Ruse, eh? Figures.

"science" following the intellectual paradigm shift.

No, the evidence.

less "the"

And as far as intelligent BrosJudd debate on this issue goes, that's pretty much as good as it gets, these days...

Find some -- or make up some more -- and we'll talk. In the meantime, there's nothing really left to debate as the paradigm shifts out from under y'all so dramatically.

Any fool can carve stuff up into paradigms and zeitgeists any old way they like. Doesn't make it meaningful.

If it's true, whether or not anyone believes it is irrelevant.

To the contrary, all that matters is what folks believe.

Which brings us right to your usual last line of defence: how do we know we exist?

It's the only thing you have left to play with, and it doesn't take away anything from the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. There are proper places for science and for religion. If you have painted yourself into a corner of claiming that all is faith (conflating two meanings of 'faith'), you've conceded that you have found no way to engage the theory of evolution on scientific terms.

That isn't to say that it can't be done; others are arguing along those lines, but you don't pick up on those.

Incidentally, two thirds of Americans believe that a person can accept the theory of evolution and still believe God created humans and guided their development.

100% of Americans believe in evolution. The argument is between three faiths about how it occurred, viae Creation, Intelligent Design or by Darwinism.

No one engages Darwinism on scientific terms, by definition.

OJ:

Too relativistic for my tastes. Smacks of Gallic cafe society drivel.

Brit:

Except that Anglo-American skepticism says that it doesn't matter that we can't know anything rationally because we know it aesthetically:

The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favor shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom have, I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

The French think it matters.

"100% of Americans believe in evolution."

Literal creationists do not believe in evolution.

"The argument is between three faiths about how it occurred, viae Creation, Intelligent Design or by Darwinism."

And then there is the scientific theory of evolution, which is the best explanation we have for evolution on scientific terms.

You're welcome to debate the various "faiths", but that doesn't take away from the science of the theory of evolution, which you consistently avoid - and it's fine for you to avoid it. It's clear you either don't understand it or are more interested in misrepresenting it than in coming to grips with it.

Literal Creation is evolutionary with Man made last (actually woman) and placed at the top of the pyramid, just as in Darwinism. Indeed, Darwinism would not have arisen except in a Judeo-Christioan culture.

The science of evolution makes no choice among the three faiths.

creeper:

It is you who is avoiding. Despite whatever anyone says, you doggedly insist on arguing against biblical literalism through endless posts, although no one here believes in that as far as I can see. Once again (and hopefully for the last time) there is no argument about whether evolution (small e) occurred. The issues are: a)whether darwinism alone can explain life and human nature; b) whether natural selection is a real, scientifically verifiable force or whether it is just the product of Darwinists trying to force the history of the world to conform to their theory; and c) whether speciation (i.e. the transition to species that can not mate with their evolutionary ancestors or cousins--no new finches or walking sticks, please!) occurs through natural processes.

Is that clear, class?

Orrin,

literal creation is not evolutionary since it is not gradual, by degrees. There is nothing gradual about man being made from dust in one day. We've been over this numerous times, and your response here simply sidesteps the issue. Genesis works fine as a metaphor, which is compatible with the vagueness of your response here.

"[...]Man made last (actually woman) and placed at the top of the pyramid, just as in Darwinism. Indeed, Darwinism would not have arisen except in a Judeo-Christioan culture."

Where does the theory of evolution feature a pyramid with Man at the top? The phylogenetic tree looks a wee bit different.

"It is you who is avoiding. Despite whatever anyone says, you doggedly insist on arguing against biblical literalism through endless posts, although no one here believes in that as far as I can see."

I'm not avoiding anything, Peter, and I'm perfectly happy discussing quite a few other things, as I frequently do. If you think that no one believes that here, then keep in mind that Orrin insists on posting bible passages and on not being content with a metaphorical interpretation, insisting that Genesis taken literally is evolutionary, which I don't think it is, and we've talked about this in the past.

I'll happily point this out when Orrin makes such overreaching claims, but that by no means has to be at the expense of other topics or lines of argument.

"Once again (and hopefully for the last time) there is no argument about whether evolution (small e) occurred."

Let's just say that you and I (and Jeff and Brit and David and Robert and Harry) are agreed on that.

