Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?

[DaveC426913]

ok.. let's say the universe was to be created again. would we get the same outcome? would there surely be biological life?

Well, that's the question of the day, isn't it? Rephrasing it doesn't shed any light on it. Clearly, abiogenesists believe there would, and others do not.

 

[byronm]

ok.. let's say the universe was to be created again. would we get the same outcome? would there surely be biological life?

Yes.

Since were still limited to our knowledge on this single planet and within our solar system we don't even know what other forms of life there are.

Do you honestly preclude life from anywhere else in the cosmos when there is an infiinite probability for life to exist?

We're made of "star stuff" and there are billions and billions and billions and billions of stars out there making the elements of life the cosmos over.

 

[hover]

Like I said, Creationists have no evidence for their "theory" so they try to poke holes in evolution. The idea being is if they can disprove evolution (although they can't because evolution is supported with evidence unlike creationism or ID) then the only other "theory" is ID. Creationism and ID are based not on science but religion. Religion should have nothing to do with science. You can't just say that there was some "intelligent designer" that put us on this Earth without evidence and call that science. I have just as much evidence to say that the "intelligent designer" was the flying spaghetti monster. Without evidence all your doing is stating an opinion and opinions mean absolutely nothing in science without evidence.

 

[Daneel_Olivaw]

I typed all of that because I think it might be interesting to the OP and to other readers.

Yes, it was interesting to read your post. Thanks!

No amount of logic or reason will be sufficient to convince them otherwise...

Point being, you are speaking a different language when you try to argue fine points of evidence.

That's what it feels like.

when everything is related to everything and so on, and let's say there really is a "God", would you really believe that God went through all this trouble by making physics and science explainable, and then randomly, suddenly create life without giving it a reason, explanation?

Just because we haven't fount the explanation yet doesn't really mean that there's no explanation.

Due to the lack of science, this is moved to GD. Remember, Intelligent Design/Creationism is religion, so don't present it as a scientific explanation, it is faith based. Please read the rules on religious discussion to make sure this doesn't end up locked for that reason.

In my original post, my intention was to get some scientific information from the members here. I'm sorry if it turned into a religious discussion.

if you love science, don't waste your passion on creationism :)

Actually I'm just trying to learn more science to refute creationism.

 

[wofsy]

here is a question. humans design things all the time as do other species and in some cases we might agree that these designs are intelligent. So the existence of intelligent design in the universe - and on Earth - is proved.

How then would we characterize its structural properties so that we could design experiments to test for it?

 

[fawk3s]

Just because we haven't fount the explanation yet doesn't really mean that there's no explanation.

im about to cry. srsly.
in my post, i said the idea was meant for creationists. (I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!)

i guess when reading my post it could get abit complicated to get the idea. what i actually meant was that life has an explanation. EXACTLY what you said.

a lot of creationists believe that god just "spawned" life.
i said, that if everything is explainable, then also life is.

so basically, i told creationists to stop nitpicking on evolution theories, because there is an explanation.

 

[DavidSnider]

here is a question. humans design things all the time as do other species and in some cases we might agree that these designs are intelligent. So the existence of intelligent design in the universe - and on Earth - is proved.

How then would we characterize its structural properties so that we could design experiments to test for it?

Design implies that the pattern was created with a purpose. In order to design things with a purpose you must have an awareness of cause and effect. Determining if something is "aware" is largely a philosophical question.

 

[junglebeast]

That depends on how we define science though! I think it is nonsense. No self respecting scientist would believe in it but it is still falsifiable. I was just tossing it out there as it's a funny excuse to use when debating creationists on there home ground. I am keen on my definition of science though.

Haha, sorry...but it's not up to you to assign completely new definitions to words in common usage just because you don't like the actual definition. "Scientific" is not a synonym for "falsifiable" any more than "science" is a synonym for "false."

It's especially funny that you just started using this definition on your own without specifying it and expected everyone to agree with you. Like walking up to someone and saying "You suck, idiot!" and holding out your hand in friendship, as if they knew that in your secret little language you had decided that "you suck = hello" and "idiot = friend".

 

[Daneel_Olivaw]

im about to cry. srsly.
in my post, i said the idea was meant for creationists. (I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!)

