The evolution game is up!!!

[macguy]

What is so wrong with not knowing how something happened?

Because if the cell is really irreducibly complex, then there is no other sane possibility except that God did it. We are getting to the point where we cannot reduce the cell to anything else but complex. You don't know? How then, are you justified in saying that God did it is not an explanation when you don't know? In the naturalistic world-view there can't be a God therefore there must be a natural explanation yet what if there is simply no way to account for the origin of life without a designer? Perhaps we should call your argument, nature of the gaps or mystery of the gaps. Why would it be irrational to say God did it? Yes, of course we cannot absolutely say that God did it but we can say it with great affirmation. There's not only a lack of a natural explanation but evidence against it. Every model from the past to today has failed. Admit that at least the evidence for the origins of things fits very well with the theistic world-view. This is faith and one could say that forever. At least we try to be rational instead of just saying the origin of life is a mystery. Thus all in all, I am justified in believe that God created everything. There are only two explanations (design or nature) and if nature is shown to be improbable, then it is completely warranted to say that God is a more reasonable explanation. God is not in the least improbable and it would seem that from the data we know, life was designed.

Of course naturalists don't know! If they did, we might as well give up theism...since invoking God would be made unnecessary. What is unknown about God? The minimalist definition is very straightforward and follows logically from the data:

God is beyond the universe which means that He is not subject to the natural laws. He created the universe and the laws that govern it. In addition, this being has existed eternally which therefore needs no cause for its' existence. Lastly, He is able to make decisions.

The problem is, we know something about why the data resists a naturalistic explanation.

Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

This theory is science because it is explanatory. This explains the origin of life and a intelligent designer is demanded by the data. Second, it's testable. It specifically makes predictions against certain observations - that is, observations which would falsify it. If the origin of life can be explained through natural processes then paley's theory would be refuted. This theory has been assaulted by the best minds of science yet has returned stronger than ever. Some may argue that this proves nothing, yet nothing in science definitely proves anything. They are always vulnerable to further observations which is what makes it science. Tentativeness is an essential characteristic of science. We are not close-minded, but the theory does precisely what every theory must do - it denies certain observations. This makes it testable.

 

[macguy]

Science is based on deduction and observation. Ignorance and incredulity run completely counter to the entire process. You can't trot out some theory and support it by saying "Well, for all we know it COULD be true" or "You know, I just can't think of anything else, so this must be it".

It is also based on induction but as I said, my article completely turned your arguments around. It depends on how the argument is used. Are you intentionally ignoring that link and trying to hop around it?

The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.


Also, read my above post for the nature of science. You also repeatedly seem to move away from Junk DNA as being science. :-/

I'm honestly not at all sure how you can say that. All that is needed is to show a possible way in which these systems could have occurred naturally- it doesn't even have to be the "right" way.

I was right about what IDers do claim...As for the flagellum, they could test it rather easily since bacteria is know of reproducing at very rapid rates. It may be perhaps one of the best ways to observe evolution due to it's reproduction speed. It must be a testable hypothesis though. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html

Very outdated although may be applicable to Behe's older versions. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "Behe" as there are others who actually advanced the argument. The URL just doesn't come to my head at the moment but I'll be sure to let you know if you want. Oh, not to mention that your article brought in gene duplication which is refuted by Behe here.

 

[mighty_duck]

Because if the cell is really irreducibly complex, then there is no other sane possibility except that God did it.

That is one whopper of an IF there. The only way you could know something is irreducibly complex is if you were omniscient. Assigning probability to complexity in light of ignorance is futile. The fact that we don't know how a certain thing happened at this point in time is no reason to lift our hands up and claim the boogie man did it. That is intellectual bankruptcy.

Behe's criteria for IC is a joke (removing parts). Things that were once claimed to be IC like the eye, were later shown to be reducible.Of course, once the flagellum is figured out, you won't give up on IC, you will just pin it on some other unknown process.

What is unknown about God? The minimalist definition is very straightforward and follows logically from the data:

What is known about god? You are upset that science hasn't quite figured how everything happened just yet, but are perfectly happy with an entity who answers exactly ZERO questions about how things happened. How did god make the flagellum? At this point, you suddenly don't really care. Could god have used evolution to make the flagellum?

