How to Disprove Evolution?

| 187 Comments

Some years ago, a creationist challenged me, “Burt, how would you go about disproving evolution? It’s non-falsifiable and, by definition, cannot be science.”

Challenged me it did - I was unable to think of a good answer. At least, I was unable until I consulted with the brainiacs in Kansas Citizens for Science. The answer, like just about any answer when considering involving evolution, is to look at the past and examine evolution when it was back fighting for its life.

We’ll discuss this limited aspect of the history of evolution, along with why it’s important, on flip side…

When Darwin first published his noodlings on natural selection, he made very specific claims about the time courses involved. (Unlike a recently litigated alternative perspective occasionally mentioned in these forums.) Specifically, his theory required millions or billions of years, not thousands of years, to work.

This is remarkable because scientists of the time were not aware of the nuclear reactions like fusion. It’s pretty common knowledge that fission bombs (like the ones dropped on Japan) put out a lot more energy than chemical bombs (like the ones dropped on Germany), and fusion reactions potentially release even more energy than fission reactions. In order to understand one reason why Darwin’s hypothesis was fighting for its intellectual life, you have to imagine yourself in a world where fission and fusion were as yet undiscovered.

The sun puts out a lot of energy. A heck of a lot. Physicists of Darwin’s day could calculate the energy expenditure over time that the sun was releasing and knew the volume that the sun was occupying. Even if they used the most exothermic and energy releasing chemical reactions (say, our modern equivalent of the high explosives looted by the Iraqis from our depot during our invasion, HMX), they still were left with the conclusion that the sun would be using up its fuel at an alarmingly high rate. (In all fairness, they didn’t think the sun was burning chemically even as early as Darwin’s time. More for those interested here.)

What happened, obviously, was that Darwin put forward a theory that presciently predicted the large time scales understood to be required for our solar system’s development and life’s evolution. (Or, rather, put his chip down on the hypothesis of geologist Charles Lyell, who proposed millions or biliions of years and was Darwin’s contemporary.)

In the fullness of time, fusion reactions were discovered, allowing the sun to release large amounts of energy and yet be billions of years old. Darwin’s theory has since assimilated Mendelian and modern understandings of genetics, genetic drift, stabilizing selection, and a host of other advances since he last revised Origins (which is why “Darwinism” properly should refer only to the understandings of evolution as Darwin knew them). And rather than being dismantled by all the new findings, those new findings have been subsumed into evolution.

What results is a model of change for biology - a theory, as scientists define the term - that has been so amazingly successful at explaining and predicting observations in the natural world that creationists are now arguing that it can’t be science because it is so amazingly predictive and useful. In this vein, the creationist challenger to me from years ago and Reverend Creech writing in Agape Press, come to mind.

L. Harrison Matthews in the forward of a 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, once concluded: “Our theory of evolution has become … one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science,’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it.”

There can essentially only be one reason for favoring evolution, and that reason has nothing to do with science. It has to do with something outstanding British biologist D.M.S. Watson said in Nature back in 1929: “[T]he theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

Keep this in mind the next time someone challenges you saying that evolution cannot be disproven. Point out to your challenger that, like any successful theory, if you trace it back to when it was first an idea battling its way to the top, it was indeed fighting for its life. Also point out to your challenger that we scientists have a history of awarding revolutionary ideas (and their discoverers) with success and prestige, provided the ideas in question turn out to be more useful than the ones currently used. You should therefore encourage your creationist challengers to either let scientists do their work, or join them in doing it.

BCH

187 Comments

Another historical note… my understanding is that, while Darwin’s theory of common ancestry was widely accepted by the late 1800’s, his theory of evolution by natural selection was considered to be disproven as of the end of the 1800’s and the beginning of the 20th century. Before the rediscovery of Mendel’s work, inheritance was thought to be blending rather than particulate, and new beneficial mutations are diluted away to nothingness if inheritance really occurs in a blending fashion. But most of the folks who post here probably already knew all this.

The statement that “evolution cannot be disproven” is just silly. It’s true that any one piece of evidence would probably not be enough to make us pitch the entire theory, but some– like Haldane’s example of the fossil rabbit from the Precambrian– would certainly throw the whole paradigm into turmoil. Repeated anomalies would certainly make us abandon evolutionary theory, just as it required many, many repeated confirmations for evolutionary theory to attain the high scientific status that it enjoys.

