Edits reflect the fact that I can't read.

Been following this one and actually E-mailed Powerline. Basically they accuse Meyers of making a conclusory argument without evidence in his post. Problem is, the post Meyers was reacting to did just that, stated evolution was wrong and left it at that.

Not only that but there is no doubt that evolution as a current process does take place--that's why you have to take the whole bottle of penicillin--so those germs don't evolve into penicillin-resistant germs. So arguing against evolution means you have to argue against reality.

Certainly nothing new for the folks over at Powerline.

Shhhh! Keep your voices down, or McEwen will find us...

...a common trope from the Creationist/ID right—is to shift the burden of proof to those he believe the claims of modern science.

The burden of correlative proof, weaving a theory and its supporting evidence into the broader tapestry of contemporary knowledge, is precisely what defines science. So, yes, the empiricists should prove (and repeatedly have done so satisfactorily IMHO) that evolution exists.

My big beef with the dingoes and jack-a-ninnies that push ID as a science is that they somehow think they transcend the need for correlative scientific proof. They bolster their arguments with highly selective, non-predictive evidence. They prey upon popular semantics such as the vernacular use of "theory" as a synonym for "hunch." And they abuse Ockham's Razor with emotional pleas that some of the science behind evolutionary theory is counterintuitive. Well, technological evidence of esoteric and difficult science is everywhere, from the aforementioned antibiotics to super sonic fighter jets to the microprocessors that these turkeys use for blogging.

What's even more disappointing is a growing body of scientific understanding indicates that evolutionary dynamics are ubiquitous, albeit varied in nature from system to system. (Take for example the suprising re-emergence of Lamarckian evolution as a viable theory when discussing the evolution of computer viruses or cultural knowledge.) A solid grasp of these dynamics will be essential if our public officials are to ever draft workable long term public policies to deal with challenges as wide ranging as global warming to urban transit networks to reigning in corporate tax evasion to surviving pandemics.

Sometimes... the other half of the blogosphere makes me frown.

:(

Did I hear someone calling my name???

...and, yes, the burden of proof should fall on the evolutionists to prove their case as long as evolutionists (1) use demonstrably false evidence in textbooks to "prove" their case and (2) as long as they block useful dialogs exploring the tremendous inconsistencies and scientific problems with evolution... and (3) as long as they prevent dialog regarding other possible theories of origins.

If Evolution is so proven that they feel that they have the authority to do these things, then, yes, the burden of proof should be on the Evolutionists.... and if their evidence were so compelling and irrefutable, they should be glad to bear the burden every time.

BTW, I'm current debating the science of it here at RobW's blog.

National Geographic has a great feature a little while ago called "Was Darwin Wrong" - and as you might imagine, the answer was a clear 'no.'

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

Evolution is not chiseled in stone, but Creationism isn't science at all because it rests on an hypothesis that cannot be disproved. At which point, I'd say the argument about teaching it in science class ends decisively.

But people can believe what they wish. If you refuse to believe in evolution, however, it seems only fair to reject all of the medical products that are developed and predicated on its existence. Our theory of disease would be seriously screwed without an understanding of evolution, and we'd probably be experiencing major plagues.

So, this is not just an acedmic debate - it's a belief with consequences.

Joe:

You've let your philosophical naturalism beliefs cause you to force fit the evidence to where you want it to go.

Sure... the EVENT of creationism isn't science in the sense of that which can be observed and tested.

However, the evidence left behind in the natural world CAN be tested... evidence from biochemistry, DNA, probability calculations, etc... all of these can be used to validate or invalidate evolution and creationism.

The problem here is that most scientists, like Joe, rule out Creationism smugly BEFORE they give it a chance. If ever a piece of evidence comes along which seems damaging to the creationists cause, they say "see, we told you so". If ever a single piece of evidence comes along which is even MORE damaging to the evolutionists side, they way "well, we just have to look into this further".

Joe, it is NOT very scientific to rule out creationism BEFORE examining the evidence.

I'd love to get your input in our debate at RobW's place. From reading your amateurish comment, I KNOW that there is a lot in that thread which you could learn from... and maybe we could learn something from you?

(and, please, if you do join in, please read the thread so far before commenting so that we don't have to repeat points already made)

Joe:

One more thing.

Examine and compare this page and this page from YOUR website!!!. They dovetail or reinforce each other quite nicely.