the basis for important technological tools. Genetic Algorithms is an important topic for a variety of optimization problems (e.g., chip layout, neural net training, probabilistic particle filters, etc.) and I think that they will become more important in the future as parallel computing architectures become more prevalent.

While one could learn to utilize Genetic Algorithms without ever being exposed to biological evolution or Darwinism, with only a little imagination, Darwinism is fairly easy to grasp. Much easier to visualize, for example, than Genetics Algorithms to Model a Dynamic Six Degree of Freedom Probabilistic Position and Orientation Distribution for a Mobile Robot (the sort of thing I work on).

Religion or not, Creation Myth or not, Darwinism is a worthwhile topic to help the United States keep its competitive edge, in my opinion.

Bret:

yes, that's all Intelligent Design though, not nature.

creeper:

Because we make intelligent choices.

creeper:

You don't need to understand SS privatization to be a good citizen either.

Yes and no. Yes, it's obviously not nature since it occurs inside one or more computers. And yes, hopefully I've been intelligent in creating the environment in which the Genetic Algorithms (GA) operate such that they produce useful information.

But that's similar to a deity creating a universe, seeding the primordial goop with a few genetic sequences, and then letting Darwinism take it from there. The deity, of course, may know how the resulting nature will evolve, in which case he's way of ahead of me. I have no idea what information will be produced by the GA runs I set up. Indeed, random mutation and recombination have created things that I would have never thought of. In other words, the results of random trial and error pruned using a Darwinian like selection criteria produces results that are more intelligent than me.

There is only intelligent design in the setup of the GA, not the results.

creeper:

Yes, species weren't created by natural selection, as you've just said.

Yes, and the Darwiunist answers Natural Selection where the Creationist answers God and the IDer Intelligent Design. They're all identical.

Man chooses.

Yes, the ability to read doesn't make you informed.

Bret:

Yes, as you say, it's Intelligent Design but indistinguishable from Darwinism.

Creeper:

For more of OJ's intentional obfuscation, see R.I.P. Dr. Mayr

Obfuscation is in the eye of the believer.

Orrin,

"You don't need to understand SS privatization to be a good citizen either."

Shifting the goalpost again. We were talking about the relationship between being able to read and being able to understand the issue.

Since you're walking away from that, I take it you concede your mistake. Thank you.

Orrin,

"Yes, species weren't created by natural selection, as you've just said."

Glaring instance of lack of reading comprehension, wishful thinking, or more obfuscation? I think a mix of the latter two.

If you're actually serious about this, please point out where I said anything as what you've just attributed to me.

"the ability to read doesn't make you informed.

As we have already said numerous times upthread, in response to your own faulty logic that you presented earlier.

"Yes, and the Darwiunist answers Natural Selection where the Creationist answers God and the IDer Intelligent Design. They're all identical."

The Creationist allows himself the luxury of not having his answer be the subject of any scientific investigation. The IDer falls somewhere in between the Creationist and the Darwinist.

The Creationist does not work toward filling in the gaps in his knowledge; it ends with "a big mysterious magic entity did it".

A believer in the modern theory of evolution strives to fill in the gaps in our understanding.

All identical? Yeah, right.

"Because we make intelligent choices."

Do I take it that this is intended as a response to:

"How does the theory of evolution feature the assumption that Man is not subject to Natural Selection?"

If so, a couple of questions:

1. Does making intelligent choices make me supernatural? If so, how would you define supernatural?

2. How would you define the term 'intelligent choices' in this context?

3. How exactly would intelligent choices make the human race not be subject to Natural Selection? Does Natural Selection only apply to creatures who don't make intelligent choices? Would our intelligent choices lead us to not seek the most attractive mate, to favor the most fit?

An intelligent choice is not an all-knowing one, and even if we were capable of knowing all (which would indeed make us godlike) would we really choose to not be subject to natural selection, and hence be capable of improving and adapting our species to future circumstances?

The modern theory of evolution of course includes the human being; I know of no proponent of this theory who excludes humans. If you have a link, please provide one. Otherwise I will have to assume that this claim is of your own free invention.

Orrin,

Are animals subject to Natural Selection, even if occasionally guided by the hand of the Creator?

Orrin,

And one more point regarding this:

"Because we make intelligent choices."

Do I take it that this is intended as a response to:

"How does the theory of evolution feature the assumption that Man is not subject to Natural Selection?"

Even if this is your own belief, can you show where this exclusion of the human being (or a being that makes intelligent choices) is featured in the theory of evolution, even by implication?

creeper:

You don't need to be able to read to understand an issue. But, more importantly, reading doesn't lead you to understand it either.

creeper:

"Origin of species" does not equal "origin of life"

As you say, the Origin of Species doesn't explain origins, just change.

It's as if he'd written the origin of automobiles but started with the Model-T already on the road and then just described subsequent variation.

Orrin,

"But, more importantly, reading doesn't lead you to understand it either."