Every genetic sequence we obtain has the possibility of being utterly inconsistent with the phylogenies that we’ve built so far. Every fossil we discover has the possibility of contradicting the evolutionary narrative that we’ve built over the decades. Every new morphological or biochemical structure, and every new behavior that we describe has the possibility of profiting some species other than the one bearing it. Every developmental sequence that we work out has the possibility of being completely unlike that of those organisms we thought were related.

I think it’s important to point out not only how many tests the ToE has already passed, but to make it quite clear that the various pieces of evolutionary theory are being tested rigorously today. In fact, the more we learn– the sharper we bring into focus what has occurred on Earth over the past 3.5 billion years– the more vulnerable the ToE is to disconfirmation. The fact that it continues to pass test after test, despite this increasing vulnerability, should be emphasized.

There’s a key difference between “unfalsifiable” as applied by creationists to evolutionary theory and “unfalsifiable” as applied by scientists to creationism. When creationists complain that evolution is unfalsifiable, what they’re really complaining about is that scientists are open-minded: when new data changes our theoretical understanding, we change the theories, and thus our scientific theories are never utterly and finally overthrown.

The creationist keeps his theories unfalsifiable because he does not want them tested, knowing they can’t pass the test. It’s a very different type of unfalsifiability entirely.

Yes, there are ways to falsify evolution. I’ve been planning to create a whole series of articles about ways evolution could be falsified, though I haven’t gotten very many of them together yet. Here’s a couple:

Here’s an article about the age of the earth (evolution requires an old earth, so falsifying an old earth could disprove evolution). I expanded on an article by Dalrymple and looked for holes in it. http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writ[…]onearth.html

Here’s an article about the pattern of cytochrome-c. One could falsify evolution by showing that genetic patterns contradict phylogenic patterns. There are a lot of patterns that could potentially be found cross-species comparisons of genetics (for example, one might potentially find that large creatures have one version of a gene, medium sized creatures have another, small creatures have another; this pattern would contradict a phylogenic pattern). http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writ[…]chromec.html

Another potential falsification is to show that mutations don’t happen at all. Evolution relies on mutation + selection + reproduction. If you can remove any of those components, it’s not clear how evolution could work. Further, it’s not at all clear why mutations would exist at all in a god-designed world*. Afterall, if God created the world 6,000 years ago, there isn’t much reason to allow creatures to accumulate mutations because they are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Does God want people to have children with crippling or lethal genetic defects?

* Some creationists will argue that mutations are a result of man’s sin. I always find the “man’s sin” argument to be weak. First, why would sin cause genetic defects in the first place (a world without genetic defects could still be quite bad, so why the genetic damage in addition to everything else)? Second, when they throw around the “sin-did-it” argument, they’re essentially saying “it’s magic” because there’s never any evidence of “sin” causing anything and never provide any kind of process by which it could cause any of the things they attribute to it. It’s just plain magic.

However, many many many many many, damn near all claims made by folks about their “brand” of religion don’t even pass the logic test, let alone the evidence test.

Still trying to get that “Holy War” going :)

If evolution’s unfalsifiable, how is it simultaneously in crisis? However will it meet the several Waterloos we’ve heard so much about?

There’s an easy way to falsify evolution today that doesn’t require going back in time. British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” Any haphazzard distribution of fossils in the strata would be excellent evidence against evolution. The quotes that Creech cites are either taken out of context or simply mistaken.

Don’t forget Biblical Creationism, and neoCreationism/Palyism renamed as Intelligent Design .…That’s an oxymoron if ever there was one, is false proven by archeology, geology, physics and Human Art.

Cave paintings may be ‘oldest yet’ .

If evolution’s unfalsifiable, how is it simultaneously in crisis? However will it meet the several Waterloos we’ve heard so much about?

The same way that the Duke of Wellington did? :-)

Bob

Perhaps folks are being a little too practical-minded on this one. Theories that are dismissed as unfalsifiable are (typically) unfalsifiable even in principle. ID is that way because no matter what possible, crazy evidence we might find, it can still be explained by “the designer wanted it that way.” So, all possible evidence is consistent with ID.