I am terribly sorry to have misunderstood you. :(

 

[aPhilosopher]

Haha, sorry...but it's not up to you to assign completely new definitions to words in common usage just because you don't like the actual definition. "Scientific" is not a synonym for "falsifiable" any more than "science" is a synonym for "false."

It's especially funny that you just started using this definition on your own without specifying it and expected everyone to agree with you. Like walking up to someone and saying "You suck, idiot!" and holding out your hand in friendship, as if they knew that in your secret little language you had decided that "you suck = hello" and "idiot = friend".

Well to be honest, I didn't think that the definition that I was advancing was really original to me with the possible exception of explicitly noting that the vulgar definition of science comes out of it as an emergent phenomenon but even that is implied in the works of Popper. I guess what I am saying is, I thought that that was essentially the purest definition of science. Maybe I'm just ignorant.

We of course have to take into account the Quine-Duhem thesis, so that we can never explicitly falsify a given isolated statement but that is not a huge impediment.Science has worked well so far!

 

[wofsy]

Design implies that the pattern was created with a purpose. In order to design things with a purpose you must have an awareness of cause and effect. Determining if something is "aware" is largely a philosophical question.

so you think there is no way to do this.

 

[byronm]

here is a question. humans design things all the time as do other species and in some cases we might agree that these designs are intelligent. So the existence of intelligent design in the universe - and on Earth - is proved.

How then would we characterize its structural properties so that we could design experiments
to test for it?

1. Yes, there are intelligent species.
2. No, intelligence in and of itself doesn't prove anything - especially intelligent design
3. There is nothing to test.

Your statement sounds like the flat Earth argument. Just because a limited test could convince you the Earth appears flat doesn't mean the Earth is flat. I could measure your intelligence but what does that prove to anyone or any theory?

 

[wofsy]

1. Yes, there are intelligent species.
2. No, intelligence in and of itself doesn't prove anything - especially intelligent design
3. There is nothing to test.

Your statement sounds like the flat Earth argument. Just because a limited test could convince you the Earth appears flat doesn't mean the Earth is flat. I could measure your intelligence but what does that prove to anyone or any theory?

I think your flat Earth analogy misses my point. I would think that by your reasoning any explanation of anything would just be an delusion, an appearance - useless.
I am not the first person who has tried to come up with criteria for detecting intelligence in empirical data.

how do you know there is nothing to test?please tell me.
How do you know there are intelligent species? From introspection or have you done an empirical test or is it a profession of faith?

 

[aPhilosopher]

1. Yes, there are intelligent species.
2. No, intelligence in and of itself doesn't prove anything - especially intelligent design
3. There is nothing to test.

Your statement sounds like the flat Earth argument. Just because a limited test could convince you the Earth appears flat doesn't mean the Earth is flat. I could measure your intelligence but what does that prove to anyone or any theory?

I think that wofsy is barking up the wrong tree here too but comparing it to a flat Earth argument is more than a little too harsh. Strictly speaking, my computer is intelligently designed so the statement that intelligent design exists in the universe is 100% correct.

@wofsy, It might help you to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us" videos. It's Richard Dawkins and Randolph Nesse discussing all sorts of aspects of biology that discredit the notion of intelligent design. It might either convince you that it's a dead end or at least give you some examples of what we would expect from a designer.

 

[byronm]

I think your flat Earth analogy misses my point. I would think that by your reasoning any explanation of anything would just be an delusion, an appearance - useless.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. Your observation was simply conjecture. A theory with no sound science, observation or truth. Just like flat Earth believers were conjecture - just because it appears one way - doesn't mean it is.

And yes, i think creationists are delusional. Science is about proving your theory, not about supporting conjecture by looking for holes in the standard theory/model. Show me proof of creationism, show me experimentation of creationism, show my the science of creationism. THERE IS *NONE*.

I am not the first person who has tried to come up with criteria for detecting intelligence in empirical data.

How and what are you measuring? If you don't know what your experiment is, how may i ask did you come up with empirical data? Thats a huge jump to conclusions - just as flat Earth believers jumped to conclusions.

how do you know there is nothing to test?wow! please tell me.
How do you know there are intelligent species? From introspection or have you done an empirical test or is it a profession of faith?

Why are you putting the burden of proof on me? The burden of proof is on you to tell me WHAT you're testing. What does intelligent species have anything to do with ID and what are you measuring to relate those 2?

