Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[One Brow]

That statement is directly from Miller's biology textbook to describe evolution, so if you believe he truly opposed books that "mislead on evolution" he should oppose his own.

Why would he oppose environment-directed evolution?

 

[One Brow]

... completely by accident.

Evolution does not claim to happen by accident.

Darwin's "testable hypothesis":

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down."

That's one observation, and I agree with you on this much: that particular observation is not testable.

Darwin made hundreds of testable hypotheses based on his theory, the vast majority of which have since been confirmed. The particular statement is not even a hypothesis. That non-testability of some random individual statement is not relevant to the the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyqo313lUb4

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Evolution does not claim to happen by accident.



That's one observation, and I agree with you on this much: that particular observation is not testable.

Darwin made hundreds of testable hypotheses based on his theory, the vast majority of which have since been confirmed. The particular statement is not even a hypothesis. That non-testability of some random individual statement is not relevant to the the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

 

[LogGrad98]

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

OB is not an evolution scientist.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

OB is not an evolution scientist.

Obviously. I'm referring to Pearl's penchant for elevating a layman's politically/religiously informed opinions over scientific knowledge.

 

[PearlWatson]

For his next act Pearl will tell a molecular chemist why molecular chemistry is a pseudo science and why his (Pearl's) lay opinion on the topic is more valid than the molecular chemist's.

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

 

[♪alt13]

Darwinism isn't a religion(no special hats)

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

 

[LogGrad98]

 

[One Brow]

A biochemist ...

Behe's material has been refuted more times than I care to count, in pretty much every way you can name.

 

[MVP]

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience.
.

I am wondering what you think about crime scene investigators. Criminology. Forensic science. Pseudosciece as well?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Opinions ain't science.

Darwinism is the pseudoscience. Darwin Cultists try to infuse it into real science but that only corrupts real science.

A biochemist showed me how he "broke down" Darwin's theory on Darwin's own terms. Ever since then all I see is nothing but a bunch of Darwin cultists pushing their religious beliefs on school children.

Tell me, Pearl, how do you define science?