To recap.
With evolution:
The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
It could have involved reproduction and natural selection - we have a way to investigate.

With God:
The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
We have no course to investigate.
We have also added an entity to our non-explanation.

Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

Are we now dragging up theories from the late 1700's that have been abandoned by the scientific community for more than 150 years, and calling them relevant? What's next, geocentricism?

Everything is compatible with ID, including evolution. It therefore explains nothing.

Second, it's testable. It specifically makes predictions against certain observations - that is, observations which would falsify it.

Name a testable prediction ID made before other parts of science discovered it. Show how the opposite of that prediction is impossible to conclude from ID.

Explain the appendix, male nipples and mammary glands, the whale's vestigial hind feet, the human eye's blind spot, and endogenous retroviruses in light of ID.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It is also based on induction but as I said, my article completely turned your arguments around. It depends on how the argument is used. Are you intentionally ignoring that link and trying to hop around it?

The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.

I'm not trying to dodge it- I just think it has no place in genuine science.

Also, read my above post for the nature of science. You also repeatedly seem to move away from Junk DNA as being science. :-/

I'm not moving away from science, I'm saying junk DNA is not something that is going to change the case either way right now. There is a lot more work to be done, and its a little premature to say we understand how it functions and what it all means.

I was right about what IDers do claim...As for the flagellum, they could test it rather easily since bacteria is know of reproducing at very rapid rates. It may be perhaps one of the best ways to observe evolution due to it's reproduction speed. It must be a testable hypothesis though. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

That's one way- but not a way that is likely to happen. Even if someone were able to produce a flagellum ID'ers would argue that the information coding for the flagellum was was already presant but dormant. More importantly, you don't prove evolution by duplicating it. We simply don't have the kind of control that would be necessary to produce something like that, and even if we did the results would be guided and thus invalid. Providing a possible pathway is the best way to refute these IC claims.

Very outdated although may be applicable to Behe's older versions. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "Behe" as there are others who actually advanced the argument. The URL just doesn't come to my head at the moment but I'll be sure to let you know if you want. Oh, not to mention that your article brought in gene duplication which is refuted by Behe here.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Here's another one. There are many out there. Simply put- Not only are thse things not IC but there multiple possibilities for their evolution. They not been "refuted"- just argued against. Not even convincingly. Just pushing the bar higher saying, OK well I gues than THAT is IC if the origninal wasn't.
http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/
Here's a site that links a bunch of articles about gene duplication and its role in evolution. Apparently the only one Behe convinced was Behe. I think you're exxagerating his "accomplishments".

 

[mighty_duck]

The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.

This is actually correct. To summarize it:

Lack of proof is not proof of a lack (argument from ignorance)
Lack of evidence, when you correctly expect evidence to be present, is in itself evidence for a lack.

Now all you have to explain is why we should expect a handful of scientists, working on this issue for a couple of decades, to reproduce an event that happened over 1 billion years on nonillions (1030) of experimental sites on earth. The scientists aren't God, you know

Ironically, "lack of evidence" is actually the strongest evidence against the existence of the God of the Bible.

 

[bob b]

Things that were once claimed to be IC like the eye, were later shown to be reducible.

I am glad to hear you admit that there are a ton of things out there that scientists do not know. This is refreshing, but of course we knew this all the time.

But one thing you said I am curious about: have scientists really proved that the eye is reducible? Citation please.

With evolution:
The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
It could have involved reproduction and natural selection - we have a way to investigate.

With God:
The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
We have no course to investigate.
We have also added an entity to our non-explanation.

Good recap (except for that "could have" which is only your opinion). Christians have made a partial choice (they believe in God), but are now challenged to either ignore/twist Genesis or believe that God inspired it and it is true.

There is of course the choice I once made before I thought much about it: pick and choose which parts of the Bible I would believe and which I would ignore. That choice seemed to be "unstable" in a control system sense and eventually leads to either complete acceptance or complete rejection.