 

[byronm]

I think that wofsy is barking up the wrong tree here too but comparing it to a flat Earth argument is more than a little too harsh. Strictly speaking, my computer is intelligently designed so the statement that intelligent design exists in the universe is 100% correct.

Right.. NO one disagrees that humans and many other species are intelligent. I'm disagreeing 100% that just because there is intelligence it doesn't PROVE intelligent design as a theory.

That is, after all what this discussion is about :)

Hopefully no one else is thinking I'm debating intelligence and design by themselves. I'm debating using the statement that just because there are smart people in the universe that means intelligent design theory is proven. That very same conjecture is the same stuff that had people believing the Earth was flat.

 

[wofsy]

I think that wofsy is barking up the wrong tree here too but comparing it to a flat Earth argument is more than a little too harsh. Strictly speaking, my computer is intelligently designed so the statement that intelligent design exists in the universe is 100% correct.

@wofsy, It might help you to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us" videos. It's Richard Dawkins and Randolph Nesse discussing all sorts of aspects of biology that discredit the notion of intelligent design. It might either convince you that it's a dead end or at least give you some examples of what we would expect from a designer.

thanks for the references. I have read Dawkin's book on atheism. His points are strong but I do not think he would deny that it would be possible to construct a test for design. He denies - and he is very specific about this - the restricted notion of a deity as a valid explanation of evolution or of any phenomena at all. I agree with all of his arguments except where he sarcastically tries to explain belief as the product of natural selection. I think that stuff is dogmatic and arrogant.

But I am trying to go a step further, really just to stimulate discussion, to throw ideas around, to chew the fat. I am not trying to justify Creationism and with respect for the rules of this forum I will not go into my attitude towards it. i am a little disappointed that people don't want to explore this idea and see where it takes us. I have discussed it with biologists and they have found it more interesting than this forum does. Also AI people find this subject interesting. Physicists who are atheists often remark that the notion of design has never been needed in physical theories and that this is strong indication that it is not a useful concept in science. I agree totally with this. But even they would change their minds if it became necessary to explain certain data.

 

[aPhilosopher]

thanks for the references. I have read Dawkin's book on atheism. ... I agree with all of his arguments except where he sarcastically tries to explain belief as the product of natural selection. I think that stuff is dogmatic and arrogant.

If you really want to get into it, try "The Extended Phenotype." It is a masterful exposition of evolution. I read his book on atheism as well and didn't really like it. That's coming from an atheist! Try Dennet for an explanation of religion as a product of natural selection. He's not nearly as sharp and sarcastic as Dawkins.

But I am trying to go a step further, really just to stimulate discussion, to throw ideas around, to chew the fat. I am not trying to justify Creationism and with respect for the rules of this forum I will not go into my attitude towards it. i am a little disappointed that people don't want to explore this idea and see where it takes us.

I'm more than willing to entertain any ideas for ancillary processes of evolution. I have honestly never considered the idea of testing for design before but am keeping it in the back of my head. I am of course, as an atheist, coming at it from the other angle, that is I want to falsify design, but we both want an honest test of it.

On the whole though, I think that a lot of the resistance might be that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to cook up an objective test for it and if you don't believe that it's there anyways, than it seems like a waste from that perspective.

 

[byronm]

But I am trying to go a step further, really just to stimulate discussion, to throw ideas around, to chew the fat. I am not trying to justify Creationism and with respect for the rules of this forum I will not go into my attitude towards it. i am a little disappointed that people don't want to explore this idea and see where it takes us. I have discussed it with biologists and they have found it more interesting than this forum does. Also AI people find this subject interesting. Physicists who are atheists often remark that the notion of design has never been needed in physical theories and that this is strong indication that it is not a useful concept in science. I agree totally with this. But even they would change their minds if it became necessary to explain certain data.

Creationism and Intelligent Design is NOT about science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Creationism: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God""

That is why most people don't give it the light of day and may entertain wild theories about in heated debate but find it ironic that anyone would consider it science at all.

 

[wofsy]

If you really want to get into it, try "The Extended Phenotype." It is a masterful exposition of evolution. I read his book on atheism as well and didn't really like it. That's coming from an atheist! Try Dennet for an explanation of religion as a product of natural selection. He's not nearly as sharp and sarcastic as Dawkins.