How do you, Orrin Judd, go about understanding an issue? Specifically.

creeper:

Definition:

1. [n] supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural"
2. [adj] not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"

creeper:

Listened to mt elders.

creeper:

Even Darwin placed us outside Natural Selection, and lamented it. That's the origin of eugenics.

Orrin,

"As you say, the Origin of Species doesn't explain origins, just change."

This debate is not advanced one bit by you attributing something to me that I did not say.

I did not say that the Origin of Species doesn't explain origins. I did, however, say (or type):

"The title "Origin of Species" refers to species being created through the process of Natural Selection."

How does that add up to me saying that "Origin of Species" does not explain origins?

Incidentally, why are you so hung up on Darwin? Why not deal with the modern theory of evolution?

creeper:

According to Darwinism animals are. But no they aren't.

Orrin,

"Listened to mt elders."

All the books you read do not contribute to you understanding an issue? You confine your understanding of an issue to what your elders tell you, and you confine this to oral presentation, not the written word?

I see...

creeper:

I don't understand anything better than my grandfather and his grandfather and so on did.

creeper:

The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism.

Orrin,

"I don't understand anything better than my grandfather and his grandfather and so on did."

It may well be true that you and your ancestoors had relatively similar levels of understanding of the world around them and the issues that concerned them, but the comparison in all fairness should not be between you and your ancestors, but between you and an illiterate person today.

I am utterly baffled by your reluctance to admit that reading contributes to your understanding of an issue, especially in light of the fact that most of your site consists of book reviews on issues that are presumably of interest to you. After all, you routinely link to your own book reviews to make a point.

If the only response you have to me asking you how you go about understanding an issue is 'Listening to my elders', shouldn't you be telling us about things that your parents and grandparents told you?

Ever read any of the reviews? All any of them say is that our predecessors were right. That's the point of the site.

"All any of them say is that our predecessors were right. That's the point of the site."

Planet Earth: round or flat?

Flat:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/007110.html

"The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism."

I'll go with that, but then you really have to drop references to things that Darwin could not explain that are covered by the Modern Synthesis.

Which modern proponent of the theory of evolution suggests that the human being is not subject to Natural Selection?

creeper:

All of them, or do you believe your spousal choice merely a function of natural selection and genocide an explicable attempt to thwart an evolutionary rival group?

How does the link you posted show that the Earth is flat?

"do you believe your spousal choice merely a function of natural selection"

Not 'merely', but I'm certainly capable of perceiving that sexual attraction as well as finding a mate that would be good at reproduction came into my choice at some level, no matter how subconscious.

"genocide an explicable attempt to thwart an evolutionary rival group"

Explicable how?

"Ever read any of the reviews? All any of them say is that our predecessors were right."

And yet reading these books did not contribute to your understanding of any issue?

Why bother reading?

Definition:

1. [n] supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural"
2. [adj] not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"

And how do human beings fit into this exactly?

The modern theory of evolution holds that human beings are subject to evolution just like any other living being; it makes no exceptions.

"Even Darwin placed us outside Natural Selection, and lamented it. That's the origin of eugenics."

and

"The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism."

Again,

"The modern theory of evolution of course includes the human being; I know of no proponent of this theory who excludes humans. If you have a link, please provide one. Otherwise I will have to assume that this claim is of your own free invention."

Since you proposed 'all of them', surely finding a link to one of them proposing such a thing shouldn't be so hard.

So you do think genocide an understandable function of natural selection and think people mate only to preserve genes?

Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man [1871])

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

creeper:

We read to confirm our prejudices.

"Remarkably, recent developments in theoretical physics answer some of these questions, and the answers might be important clues to the ultimate theory of reality. By studying the mysterious properties of black holes, physicists have deduced absolute limits on how much information a region of space or a quantity of matter and energy can hold. Related results suggest that our universe, which we perceive to have three spatial dimensions, might instead be "written" on a two-dimensional surface, like a hologram. Our everyday perceptions of the world as three-dimensional would then be either a profound illusion or merely one of two alternative ways of viewing reality. A grain of sand may not encompass our world, but a flat screen might."

How do you consider genocide an understandable function of natural selection?

"We read to confirm our prejudices."

Judging by your comments, you're one of the most extreme examples of that. You seem downright proud of being obtuse to new information.

If you want to conclude from that that the Earth is flat, knock yourself out.

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this nonsense?

One of Darwin's less admirable quotes, to be sure, and in the present day it, along with the notion of eugenics that it engendered, is discredited by most.

However, what on Earth does it have to do with the modern theory of evolution? Of course it is possible to accept evolution as a viable theory without an accompanying eagerness for genocide, just as it is possible to be a Christian and not be itching to see sinners burned at the stake.

creeper:

That you don't know anything of any import that your illiterate great-great grandfather didn't know.

creeper:

There is no new information.

creeper:

If Natural Selection functions on humans then such actions are merely nature selecting.

creeper:

I cite Darwin not for the eugencvic nature of his thinking but for his acknowledgment that we have freed ourselves from Natural Selection (even if to his chagrin).