 

[macguy]

That is one whopper of an IF there. The only way you could know something is irreducibly complex is if you were omniscient. Assigning probability to complexity in light of ignorance is futile. The fact that we don't know how a certain thing happened at this point in time is no reason to lift our hands up and claim the boogie man did it. That is intellectual bankruptcy.

That is precisely the problem of induction but as I said before, tentativeness in a theory is what makes something science. Using your logic, we cannot say that evolution occurred unless we are omniscient! That is bogus reasoning, since all science does is work with what they know. May I need to repeat the wonderful process of how science works? It is not intellectually bankrupt as it is explanatory for the origins of things.

Science is a process of search for the truth, and few things are more certain than the fact that as the process continues, current theories will be revised and eventually abandoned in favor of new theories. The Limitations of Scientific Truth.

You want to know what real intellectual bankruptcy is? Let's take a look at what I said from a debate...

Excluding the consideration that God could've created it would therefore give you false reasoning! For example, as you said the scientific method is consisted by drawing inferences on observed data but many times this conclusion is reached by a colored rejection of certain kinds of facts. The field of observation is then limited by the criterion of the scientist is then narrowed and the conclusion may be incorrect. By rejecting data that one dislikes, they can arrive at the wrong principle. Attempts to explain the origin of life point to a intelligent designer but if a biologists is a Mnaturalist, he rules out such data as impossible and limits his findings to his own group. Yet you insist that "historically all confirmed explanations have been naturalistic explanations". The reason for something being explained by naturalistic processes is because what we observe is in itself part of the natural world! As I said, origins science cannot be observed. Naturalism is so deeply part of thinking in people’s thinking today that they find it difficult to look at it in a different way. For most of them, only a modest amount of evidence is needed to prove the whole system and even if they do reach doubts, their naturalism remains untouched. Since there can’t be anything outside of nature, there must be something that produced everything to and so they wait for a satisfactory naturalistic mechanism to be discovered. If the supernatural could be admitted as a possibility, then trouble comes for naturalism but if it is excluded then it cannot lose. Logically, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative. Merely because scientists know a good deal about the behavior of bacteria and electricity doesn’t follow that they know the origin in the first place.

To exclude God, is tragedy since it would be very well possible that He did do it. If He did, then would you expect a naturalistic explanation? The answer is no. Also, I think you're very confused on my justification argument.

1. Naturalism can explain everything.
2. There is no need for a designer.
3. Irreducibly complex life forms exist.
4. (3) makes (2) and (1) improbable therefore we are justified in believing that God created it.

The purpose of this discussion for me personally is to provide a rational warrant for the belief in a Creator. I am therefore not providing absolute proof for a Creator, but rather a prima facie justification for this belief. The real issue here, in my opinion, isn’t the matter of why I can’t prove absolutely that God exists, but rather in the nature of one’s assumptions that should or shouldn’t be made. I thereby take that stance that theism is a more coherent view than atheism.

Behe's criteria for IC is a joke (removing parts). Things that were once claimed to be IC like the eye, were later shown to be reducible. Of course, once the flagellum is figured out, you won't give up on IC, you will just pin it on some other unknown process.

We will see what happens...As I said, science is tentative and for ID to take risks of the possibility that there may be a naturalistic explanation is what makes it testable and falsifiable. It predicts that there won't be a natural explanation, but this prediction is precisely what creates the possibility that it is false. Evolution to the macro scale can't be observed by the way so I find that argument unconvincing.

What is known about god? You are upset that science hasn't quite figured how everything happened just yet, but are perfectly happy with an entity who answers exactly ZERO questions about how things happened. How did god make the flagellum? At this point, you suddenly don't really care. Could god have used evolution to make the flagellum?

We know that God must be greater than the effect. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy tends to increase but logically, for this being to have created us He must not be decreasing. We can make inferences based on the data that we have on God...If it is missaplied then the data will tell us, because us creationists believe that God's creation is an image of Himself. I am not upset, but actually it is something that Paley predicted thus making it science. So, just because we don't necessarily know how the Egyptians built those pyramids, it makes the argument false that they did it? Under the creationist world-view, they are open to the possibility that God could've done it through evolution.

Are we now dragging up theories from the late 1700's that have been abandoned by the scientific community for more than 150 years, and calling them relevant? What's next, geocentricism?