I'm more than willing to entertain any ideas for ancillary processes of evolution. I have honestly never considered the idea of testing for design before but am keeping it in the back of my head. I am of course, as an atheist, coming at it from the other angle, that is I want to falsify design, but we both want an honest test of it.

On the whole though, I think that a lot of the resistance might be that it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to cook up an objective test for it and if you don't believe that it's there anyways, than it seems like a waste from that perspective.

points well taken and I agree that it would be really hard - maybe impossible.

 

[wofsy]

Creationism and Intelligent Design is NOT about science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Creationism: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God""

That is why most people don't give it the light of day and may entertain wild theories about in heated debate but find it ironic that anyone would consider it science at all.

You are right.

 

[jreelawg]

Don't mean to burst any bubbles, but there's already insurmountable evidence indicating the the universe is more than 6,000 years old. We have records of civilizations that existed before 4000 BC. The young Earth creationists are able to dismiss even this evidence. I doubt they'll change their minds over one more civilization that appears to be more than 6,000 years of age.

Back in the day when they went on crusades, when the Romans invaded egypt, when the Spanish concurred the Mayans, etc. They always deliberately burned most of mans ancient history. For example, the Romans are said to have "accidentally" burned down the Library of Alexandria. The Spanish deliberately destroyed most Mayan text.

At this time, there wasn't evidence of pre 6000 yo civilizations in Rome, Spain, or France.

"The Spanish Church and government officials destroyed Maya texts and with it the knowledge of Maya writing but by chance three of the pre-Columbian books dated to the post classic period have been preserved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

There is a whole lot of history that Christian Churches of the world have deliberately destroyed.

 

[byronm]

You are right.

I wasn't looking to be right.. i do like to push buttons and see why people are trying to give credit to ID.. maybe they're on to something but more often then not its not really a scientific discovery that they have but a re-framing of the words, terminology and definition of things to make it appear that way.

Thats what drives me nuts, sorry if i took it out on you hehe :)

 

[wofsy]

I wasn't looking to be right.. i do like to push buttons and see why people are trying to give credit to ID.. maybe they're on to something but more often then not its not really a scientific discovery that they have but a re-framing of the words, terminology and definition of things to make it appear that way.

Thats what drives me nuts, sorry if i took it out on you hehe :)

That's fine - no offense taken. By agreeing with you I was just trying to emphasize that I am not trying to defend Creationism.

 

[arunma]

Back in the day when they went on crusades, when the Romans invaded egypt, when the Spanish concurred the Mayans, etc. They always deliberately burned most of mans ancient history. For example, the Romans are said to have "accidentally" burned down the Library of Alexandria. The Spanish deliberately destroyed most Mayan text.

At this time, there wasn't evidence of pre 6000 yo civilizations in Rome, Spain, or France.

"The Spanish Church and government officials destroyed Maya texts and with it the knowledge of Maya writing but by chance three of the pre-Columbian books dated to the post classic period have been preserved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

There is a whole lot of history that Christian Churches of the world have deliberately destroyed.

OK, this is the sort of vitriolic response I'm trying to avoid. I don't mean any offense, but,

1.) I don't understand how a tour through Catholic European history pertains to our discussion of evolution and creationism.

2.) Ascribing guilt to all Christian churches for the destruction of various cultural and religious artifacts is a major logical fallacy. You might as well call all Republicans racist because the KKK supports the Republican party (not that I like Republicans). One can't blame modern American fundamentalists for various acts committed by people a thousand years ago. If you wish, you can certainly argue that such deeds result from the same type of thinking that results in fundamentalism, but I don't think that this was what you were trying to say.

Calling the creationists crusading inquisitors isn't going to accomplish anything. Scientific truth does a fairly good job of standing on its own merit. Why not simply present the facts about evolution and cosmology, and leave it at that?

 

[aPhilosopher]

Scientific truth does a fairly good job of standing on its own merit. Why not simply present the facts about evolution and cosmology, and leave it at that?

I agree with pretty much every thing that I didn't quote. I have to take difference with this though.