Creeper,

I can't tell if you're trying to figure out oj's position, or if you're trying to debate his position. I'm still working on the former, which I have been for the years I've been reading this blog, because it takes time to decipher the occasional sentence or two that oj adds to the topic, especially since his particular definitions of Darwinism, evolution, etc. are somewhat different than what I'm used to. This last exchange has been very helpful in my understanding of his position. However, I'm a long way from being in a position to debate his position.

It seems that the bottom line is that parents would like to have their children taught certain things in a certain way. In that, OJ and I are in agreement. If OJ would prefer his kids not be taught Darwinism, or that they should also be taught ID, then I think he should definitely have that option. I think such a decision would be a mistake, but I have yet to achieve the required arrogance to advise others on how they should raise their children, especially regarding education.

Orrin really has gone round the bend. I don't know whether he planned it this way, or whether the relentless pressure of us darwinians has forced him into narrower and narrower paths.

If the 'purpose of the site' is to persuade people, I suspect the approach he is now taking is not going to work very well.

It is true that many people, like Orrin, express nonsensical views of the natural world -- before I logged on today I spent a risible half-hour at answersingenesis.org.

What they say they believe and what they act like they believe are not congruent.

This boils down to 'your mother wears army boots.' Orrin's repeated assertions that there are no darwinian predictions or experiments are as useful as Christian assertions that we are living in the end times.

Maybe we are. If so, when we discover it, it'll be too late, won't it?

Harry:

You can't persuade fanatics. But most folks who think they believe in Darwinism just learned it in school and never questioned it. Even someone like Jeff had never heard that the peppered moths that are the only example offered in texts was proved a hoax.

Bret:

Yes, the school systems and parents should decide. They mostly don't want Darwinism.

Orrin,

"There is no new information."

Why do you bother reading?

Orrin,

"You can't persuade fanatics. But most folks who think they believe in Darwinism just learned it in school and never questioned it."

How is this different from Creationism?

Bret,

"If OJ would prefer his kids not be taught Darwinism, or that they should also be taught ID, then I think he should definitely have that option."

The current state of the theory of evolution appears to me not incompatible with an interpretation of Intelligent Design. I don't see why our scientific knowledge regarding evolution can not be taught in science class, and a Christian interpretation thereof (Intelligent Design, being compatible with the theory of evolution) in places where religion is taught or passed on - the church, the home.

Orrin sees the theory of evolution as making the existence of God impossible, whereas it merely makes God less necessary to explain certain phenomena. It is entirely possible for a Christian in the 21st century to accept aspects of the theory of evolution as viable without abandoning his belief in God. This stands not necessarily in opposition to the theory of evolution, but through Intelligent Design as a Christian interpretation of it.

It does land one fairly quickly in "The Lord works in mysterious ways" territory, but (a) it does so not as quickly as Creationism, and (b) Christians seem entirely content with that non-explanation.

What I was going to say to you, Bret, is that one is entirely free to have one's children learn about Intelligent Design, but that this does not speak against evolution being taught in schools. It is up to Christians to teach their interpretation of evolution - Intelligent Design - in the appropriate places.

Bret,

"I can't tell if you're trying to figure out oj's position, or if you're trying to debate his position."

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall, isn't it?

I don't know what Orrin is trying to achieve with this approach. Claiming that the Earth is flat has about the same shock value as passing wind at a dinner party, and advances the discussion in a similar fashion.

Orrin,

Acts of charity do not make man supernatural or put him above and beyond natural laws. Natural selection occurs at different levels throughout time. When physical survival is relatively easy (as it is for a human being in Western society today), change occurs less quickly; when survival is relatively hard, the weeding-out process occurs at a much quicker pace.

Orrin,

"If Natural Selection functions on humans then such actions are merely nature selecting."

And?

Orrin,

"That you don't know anything of any import that your illiterate great-great grandfather didn't know."

It seems to me that you are talking about a slightly different topic here; I'm not sure whether you're doing this to deliberately change the topic.

Since you speak of things "of any import" that I and my great-great-grandfather both knew, I assume you are talking more along the lines of fundamental values, not specific knowledge and understanding of the world around us. I don't have a problem in agreeing with you here; relative to the world we lived in, my ancestors and I probably had a similar level of understanding. They did not know, perhaps, that the world was round, but they did have certain values of character, and those have remained relatively constant over time.

However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, an illiterate ancestor of ours should be compared to his fellow illiterate ancestors, not to us, and should be seen in the context of a world in which information is passed on orally, not through the printed word or blogs or what have you.

What this subthread was about, though, was that voters today need to be able to read to understand the issues. Fundamental character values only form part of understanding an issue. If, say, a candidate for a political office proposes a certain platform, we must know what he is talking about, and in today's information age, much information is passed on via the written word, even more so with the explosive spread of the Internet. Not only that, but we can form a much more detailed view of the world by reading about different view points and looking up information. In the information age, someone who does not possess the education to read is at a severe disadvantage.

creeper:

Yes, that is what the thread was about and the point remains; you don't need to understand anymore than your ancestors did and you don't, irrespective of literacy. Details aren't understanding, indeed are more an obstacle to it. An education helps economically, not politically.

creeper:

Then there is no such thing thing as morality or fee will, just natural selection shaping behavior as with other life forms.

