- Darwinian evolution has been blamed for such items as gangs, murders, and a general rising worldview of "if God doesn't exist or didn't create the world, what prevents me from naturally selecting myself by firing this gun at someone's head?" Evolutionists reply that these conclusions are based on misapplications or misunderstanding of social Darwinism. Are they? If not, show me they aren't.
- Evolutionists claim that creationism is pseudoscience. Does pseudoscience beget itself? Read this post from Cao2, then bring your answer.
- Microevolution, or the theory that species change gradually over time, into more specialized species, has been well established. Creationism relies on that too. However, the other component of Darwinian evolution, macroevolution (that, over time, something like a paramecium could develop into a human), has somewhat less support. Looking at this post, a good summary, I wonder how much the second component really matters. Reasons 1 and 2 therein are certainly dependent on microevolution, not macroevolution. While reason 3 depends on both components, this is because it refers to the AP test, which assumes the truth of both.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Musings on "good" science
Certain blogs I frequent seem to be posting more and more about the ID-versus-evolution or creationism-versus-evolution debates. While evolutionists keep insisting that there is no debate, they persistently ignore or belittle evidence provided by creationists in response, saying that it is either false or just bad science. I won't make any judgment on those statements here; rather, I will simply throw some small darts, if you will, a few points to consider.