Evolution is obviously falsifiable in principle because we can think of all sorts of crazy, unlikely observations that would be gigantic anomalies for Darwinian theory. Here are two dramatic examples:

Starting tomorrow, all new puppies are born with fully-functional gills.

We witness a whole new species poofing into existence in Central Park.

These may seem absurd, but they would clearly be incompatible with Darwinian theory; and that’s what it means to be falsifiable. The other examples people have offered are more likely to be observed (if still quite unlikely), but why should that make a difference for judging falsifiability?

No. I was referring to the ones that get going here when someone posts something like “Christians, can’t live with em, can’t feed em to the lions anymore.”

Although that first link you listed is intimately related to these little spats that happen here on this discussion board.

Mike, Practical minded is shorthand. Fundies represent a real problem with idiotic beliefs that lead to really really bad policies that go way deeper than just teaching evolution in science class. As k.e. pointed out, environmental problems become exacerated because they ignore systems and the way they work. Economic problems get worse because they go to bed with the neo-facists/conservatives, social problems get worse because they present an all/nothing approach to society, spiritual problems get worse because people see how dang whacked they are and become “materialists” without much thought for harmony or peace (extremely abstract principles I know) because it is the most opposed to the fundies extreme flavor of intolerance.

I think basically, this science argument is a microcosm of a much bigger argument. Essentially a replaying of the trial and death of socrates. Let’s hope the outcome is different this time around.

I don’t think it makes complete sense to consider whether evolution can be falsified – it’s like asking the question “Can physics be falsified?” or “Can sociology be falsified?” Evolution, physics, and sociology are all extremely broad, conceptual frameworks, not single questions. It’s much more informative to ask single questions, as hypotheses predicted within the boundaries of these concepts. Those questions are what can be supported or refuted by evidence, using materialistic manipulations and explanations.

Can our current hypotheses about the evolutionary origins of mammals be falsified? Sure – the Precambrian rabbit fossil would do it. Can our current hypotheses about gravity be falsified? Well, if you dropped a ball and it zoomed skyward instead of falling to the ground, that would certainly alter our understanding of how gravity works. If I have a hypothesis that childhood poverty predicts adult criminality, I could support or refute it with a well-designed study of any correlations between criminal convictions and the income of the families in which the convicts grew up, even though I can’t, for practical and ethical reasons, experiment directly on people.

Can creationism be falsified? That doesn’t really make sense either; we have to ask a more specific question. So, let’s try this one: Can we rule out special creation as being necessary for human conception? We know quite a bit about how fertilization works in sexually reproducing diploids like ourselves. On the other hand, when you were conceived, God might have decided that it was time for your parents to have a baby. We know that condoms can prevent pregnancy, supporting the materialistic explanation that sperm must meet egg for fertilization to occur. On the other hand, condoms might simply offend the fertility goddess so that she will refuse to bless you with offspring. We know that some couples are infertile, and we can often identify causes such as a low sperm count or scarred Fallopian tubes. Then again, when this happened to your friends who really wanted to have kids, maybe it was God’s way of testing their faith. And God gave a baby to your neighbor who never wanted children, just to test her as well; the broken condom was the will of God, not an accident. And so on.…

As you can tell, it drives me batty when someone wonders about whether a theory can be falsified, when the correct question is whether a hypothesis is constructed in such a way that it can be falsified.

LOL exactly, Bob. Anyway, Dembski’s timing is off. We had our Waterloo last year in Dover. Behe played Napoleon.

I’ve always found it amusing that creationuts always want to yammer about how evolution is unfalsifiable —- right before they go ahead and give us all their “scientific evidence” (“no transitioal fossils”, “second law of themrodynamics”, “moon dust shows the earth is young”) which, they claim, shows it to be false.

Quote “What happened, obviously, was that Darwin put forward a theory that presciently predicted the large time scales understood to be required for our solar system’s development and life’s evolution. (Or, rather, put his chip down on the hypothesis of geologist Charles Lyell, who proposed millions or billions of years and was Darwin’s contemporary.)”