Creationists will distort facts to an extent that a rational person would never consider possible. Couple this with the fact that most 'educated' people can't tell you the difference between a gene and an allele and have no idea what the genetic code is or what it even does and you have a recipe for a susceptibility to bad arguments based on bad science inevitably ending in "It's just a theory, right?" I have seen these people crawl out from under a rug as soon as the light goes out, try to take advantage of peoples pains, doubts and suffering to sell some false idea of salvation that depends upon a literal interpretation of the bible and outright deny evolution. It happens. Then as soon as you shine a little light on the situation, they either scurry back under the rug or try to make your head exlode with a string of irrational arguments, artfully constructed metaphors that only capture one level of causality, etc. I'm not joking. I've seen them say that the human genome is constructed with a different genetic base than other animals.

Couple that with the fact that they try to get this filth taught it schools every chance that they get and you have a need to do a little more than simply present facts. We must educate.

It honestly breaks my heart that some of these people are actually parents, and as such, have the primary responsibility for the education of a child. It's beyond the pale.

 

[Nan]

Creationism and Intelligent Design is NOT about science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Creationism: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God""

That is why most people don't give it the light of day and may entertain wild theories about in heated debate but find it ironic that anyone would consider it science at all.

Absolutely correct and no, by its very nature it isn't science! Why it rankles so many is because the classroom is not the place to indoctrinate a child but to teach a child. If parents wants to teach a child 'creationism' then they are perfectly free to send their child to an appropriate religious private school or teach them at home. Personally, I can't see what the big deal is.

We have a body of knowledge which points to the origins of our species which is directly in conflict with that of creationism if one takes the literal sense from 'creationism' in the time frame man has occupied the planet. The diversity of religions requires that classrooms approach must come from a body of knowledge rather than that of theistic beliefs which vary greatly. To attempt to do otherwise is disrespectful not only to those of other belief systems but also disrespectful of science, the dedication and work required necessary for discovery and knowledge.

Creationism seeks to explain as fact what is not knowable or measurable, to date. Faith is a personal belief and belief system, it should be kept that way so we can all live and work together without it as the cause of bitterness, contempt or hate towards one another. Our world has grown much smaller, no longer are communities separate from others of vastly different cultures. It is mandatory that respect of people and their common needs and threads are emphasized, that begins in the classroom.

 

[jreelawg]

OK, this is the sort of vitriolic response I'm trying to avoid. I don't mean any offense, but,

1.) I don't understand how a tour through Catholic European history pertains to our discussion of evolution and creationism.

2.) Ascribing guilt to all Christian churches for the destruction of various cultural and religious artifacts is a major logical fallacy. You might as well call all Republicans racist because the KKK supports the Republican party (not that I like Republicans). One can't blame modern American fundamentalists for various acts committed by people a thousand years ago. If you wish, you can certainly argue that such deeds result from the same type of thinking that results in fundamentalism, but I don't think that this was what you were trying to say.

Calling the creationists crusading inquisitors isn't going to accomplish anything. Scientific truth does a fairly good job of standing on its own merit. Why not simply present the facts about evolution and cosmology, and leave it at that?

I didn't mean to offend anybody, it is just an interesting fact that we should consider in the field of history. Much of it has been intentionally destroyed and a lot of it is fiction. This is a side effect of literal interpretations of the bible being enforced. The destruction of history is an example, and so is the attack on science. It is a conflict between academics and religion that has gone on for many centuries.

I would like to just say though, that I don't mean insult to christians as individuals. I am talking about organized religion and how it has been and is in some forms corrupted. It is man, who is behind this, not god. Man, for many many years has used the bible for various evils. Claiming white people are inferior, claiming black people are inferior, claiming jews are inferior. Calling for war, calling for murder, torture, burning people alive, oppressing women, excusing destruction of the environment, excusing pollution. The bible, nor God, ask this of us, it is preached from the pulpit by man. This is the control over people that religions can hold, and a loss of this power is often protected against when necessary, not by the will of god, but the will of man.

Another example of this is the amount of child abuse and molestation we find amongst priests. People will become a priest so that they can prey on people. This is predictable, but what is also disturbing, is that often the church, will try and cover it up to avoid public scrutiny.

