Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sunday, May 11, 02:19:18am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: The overall point Author: Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11/ 4/06 11:34am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Some flaws on both sides" on 11/ 3/06 10:14am Well, the main idea was that "Science disproves Evolution." Since the vast majority of scientists who have reviewed the relevant data have come to the conclusion that evolution is the way life has become what it is, it's misleading to say that "Science disproves Evolution." Since scientists are the people who perform "science," and they are the ones who have overwhemingly asserted that evolution is true, the original assertion doesn't make sense. That's all I'm saying. I have no desire to get into another debate about intelligent design. As you know, I feel it is basically a Trojan Horse to bring religion into the schools and general scientific community, and I know you disagree with that. Perhaps for *you personally* it isn't that, but I really do think that for many of the higher-ranking ID people, that's what it is, as much as they try to hide it. I basically think of it this way: if intelligent design were a valid theory in and of itself, there should be a large percentage of non-religious people who adhere to it. Instead, I see few if any non-religious people who feel ID is a useful "theory" (if it is actually a theory at all). Like creationism, if the only people who assert it are religious people, then there is most likely a problem with it. Surely there would be a few Nobel-prize winning evolutionary biologists who would see the power of ID and start writing books about it. Anyway, again, we've been through this before. My goal was just to respond to the errant idea that "Science disproves Evolution." Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date My point. Wade A. Tisthammer 11/21/06 8:57pm