This is historically untrue. People were putting forward millions of years well before 1800. In the 1820s the geologists the Revds William Buckland and Adam Sedwick were talking about vast periods of time BEFORE Sedgwick taught Darwin geology in Wales in 1831. As for estimates for time in 1860 the Revd Samuel Houghton argued that the base of the Cambrian was 1800 million years ago, while Huxley reckoned 100 my. Darwin simply adopted contemporary ideas of geological time. Lyell proposed nothing new on geological time (read Martin Rudwick Bursting the Limits of Time Chicago 2005)- he even cites me.

Finally hardly any educated Christan’s accepted that the earth was only a few thousand years old in 1859, out of a few hundred Christians who wrote on science in the 1860s which I have read only about half a dozen who went for a few thousand - and most were Americans.

Sorry about the history lesson.

Did you know that the first person to cite Darwin’s work with approval after his 1858 paper was the Revd H B Tristram an evangelical Vicar in Durham in a study of Palestinian larks?

I think that falsifying the Theory of Evolution (that selective and randomly adaptive forces are the best explanation for the diversity of life) is a lot easier than this article makes out.

IMO, the reason why it’s so hard to directly falsify it is because that is effectively asking you to make a rarefied inference. But that’s not our claim - we’ve never said you can look at a phenomenon and know for sure what caused it. Rarefied inferences, be they of design or of evolution, are not our bag, baby.

Instead, it’s considered far more productive to consider more explicit hypotheses. So, for example, if a Real Human Being (as opposed to many design advocates) comes across Stonehenge, what they don’t do is look at it, perform a few quick mathematical calculations and conclude that it was designed. What they actually do is consider the range of available forces (whether natural or intelligent), pick the one that seems most likely and then check to see which category it falls into. In the case of Stonehenge, the inference would be: probably human design, therefore probably design.

So we need to be looking at the small scale, the fine detail of the ToE. And when you look at it this way it’s clear that the ToE is in fact incredibly easy to indirectly falsify. All you have to do is point to one area anywhere in the history of life on Earth where the premise that the action of an intelligent entity (of your choice) was involved allows one to make better predictions than the premise that bog-standard evolution was the only available force.

Just one single area, in the whole of the historical life sciences. When you put it like that, the fact that the ToE is as yet unfalsified despite all their efforts seems quite incredible - it’s fairly obvious the size of the wall that IDers and associated creationists are banging their heads against.

There’s also a factor we often oversee: A theory is falsifiable when observations and experiments can be made that might disprove it: If such methods are made and the theory fails, then it was falsifiable (and falsified): If it is supported, it’s still falsifiable.

Look at it this way: Suppose you’re having a discussion with some nutjob who believes in the Geocentric system. He claims that “Heliocentricism” is unfalsifiable.

Patiently, you describe all the observations that were made from the 16th Century till today that prove the Earth revolves around the sun, from observing the orbits of the planets to actually going out there in space and seeing for ourselves.

“Yes”, he replies, but what methods can you think of now, today, that might falsify your theory”?

“Well”, you say, “I don’t think there ARE any anymore that…”

He smiles and says “QED”.

Now, you may think this is far-fetched, but it is exactly the kind of “logic” ToE faces with these arguments. The truth is: The Theory of Evolution has met many challenges to its validity in the past and was victorious. The fact it’s becoming more and more difficult to come up with new ways to falsify it does not mean it’s becoming unfalsifiable; it means that it’s probably, well, right.

Lenny: I think the hope is that, once they’ve claimed long enough and loud enough that evolution is unfalsifiable by actually having any biological evidence, people will be more happy to accept falsifications of evolution that don’t need the nasty stuff.

bhumburg Wrote:

Some years ago, a creationist challenged me, “Burt, how would you go about disproving evolution? It’s non-falsifiable and, by definition, cannot be science.”

You didn’t say (or I might have missed) what “kind”of creationist that was. One of the rank-and-file who just innocently repreated a common misleading sound bite, or one who will play word games until you give up? And was it a YEC, OEC, IDer, etc.?

Either way, the common misconception is that since natural selection may be “practically unfalsifiable,” so is evolution, the fact and the theory. If Lamarckian evolution were validated, or if evolution were found to be all drift and no selection, the Darwinian theory would be falsified, but natural selection would still be a fact of nature.

Evolution in general can also be falsified. Evidence of saltation would do that. Evidence of independent abiogenesis will not only falsify evolution in general, but common descent to boot. And then there’s the trusty Precambrian rabbit.