"The issues are: a)whether darwinism alone can explain life and human nature; b) whether natural selection is a real, scientifically verifiable force or whether it is just the product of Darwinists trying to force the history of the world to conform to their theory; and c) whether speciation (i.e. the transition to species that can not mate with their evolutionary ancestors or cousins--no new finches or walking sticks, please!) occurs through natural processes.

Is that clear, class? "

[raising hand] What do you mean by 'darwinism' in (a)? I need to ask this because around these parts the term is used to mean anything from an all-encompassing worldview to macro-evolution via natural selection, and many things in between.

Since when is natural selection a 'force'?

What's with the second half of the second question? Do you question natural selection with respect to microevolution?

If the third question does truly interest you, then what avenues of investigation do you propose or consider valid and/or appropriate?

creeper:

Genesis literally describes a process in which God creates the Universe, the earth, the biosphere, etc. in stages. It's an evolutionary process. Had Darwin proposed anything other than an evolutionary process in the Judeo-Christian West he'd be forgotten today. Had his process not ended with not just man at the top of the chain but Western man he'd be forgotten. The theory follows from our theology, as Mr. Ruse points out. But you having read Mayr will be familiar with the notion that evolutionism is a philosophy of long standing in our thought.

"Genesis literally describes a process in which God creates the Universe, the earth, the biosphere, etc. in stages. It's an evolutionary process."

Genesis literally describes saltation, not evolution.

"Had Darwin proposed anything other than an evolutionary process in the Judeo-Christian West he'd be forgotten today."

It's not so much Judeo-Christianity he had to agree with, but the increasing knowledge of natural history, which made it clear that evolution, by whatever mechanism, was a fact.

I don't know why you or Peter see the need to pretend that literal creationists don't exist - according to the polls, there are quite a few - but Darwin in his day certainly encountered plenty of resistance from Christians, who were quite content with the notion of God having created man in his present form, and found the consequences of what he was proposing demeaning.

As it turns out, what Darwin proposed did not celebrate man as the be-all and end-all of all creation. In the eyes of many, it knocked man down a couple of notches.

"The theory follows from our theology, as Mr. Ruse points out."

The theory of evolution is supported by the available evidence. If you believe it also follows from our theology, why not embrace it? Most Americans see no inherent contradiction.

"But you having read Mayr will be familiar with the notion that evolutionism is a philosophy of long standing in our thought."

Perhaps once you've actually read Mayr beyond his forewords or a few mined and distorted quotes, you'll be qualified to comment on him. But let's leave that aside for the moment: if you want to insist that evolutionism (belief in biological, ie. natural evolution) is a "philosophy of long standing in our thought", where would you locate its origins or earliest instances?

So does Gould. Indeed, it appears that's how evolution works, not by Darwinism.

"So does Gould. Indeed, it appears that's how evolution works, not by Darwinism."

What was this in response to?

As you said, Genesis describes evolution via saltation, which looks to be where the science is coming out too. We're all evolutionists and have been since God told us how he Created us, you just backed the wrong horse.

"As you said, Genesis describes evolution via saltation"

I did not say Genesis describes evolution via saltation; I said Genesis, taken literally, describes saltation, not evolution. I was pretty clear about that. Genesis (taken literally) describes a saltational process, and there is nothing gradual or evolutionary about man being made out of dust in one day.

"We're all evolutionists"

Not if you take Genesis literally instead of as a metaphor.

"and have been since God told us how he Created us, you just backed the wrong horse."

How do you know God didn't create us by setting nature in motion and letting the natural process of evolution result in us?

I still await a cogent argument to support your assertion that the theory of evolution "didn't work out".

Saltation is evolution, it just isn't Darwinism, which is why the fanatical Darwinists accused Gould of being a crypto-Creationist. Everyone believes in evolution, few in Darwinism.

"Saltation is evolution"

Err, no. Saltation is by leaps and bounds, evolution is little by little.

Big difference.

Not the same thing.

Darwinism is little by little. I realize you're trapped deep down in Darwinism, but the way you insist that only it represents evolution demonstrates my point rather nicely.

No, I have clearly made this differentiation before:

"the increasing knowledge of natural history, which made it clear that evolution, by whatever mechanism, was a fact."

I did not insist that only whatever "Darwinism" is represents evolution. The fact remains that saltation and evolution are not synonymous:

Saltation - discontinuous movement, transition, or development; advancement by leaps.

Evolution - gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development.