There you go:

When physical survival is relatively easy (as it is for a human being in Western society today), change occurs less quickly; when survival is relatively hard, the weeding-out process occurs at a much quicker pace.

That's an argument that Man has freed himself from Nature.

creeper:

Orrin sees the theory of evolution as making the existence of God impossible

No, it's not incompatible at all. Natural Selection is simply false so far as we can tell.

How is this different from Creationism?

Bingo!

"That's an argument that Man has freed himself from Nature."

No more so than a rabbit that has the good fortune to have populated an environment devoid of predators. The process has merely slowed down, but we are not ultimately freed from it.

How is this different from Creationism?

Bingo!

The context was most people being too lazy to question what they are taught in school. I'm not so sure what you're rejoicing about. It says nothing about the validity of either theory, not even that they are equally true or false.

"Then there is no such thing thing as morality or fee will, just natural selection shaping behavior as with other life forms."

Imagine that.

I don't know what exactly your marital status is (though I can probably guess your sexual preference), but when you seek a mate (or found your mate) is or was your choice, made of your own free will, to mate with or marry an old, battered teapot, a piece of rock you found on the beach, a fancy sports car, a distant star, a sunflower, a sea breeze, or an attractive female?

Funny how your free will happens to coincide exactly with what nature intended, isn't it?

You may profess to have free will, but you can not jump past your own shadow: you are a highly advanced animal. You have something that resembles free will, but it is subject to many constraining factors.

We seek mates, we seek to reproduce, we care for our young. Funny how in that regard, with all this talk of free will and everything, we are so much part of nature, so much like the animals. And that's not a bad thing at all.

Orrin,

"Natural Selection is simply false so far as we can tell."

Which part?

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and

2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and

3. IF there is variability of traits, and

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive.

Orrin,

"Details aren't understanding, indeed are more an obstacle to it."

If that is so, then why do you burden yourself with all these obstacles to understanding?

Why not just stop reading?

creeper:

Because there's nothing easier than for Man to forgot what he's always known. Reading reminds us of the simple truths handed down to us.

It reminds you of the simple truths or it burdens you with obstacles to understanding... which is it?

Themes are timeless, details superfluous.

2, 3, 4, 5 & 6

Creeper wrote: "It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall, isn't it?"

Exactly!

I've been tempted, off and on, to correct you on your misrepresentation of the Biston research, but have not, on the theory that anyone sincerely interested in whether there is a legitimate question concerning darwinism would soon find out for himself.

Maybe I'll have to sometime.

Anyhow, the notion that it is the "only" example is the sort of nonsense that it is so easy to maneuver you into.

You do more damage to your viewpoint than I ever could.

Not only, but only taught in textbooks.

Even someone like Jeff had never heard that the peppered moths that are the only example offered in texts was proved a hoax.

Actually, someone like Jeff read the book, and discovered two things:

1. Mellanism in moths correlated very, very, highly with areas of industrial pollution due to burning coal.

2. The experiments that apparently demonstrated bird predation as the cause were too highly flawed to prove anything.

3. The change in mellanism is the result of material processes, but how they worked precisely is unknown.

Creeper:

For OJ, this is a purely dialectical argument. In his view, Darwinism is completely, unredeemably, evil, and therefore must be repudiated regardless of its veracity.

Unfortunately, its ability to explain material phenomena--even phenomena unknown to Darwin--is extremely powerful. Also, unfortunately for OJ, in a country characterized by freedom of religion, he can't simply legislate Evolution out of existence. Further, in society that puts some fair amount of value in merit, it is extremely difficult to make the dialectical argument alone.

So he chooses to pursue dialectical ends through rhetorical means--which is precisely what IDers are doing. But Evolution's explanatory power makes that extremely difficult to do without resorting to all manner of logical fallacies, evasions, and outright deceit.

Now if OJ were to do a little research into Evolution as it stands, he would find out--with a little mathematical literacy (funny thing how literacy can help one understand things)--that the eugenics of which he speaks is a mathematical non-starter.

[Speaking of mathematical literacy, OJ proved a couple years back that Evolution was impossible, because (picking a number out of his hat), new species happened only once every 100,000,000 years. This means that in the 2.5 billion year course of life on earth, there could only be 25 species.

OJ had apparently never seen a tree.]

Oh, and one other thing. We do know a few things that our illiterate forebears did not.

1. African Americans are fully human, and fully deserving of equality before the law

2. So are Jews

3. And women.

Jeff:

If that's what you took away from the book then you really are hopelessly fanatic. There is, in fact, no evidence that melanism changed in peppered moths.

"Oh, and one other thing. We do know a few things that our illiterate forebears did not."