Is truth judged by the scientific community? Since when? Intelligent design has existed for thousands of years yet now it has supposedly been made unneeded by science? LOL That is a ridiculous response. You should base it on the merits of the argument rather than on the time. Science is the search for truth and it makes no difference. Actually, if you're argument was really worth anything, then scientists would've discarded evolution since it was far older that Paley's theory.

Explain the appendix, male nipples and mammary glands, the whale's vestigial hind feet, the human eye's blind spot, and endogenous retroviruses in light of ID.

Let me get this straight, here you are complaining about how we have to be omniscient to make claims yet how do you know obsoletely that the whale's pelvis is vestigial or even the males nipples for that matter?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me get this straight, here you are complaining about how we have to be omniscient to make claims yet how do you know obsoletely that the whale's pelvis is vestigial or even the males nipples for that matter?

Perhaps you don't know what "vestigial" means. What do you think it means?

 

[macguy]

Perhaps you don't know what "vestigial" means. What do you think it means?

Not what "I" think but what others think. I also pointed out the argument from junk DNA as well.

An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms. Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the limb girdles of snakes, the appendix and the ear muscles of humans, and the scale leaves of parasitic flowering plants. The presence of vestigial organs is thought to indicate that the ancestors of the organism possessed fully functioning organs ... (Tootill, 1988, p. 318).

"living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use” (Asimov, 1959, p. 30

There are others who claim that science has

found a number of useless organs among many animals. They have no apparent function and must therefore be a vestige of a once useful part of the body. A long time back these vestigial organs must have been important; now they are just reminders of our common ancestry. One example is the vermiform appendix which not only is utterly useless in human beings but which often causes great distress (Perkel and Needleman, 1950, p. 129)

Even a biology textbook says so.

Evolution is not a perfect process. As environmental changes select against certain structures, others are retained, sometimes persisting even if they are not used. A structure that seems to have no function in one species, yet is homologous to a functional organ in an- other species, is termed vestigial. Darwin compared vestigial organs to silent letters in a word – they are not pronounced, but they offer clues to the word’s origin (Lewis, 1998, p.
395).

 

[macguy]

I'm not trying to dodge it- I just think it has no place in genuine science.

Science uses philosophy! How could you act as if it was totally not associated with it? You brought up a fallacy, that assumes philosophy and in order to refute it, I used philosophy which gives reasonable scientific cases for using it.

I'm not moving away from science, I'm saying junk DNA is not something that is going to change the case either way right now. There is a lot more work to be done, and its a little premature to say we understand how it functions and what it all means.

It is, because you do claim that junk DNA and just look at what mighty_duck claimed. They, unlike you, believe it is a good argument so what makes your opinion better than theirs? Well, then why is it called "junk" DNA if it is premature to label it as that way? Obviously, ignorance has a place in science unlike your claims.

That's one way- but not a way that is likely to happen. Providing a possible pathway is the best way to refute these IC claims.

Which is story-telling, as Isaak did with how the bombardier beetle got it's exhaust tubes. He hasn't presented a plausible hypothesis since a lot of other key things are left out. We shall see if there is such a possibility as I said. Until that day, please show me such a thing. It seems you have a rather unwillingness to pay attention to anything I say. It is NOT as if I am arguing that the argument from ignorance is always sound but that it depends on the usage. We are finite beings, and I can't see how we could escape the possibility of arguing from what we know. All IC does is make predictions against a naturalistic explanation and this is possible because science is tentative.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

A List of Selected Responses to Kenneth R. Miller

And there are many links that refute the so-called evolution of the flagellum. I think you're heavily de-exxagerating Behe's work.

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

Copying confusion

Increased amounts of DNA don’t mean increased function

 

[The Barbarian]

Science uses philosophy!

Could you show us a scientific paper, and point out where philosophy is used?

It is, because you do claim that junk DNA and just look at what mighty_duck claimed.

In science, it's called "non-coding" DNA. "Junk" is just a slang term; it's unfortunate, because it gives the impression that all non-coding DNA is functionless. Some of it is, but other parts of it have various non-coding functions.

Well, then why is it called "junk" DNA if it is premature to label it as that way?