"This report makes it clear that great wrong and hurt were caused to some of the most vulnerable children in our society," he said.
"It documents a shameful catalogue of cruelty: neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, perpetrated against children."
The five-volume study concluded that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders' paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm

 

[muppet]

Absolutely correct and no, by its very nature it isn't science! Why it rankles so many is because the classroom is not the place to indoctrinate a child but to teach a child. If parents wants to teach a child 'creationism' then they are perfectly free to send their child to an appropriate religious private school or teach them at home. Personally, I can't see what the big deal is.

We have a body of knowledge which points to the origins of our species which is directly in conflict with that of creationism if one takes the literal sense from 'creationism' in the time frame man has occupied the planet. The diversity of religions requires that classrooms approach must come from a body of knowledge rather than that of theistic beliefs which vary greatly. To attempt to do otherwise is disrespectful not only to those of other belief systems but also disrespectful of science, the dedication and work required necessary for discovery and knowledge.

Creationism seeks to explain as fact what is not knowable or measurable, to date. Faith is a personal belief and belief system, it should be kept that way so we can all live and work together without it as the cause of bitterness, contempt or hate towards one another. Our world has grown much smaller, no longer are communities separate from others of vastly different cultures. It is mandatory that respect of people and their common needs and threads are emphasized, that begins in the classroom.

I watched a lecture by Ken Miller on YouTube the other night. He observed that during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand that a definition of "science" that was sufficiently broad to include ID also included astrology.

For me the dividing line between ideas people are entitled to believe and crackpottery is when people are prepared to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence. Religious people will cite aesthetic beauty and the existence of love and morality in defense of their worldview; atheists will cite AIDS, earthquakes and ichneumon wasps. But on a point like evolution, there's no rational, educated argument to be found against it. You're either convinced by the evidence or you refuse to allow it to affect your thinking.

I also think it's more than just an academic question. I think it's incredibly dangerous for people to think they're entitled to believe what they want without regard for anyone else's opinion or material facts. People on Dragon's Den [do you have that show in America? The format is that people appeal to a regular panel of successful multimillionaires for investment in their product or business] will stand there and tell "the dragons" that they are wrong, and that their solar-powered cuckoo clock (with a built-in orange press) will soon be found in every home in the civillised world. If someone tells you that they believe homosexuality is evil, you're probably naturally inclined to tell them they're simply wrong; the word "homophobic" is testament to the fact that it's recognised as an irrational prejudice. But if someone says "homosexuality is against my religious beliefs", the idea that that prejudice has somehow become legititimately immune to criticism is a ridiculous one. A young child who ignores everything their parents tell them is a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

[arunma]

I didn't mean to offend anybody, it is just an interesting fact that we should consider in the field of history. Much of it has been intentionally destroyed and a lot of it is fiction. This is a side effect of literal interpretations of the bible being enforced. The destruction of history is an example, and so is the attack on science. It is a conflict between academics and religion that has gone on for many centuries.

Thank you for clarifying. I do think that your take on history is worthy of further discussion though.

First of all, the conflict between religion and academics, while certainly an undeniable problem, seems to be vastly overblown here. I'm sure that religions have been used to justify the destruction of information. Then again, religions have also been responsible for the accumulation of information and the practice of academics. Court astrologers in Christian Europe laid much of the seminal work for astronomy. Galileo is among this bunch. The guy who created the taxonomic structure that is today used in biology did so "for the greater glory of God." To say that any major religion has done more harm than good to academics is a bit one-sided, don't you think?

Secondly, the ill-effects of religions are likewise overblown. Far fewer people were killed in the crusades and inquisitions than many conflicts one could name that had nothing to do with religion. People love to talk about the crusades, but I wonder why no one has anything to say about the Peloponnesian War. What was that? Secularism at its worst? I think that too many conclusions are being drawn from too few data points.

No one here is denying that ID and creationism (if indeed there is any difference at all) are pseudoscience. But I think it's quite a leap to make too many conclusions about any religion on the basis of the negative role it plays in certain modern sciences.

aPhilosopher: I certainly recognize the truth of what you're saying about many so-called creation scientists. I too have met people who make grossly illogical statements about science in order to support their theories. Some of these people will even become violent in order to support their beliefs. Therefore it seems all the more important that we not use the same tactics or engage in their verbal mudslinging. As you yourself seem to recognize, they will always win at the game of mudslinging. Our advantage is that modern science can be supported by empirical observations. Therefore, we ought to capitalize on this and present scientific fact without any of the emotionally-charged rhetoric.