Like the world is round, perhaps.

Though I may have to check with my travel agent on that. Which way would you have to fly to fall off the edge of the world?

creeper:

What does the shape of the world have to do with anything though? Particularly with any political/moral understanding of our lives?

Nothing.

Orrin,

"2, 3, 4, 5 & 6"

If 2 and 3 are wrong, then how do dog breeders and horse breeders go about their business? Where did the poodle come from?

Orrin,

The physical shape of planet Earth has relatively little to do with our political/moral understanding of our lives, though the revelation that we are not the center of the universe has apparently been troubling to some.

Do you agree, then, that the planet we inhabit is not flat?

It's funny how you deem details utterly insignificant until they support your point of view, at which point they become all important.

creeper:

To the contrary, all the evidence confiorms a geocentric Universe:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/cat_geocentric_universe.html

That does matter.

Whether the geo is round or flat doesn't matter much and I'm agnostic as to which it is.

At any rate, since it has no bearing on our understanding of the world it obviously has no bearing on the point Bart argued.

Creeper:

OJ is not using any known definition for the word "geocentric."

I'm sorry, what evidence confirms a geocentric universe? I don't just mean calls into question its opposite, but confirms a geocentric universe. Could you point me to that evidence?

I read the first three links from the link you pointed me too, and they did nothing of the sort... and then I started to suspect that you were being a little loose with the facts, or at least your interpretations thereof.

This kind of behavior really doesn't help the promotion of your point of view in any way.

There's only one sentient species in the Universe. Nothing exists until observed. All of the laws of physics are fine-tuned to create us and our world. Evolution ends with Man. etc., etc., etc. Scientific theories just keep confirming Judeo-Christian Creation.

Back when the first microbes came about, they were the best there ever was.

I bet Tyrannosaurus Rex felt pretty good about his place in the world, too.

But time does not stop.

What reason do you have to believe that we are above and beyond the passage of time?

I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you and your ilk are (albeit unwittingly) supremely arrogant, but I have to say it is a solid option.

Jeff,

"OJ is not using any known definition for the word "geocentric.""

I am so shocked I don't know what to do with myself.

creeper:

we've already been through this part--darwin himself lamented that we no longer allowed NS to work on us.

Carl Woese says it stopped with us:

http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/03/issue/magaphone.asp

Many scientists will openly say evolution's over:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,644001,00.html

Of course the notion is arrogant but folks never would have bought Darwinism unless it elevated Man.

Jeff/creeper:

More precisely the universe is homocentric--the point of its Creation was to produce us. We are its center.

Flattering, but I don't insist on being the reason for the party. Seriously.

Tyrannosaurus Rex thought he ruled the world. He had no reason to think he was not the pinnacle of creation.

creeper:

You'd not believe in Darwinism if it didn't tell you that.

Orrin,

1. How do you know I wouldn't?

2. What makes you even think that the theory of evolution tells me that we are the pinnacle of creation? I happen to think that we are not, and our time will eventually come to an end, to be replaced by something better.

That kind of humility is perfectly compatible with Darwinism, and I can easily make peace with it.

I don't pick my beliefs based on which will flatter me the most, but from some of your comments, it seems you see this as a prerequisite - 'created in God's image' and so on.

Orrin,

And let me try this one again:

"2, 3, 4, 5 & 6"

If 2 and 3 are wrong, then how do dog breeders and horse breeders go about their business? Where did the poodle come from?

creeper:

Of course you did.

creeper:

Yes, I agree that intelligent beings can breed within species.

Orrin,

"Of course you did."

Did what?

"Yes, I agree that intelligent beings can breed within species."

What is this in response to?

If 2 (offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s)) and 3 (there is variability of traits) are wrong, then how do dog breeders and horse breeders go about their business?

That's Intelligent Design/Creationism. We all agree that works.

No. Above you disagreed that those parts worked. They are part of evolution, whether natural or man-guided (as in breeding).

So now you've changed your mind and you agree with 1, 2, and 3.

How about 4, 5 and 6?

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive.

No, we can force 2 and 3.

"No, we can force 2 and 3."

??

How can we force offspring to inherit traits from their progenitor(s)?

How can we force a variability of traits?

That's what breeders do is select out the ones with similar traits that they want to propagate so that they can create a new variety. It was Darwin's insight that Nature might do the same anbd that it would eventually lead to new species. Brilliant, but wrong.

"That's what breeders do is select out the ones with similar traits that they want to propagate so that they can create a new variety."

Exactly. And that is made possible by 2 and 3 being true. Breeders don't force offspring to inherit traits from their progenitor(s), they merely select which traits should be inherited.

Saying that we force them is like saying we force an apple tree to grow. We don't force it to grow, we take advantage of the fact that it happens.

It appears you have finally seen your way to agreeing with 1, 2 and 3. Now how about 4, 5 and 6?

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive.

"It was Darwin's insight that Nature might do the same anbd that it would eventually lead to new species. Brilliant, but wrong."

Wrong on what basis?