See above. Science calls it "non-coding" DNA.

Obviously, ignorance has a place in science

Well, possibly there's a little less ignorance in the world at large now...:wave:

Which is story-telling, as Isaak did with how the bombardier beetle got it's exhaust tubes.

They aren't exhaust tubes, and there isn't one kind of bomardier beetle. There are many kinds, with all sorts of intermediate degrees of sophistication. Since the chemicals used in the organ are slightly modified forms of chemicals already in primitive beetle cuticles, it's not hard to see how such a feature could have evolved. There are several possible routes, all of which currently fit the evidence we have now. It remains to be seen which of them is closest to the actual path.

All IC does is make predictions against a naturalistic explanation and this is possible because science is tentative.

Since even Behe now admits that IC can evolve, that argument is over.

 

[macguy]

Could you show us a scientific paper, and point out where philosophy is used?

The inductive method and deductive method. It's not hard and you're assuming philosophy to make the argument that we are arguing from ignorance.

In science, it's called "non-coding" DNA. "Junk" is just a slang term; it's unfortunate, because it gives the impression that all non-coding DNA is functionless. Some of it is, but other parts of it have various non-coding functions.

In molecular biology, "junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has yet been identified. About 97% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.


If it is understood as such, I wonder why wikipedia says differently?

Well, possibly there's a little less ignorance in the world at large now...:wave:

Less ignorance yet the gaps are getting bigger for the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Our knowledge is increasing, yet we know less. Of course we know more than our ancestors, but our gain in knowledge leads to more and more difficult questions.

They aren't exhaust tubes, and there isn't one kind of bomardier beetle.

Well in non-layman terms, it is called a secretory lobes. I never said that there is only one kind of bombardier beetle...What are you smoking?

This paper answers your argument.

The Bombardier Beetle (Brachinus sp, Metrius sp., Stenaptinus sp.) has been the subject of much discussion by creationists and evolutionists alike. Recent reports demonstrate the sophistication and accuracy with which these carabid beetles deliver a spray of hot quinones and steam to ward off predators. Workers over the last 40 years have reported on the histology and ultrastructure of the pygidial gland and accessory components of these defensive organs. Those reports differ significantly from the present paper. Thus it appears that some distinction exists in the morphology of the enzyme secretion bodies, the chemical reservoirs, the reaction chambers and the actual aiming nozzles of the spray systems within the family Carabidae, even though these beetles use these glands for the same purpose. In this study the pygidial gland and nozzle of one species of Bombardier Beetle is studied under light and electron microscopy (SEM and TEM) and are shown to be quite complex. This complexity could suggest an origin by design.

It's interesting to note that all the "possible" pathways are figured out by an intelligent being and supposedly the evolutionary mechanism accounted for it. Behe actually spoke on this and provided a possible pathway but I guess you folks won't know since of course, you just listen to the critics!

Since even Behe now admits that IC can evolve, that argument is over.

LOL, since when? I recall reading this and there is as always a response by the ID community. Please provide a source.

 

[Stripe]

Knee joints eveolved the same way everything else evolved. (see Darwin)

See? Darwindidit.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

See? Darwindidit.

Nope, Darwin described how it was done.

 

[Stripe]

No, God did.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

No, God did.

When?

 

[noguru]

At what point will the schools cease the indoctrination of our children in this obsolete science?

Can you please tell me how you can indoctrinate someone in "obsolete science"?

Does science claim that any of it's theories (current or falsified) are meant to be an indoctrination?

I think what you really find offensive is the search for natural explanations regarding natural history, when these explanations contradict certain religious assumptions that you believe are necessary for your eternal happiness.

 

[macguy]

Nope, Darwin described how it was done.

I got his book right now, where is this page at?

 

[SUTG]

I got his book right now, where is this page at?

I don't think he specifically covered the knee joint. He didn't have to.

 

[macguy]

I don't think he specifically covered the knee joint. He didn't have to.

. . .Here you tell me that Darwin addressed the issue yet I don't even have a clue where to start?! :yawn:

[edit]: let me guess. You will tell me that I should read the whole book or tell me that it's in there but you forgot.