By deciding who the parents will be they determine what traits will be passed on. Of course we forced apple trees.

"By deciding who the parents will be they determine what traits will be passed on.

I don't know what this is supposed to be in response to.

2 and 3 are pre-requisites for this to work. There needs to be variability of traits, and they need to be able to be passed on to the next generation. Without 3, there would be no variety of traits for the breeder to choose from, and without 2, there would be no point in selecting parents with desired traits.

Since you make this statement, I conclude that you accept 2 and 3.

So, once again, how about 4, 5, and 6?

You're speaking of these things in passive terms when active are required.

1. IF intelligent being(s) have specific organisms reproduce, and

2. IF they are chosen for the traits that offspring will inherit from their progenitor(s),

then there will be variability within a species

Darwin observed that and then went astray.

Orrin,

the organisms have variable traits and pass on those traits to their offspring regardless of whether a breeder consciously selects which parents should be combined to reproduce.

If the dog breeder gets run over by a truck and his dogs escape into the wild, do they stop exhibiting varied traits, merely because the person who chose which traits he liked best is no longer in existence?

Do they stop passing on their traits to their young because the dog breeder is now six feet under?

Do you reject that variability of traits exists?

Do you reject that offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s)?

"It was Darwin's insight that Nature might do the same anbd that it would eventually lead to new species. Brilliant, but wrong."

Wrong on what basis?

observation and experimentation

yes, they stop passing them on and revert to the norm.

"yes, they stop passing them on and revert to the norm."

1. They stop passing what on? Traits? How does the dog breeder make the dogs pass on traits? What does he do to make that come about? Think active, not passive terms. John Smith, dog breeder, does what exactly to make his dogs pass on traits to their offspring that they wouldn't do by themselves in a natural setting. What does he do?

2. They revert to the norm? What norm? Poodles turn back into wolves? What is the norm?

3. How does the dog breeder make a dog have variable traits? What specifically does he do to make that come about?

breeds only the ones with the trait he's trying to bring forward. Yes, the poodle get will stop being poodle after a few generations in the wolfpack.

"observation and experimentation"

Ah, now I can finally place that response; you just happened to post it on the wrong thread. Okay.

Now:

Are you saying that speciation has not been observed?

Or been presented in the course of an experiment?

creeper:

Yes.

"breeds only the ones with the trait he's trying to bring forward. Yes, the poodle get will stop being poodle after a few generations in the wolfpack."

How will "the poodle" stop being a poodle "after a few generations in the wolfpack"?

Are you talking about the same poodle, or about his offspring?

Will the poodle's offspring gradually change?

How so, without it also being true that offspring inherit traits from their progenitors?

Could you define speciation as you see it?

I suspect you have some home-baked and somewhat self-serving definition lurking here, so I'd prefer we clarify this now.

Speciation suggests both significant morphological differentiation and the inability to interbreed.

Could you define 'significant morphological differentiation', keeping in mind the commonly understood definition of species in taxonomy?

Especially the word 'significant' sticks out like a sore thumb here as the emergency exit you're trying to keep open for yourself.

'Suggests' is another one...

Speciation, whatever it once meant, no longer means anything. Darwinists have had to completely destroy any coherent definition in order to try and pretend that something may have speciated at some point vie Natural Selection.

Significant would be a change such that a bird was no longer birdlike rather than that it had a bigger beak than the birds one forest over.

OJ:

You are the one destroying coherent definitions.

Admixtures of taxa and undefined terms like 'significant morphological differentiation' are inexcusable.

Unless your goal is obfuscation.

Jeff:

There were English definitions and then came Darwinian definitions whenh Darwinism failed to comport with English.

"Speciation, whatever it once meant, no longer means anything. Darwinists have had to completely destroy any coherent definition in order to try and pretend that something may have speciated at some point vie Natural Selection.

Significant would be a change such that a bird was no longer birdlike rather than that it had a bigger beak than the birds one forest over."

This from the guy who on a parallel thread tries to have himself and his wife being of a different species....

Or something.

But somehow it's Darwinists who destroy definitions.

"There were English definitions and then came Darwinian definitions whenh Darwinism failed to comport with English."

What was the English definition of speciation before Darwin came along?

How did Darwin or Darwinists change it?

Links? Sources?

Species is whatever Darwinists said last:

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-211.htm

Do any of them say that your wife is a different species from you?

What does evolution have to do with speciation?

By the way, who won the book?

So I bring your wife into it, based on all this literal creationism, and suddenly speciation doesn't matter. Well I'm happy for her that she's the same species as you. Truly. I for one am confident that she always felt that way, and congratulate you on turning that corner.

Dave W, but he won't give me his email address.

Speciation isn't part of evolution, just Darwinism.

"Speciation isn't part of evolution, just Darwinism."

Fine. So how about we ditch Darwinism. Not least because it happens to be identical to evolution according to you.

Back to brass tacks:

What species are you?

Yes, Evolution is now nothing more than Darwinism. Creationism is evolution via God. 13%-83%

What species was that? (By which I mean: what species are you? Just to make that clear. If it's a pain in the neck for you to be clear about the specifics of that, this is a good starting point: http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html)

And how come 45% who don't believe in evolution - who think Adam and Eve are just like you and me, with no variation thereafter - suddenly believe in evolution according to your desperate grabby tactic?

Because they believe in Genesis.

You say they believe in Genesis on the basis of this professed belief of theirs: that God created man in his present state.

That is not and can not be the basis of a belief that man involved in any way whatsoever. It says he was created as is, and that's that. No degrees at all, you and I look pretty much like Adam. And, by implication, more or less like God. Why would you want to walk away from that? What are you embarrassed about?

What was the other thing? Oh yeah, what species are you?

And two more things:

Are you married?

If yes, what is the species of your spouse?

I know this sounds like something out of Star Wars, but given the absurdities of these discussions, I think it's best to dig for the odd detail.

Man was Created as is, from dust. Woman was Created from Man. That's evolution.

We are the same species we've been since we were Created, by whatever agancy:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/019010.html

"Man was Created as is, from dust. Woman was Created from Man. That's evolution."

That's Creation. Rather plainly.

With stages, thus evolution. One of the conceits of Darwinists is that evolution itself was a revolutionary idea and that Darwin had toovercome great resistance when he promulgated it. That's false, of course. Evolution was a commonplace, it was only the Natural as opposed to Divine mechanism that raised a fuss. Everyone but the 4% in that poll believes in evolution. 13% believe it is done by Nature, the rest by God.

Isn't it absurd that the graphic accompanying the article shows man evolving to both an English rugby player and an African pygmy? Does this not state unequivocally that this is the pinnacle of all Creation, no questions asked?

Hmm.

No one questions that we're the pinnacle--we'd not believe in it otherwise.

Be that as it may, what I find really silly is that for some reason Orrin finds it necessary that, in defense of an anti-evolutionary belief system, he is reduced to linking us to articles that contain gems such as this:

Prof Henneberg found that the fossils show clear evidence of evolution, with substantial increases in both skull sizes and body-weight. However, he also found that the fossils show no evidence of being anything other than a single species which had grown bigger and smarter over time. According to Prof Henneberg, the much-vaunted differences in fossil size used to identify "new" species all lie within the normal range expected for one species.

Can we finally scratch 2 and 3 off your list, Orrin, and move on to 4, 5, and 6?

"No one questions that we're the pinnacle--we'd not believe in it otherwise."

Oh for heaven's sake, quit imposing your big fat ego on everyone else.

"Evolution was a commonplace, it was only the Natural as opposed to Divine mechanism that raised a fuss. Everyone but the 4% in that poll believes in evolution. 13% believe it is done by Nature, the rest by God."

Now 4% believe in evolution ????? Uhhh. Earth to Orrin, if you can spare the time....

45% do not believe in evolution. 51% do. Those are the plain numbers. If that displeases you, poses some specific questions (using whatever questions you choose - it sure would be fun to see you present your definitions too), do your own poll, then post the results.

"Now 4% believe in evolution ????? Uhhh. Earth to Orrin, if you can spare the time....

My apologies, I misread that. On the other hand:

"45% do not believe in evolution. 51% do. Those are the plain numbers."

Someone who believes that God created man in his present form does not believe in evolution.

creeper:

Of course they do, they just don't believe in Darwinism. Darwinists are 13%

Unfortunately the 38% that you like to claim as your own were not asked if they understood the phrase 'man evolved' to mean 'man evolved from dust fully blown into his present state' or 'man evolved into woman'.

They agreed with the phrase 'man evolved' and disagreed with the phrase 'God created man in his present state' (which is Genesis).

"Someone who believes that God created man in his present form does not believe in evolution."

"Of course they do [...]"

If the human being has not changed since being created by God (which is clear in the phrase ''God created man in his present form'), then there is no change in the human being - and hence no evolution.

God changed us into humans, thus evolution.

Creeper:

Rather than focus on evidence, I look at the underlying nature of the debate in The Argument Clinic.

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and

2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and

3. IF there is variability of traits, and

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive.

Since you've already admitted that 1, 2 and 3 work, how about 4, 5, and 6?

2 and 3 work when directed by an intelligence. That's what Darwin observed.

That is not what Darwin observed. He observed that both 2 and 3 happen all the time, and did not narrow this down to circumstances in which an intelligence was directing them.

If you disagree, present evidence that it is confined to circumstances in which an intelligence is directing them. You've already concurred that 2 and 3 happen.

He observed local sheep and cattle farmers forcing two and three, thenm extrapolated. It's not incumbent on me to prove they don't happen naturally but on those who contend they do to demonstrate it. They can't.

1. Darwin did not observe sheep and cattle farmers forcing animals to pass on their traits to their offspring. He saw them taking advantage of the fact that this happens naturally - by selecting which traits they find desirable, then standing back and letting nature take its course, in the form of the animals mating and producing offspring. The farmers may have 'forced' or guided them to mate, but did not force them to subsequently pass their traits on to their offspring - that was a natural consequence of them mating. If you disagree, please tell us what action the farmers take to force animals to pass on their traits to their offspring where the animals would not pass those traits on otherwise.

2. Darwin did not observe sheep and cattle farmers forcing the variability of traits. He saw them taking advantage of the fact that this happens and he saw them influencing it via their selection process - but for this to be possible there has to be variability of traits in the first place, or there would be nothing to select from. If you disagree, please tell us what action the farmers take to force variability of traits where there is none otherwise.

3. "He observed local sheep and cattle farmers forcing two and three, thenm extrapolated."

Extrapolated... and also continued to investigate and observe. You make it sound as if Darwin spent his entire life on a farm and didn't get out much; Darwin traveled extensively and observed variability of traits in nature aplenty, as did other naturalists.

"It's not incumbent on me to prove they don't happen naturally but on those who contend they do to demonstrate it. They can't."

Darwin talks about this in chapter 2 of the Origin of Species. Contrary to your earlier claim, he has observed these in nature and does not observe that an intelligent being had influence on the variability of traits in nature.

That's absurd, of course, and thoroughly anti-scientific. he observed inytelkligent design in action. Your faith requires that it occur naturally so you simply insist that it does in the absence of either observation or experimentation. Indeed, against the evidence of observation and experimentation.

In the example of the farmer breeding his stock to encourage traits he deems favorable, both 2 and 3 must already be true before his intelligence can shape the traits. He has no choice of different traits without them, and no reason to pair those with desirable traits if they are unable to pass them on to their offspring.

a. A farmer would be unable to breed his stock according to desirable traits without 2 and 3 both being true.

b. We observe that a farmer is able to breed his stock according to desirable traits.

c. Therefore 2 and 3 are true, and you have already concurred with this earlier on.

You propose, in addition to this acknowledgement, that an intelligent agent is necessary to allow 2 and 3 to be true, but have proposed no evidence to support this assertion.

In observing that 2 and 3 are true, I am not proclaiming any additional agent. I am merely positing that these statements are true regardless of whatever cause may lie behind them, if any. I am restricting myself to that which is observable.

You claim that 2 and 3 are true because of an intelligent agent, but you have so far not supported this by observation and/or experimentation.

What is your basis for claiming that this not being due to an intelligent (unobserved) agent goes "against the evidence of observation and experimentation"? Which observation, which experiment?

In nature we observe no agent acting to bring about 2 and 3. It is possible that there is such an agent, but that is in the realm of speculation and not supported by any observation and/or experimentation. It is simply a matter of faith. You're welcome to it, and it is not my intention in this particular thread to disprove it, merely to show that it goes beyond what is known on a scientific basis.

The farmer takes those specimens that vary slightly and breeds them together in the hopes that the trait will be reiterated and, even better, reinforced in subsequent generations. It works pretty well.

There's no evidence it happens in Nature, as your own point that there are no observations or experiments confirming it demonstrates.

Your numbered list is correct so long as you make it active rather than passive.

Orrin,

"The farmer takes those specimens that vary slightly and breeds them together in the hopes that the trait will be reiterated and, even better, reinforced in subsequent generations. It works pretty well."

It's a "hope" well founded on past observation and experimentation, eh?

So that's 2 and 3 confirmed, with you not being able to come up with anything the farmer could possibly do to artificially bring this about with animals or plants who without his action would not have variable traits and would not pass traits on to their offspring.

All duly noted.

"There's no evidence it happens in Nature,"

It has been observed rather extensively in nature, unless you really want to posit that in nature all offspring are exactly identical (as if they were twins). If that were the case, all geese, all sharks, all rabbits etc. would look exactly identical.

If a man and a woman both have blue eyes, what color eyes would their offspring have?

"as your own point that there are no observations or experiments confirming it demonstrates."

You seem rather fond of attributing statements to me that I did not make. I hope that this is out of carelessness rather than brazen dishonesty.

What I clearly said (more than once in the previous post) was that there are no observations or experiments confirming an additional intelligent agent, which is the speculative addition that you insist on in the complete and utter absence of scientific confirmation.

"Your numbered list is correct so long as you make it active rather than passive."

We know that the principles presented in a, b, and c are correct as they stand. If you wish for these sentences to include an active agent, what active agent confirmed by observation and/or experimentation should be used?

And what is the action that this active agent would take?

yes, observation and experimentation prove that intelligent beings can breed varieties within a species. Everything Darwinists posit from that point has failed.

You willfully ignore both the variability of traits as well as the ability of organisms to pass on their traits to their offspring that are abundantly observed in nature. You also ignore the consequences of these things not being true.

If the farmer is so clever as to bring about such things that do not occur in nature, what action does or did he take to make this happen?

He uses his intelligence to determine what design he wants and then he selects out similar pairs for mating. You've proven Intelligent Design.

When you can show Natural Selection let's talk.