Your example is interesting, but there’s no need to get that technical with creationists. Just state things in unambiguous terms (no “special creation” or “common design” or “Darwinism” please!). If they resist those terms and keep repeating the same old sound bites, move on, and talk to someone who wants to learn.

{offtopic, my apologies}

Lenny, you seem to be famous…

http://www.hyahya.org/incompatible02.php

(although you are called “Lerry Flank”. Maybe you should be offended :-)

Lenny, you seem to be famous…

http://www.hyahya.org/incompatible02.php

(although you are called “Lerry Flank”. Maybe you should be offended :-)

I consider it a badge of honor to have the fundies (of all stripes) pissed at me.

And the Holy Yoyo’s are offensive *whether or not* they can spell correctly.

;)

As this theory has no scientific foundation, Muslims must not allow themselves to be misled by its arguments and thereby give it any support, no matter how well-intentioned.

Muslims cannot seek a compromise on this issue. Of course people can think as they please and can believe in whatever theories they wish. However, there can be no compromise with a theory that denies Allah and His creation, for this would involve compromising on religion’s fundamental element. Of course, doing so is totally unacceptable.

Will Al Qaeda be planning any attacks on Panda’s Thumb Headquarters?

Julie Stahlhut hit it right on the head. Non-science types continually confuse “falsifiable” with “possible that something might come along and reveal falseness”. This misconception about falsifiability is at the heart of why IDers and creationists, and their gullible supporters, don’t understand why supernatural explanations are not science.

It’s quite simple. A theory (a working model) generates testable hypotheses. A well designed true test is one where the outcome would verify the hypothesis, while being able to refute it, depending on the results of the test. This “falsifiability” makes the experiment or analysis of observed evidences a true test of a hypothesis. By extension the theory itself is falsifiable.

(Einstein’s relativity suggested, in simple terms, that mass curves space and this expresses as gravity. In other words, his theory said that we should see light appearing to curve around large celestial bodies and he calculated to what degree. He famously devised a test that could either support or refute his position. Around 1919, observations made during an eclipse verified this critical component of his theory, whereas it could have refuted it entirely).

The Theory of Evolution has proven time and again to merely be “not false” and so its detractors complain that it’s not falsifiable. Because they are terribly confused about the difference.

The ToE at it’s heart is falsifiable because each and all of it’s components and their related hypotheses are in themselves falsifiable. At this point in history, since the ToE rests on a vast bedrock of tested and verified hypotheses, it is hard to fathom how it could be literally turned over. It couldn’t really. At worse, it would, and in fact does, get tweaked and re-worked and mended in its most undeveloped extremities. The 30-year discussion of punctuated equilibrium is a good example of how ToE is a healthy and robust theory always in flux, always going through testing and re-thinking.

Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, Homo Sapiens in the Cambrian, yeah, these discoveries would be enough to disembowel the core of ToE. But so would have been the case if DNA research had shown no genetic links or similarities, no common ancestry and no relationships at all between any forms of life on earth. The ToE’s most basic hypothesis, common descent, could have been refuted by DNA but instead was confirmed, a great example of the proper meaning of falsifiability. This is what makes a great theory like the ToE so strong: 150 years of the vast preponderance of evidence continually confirming the logical outgrowths of the theory itself, when all that evidence could very easily have obliterated them.

Evidence of saltation would do that.

Hyla versicolor.

What, evolution didn’t collapse? Methinks there was a problem with the claim.

Finding a fossil of a unicorn with finely-developed wings would disprove evolution rather quickly, I would think. Or an “angel”, as in the Simpsons (starring Gould as a cartoon character). I’m still waiting. A visage of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast won’t cut it, tho.

Hmm… I can’t think that this isn’t known by nearly all here, but the point I wish to remind of is that this person’s question, and the questions and challenges of any “active” Creationist - whatever label they happen to be using at the moment - are utterly disingenuous. The only answer they will accept as true is “Yes, Master.”

The Creationist has no interest in science, or knowledge for that matter, but in having others confirm how “wise” and “reasonable” and so on their own blinkered take on existence is, and in praising them for it! Since H. Morris, may his memory serve to warn the honestly dishonest, and bolstered by the perversions of “neo-conservatism,” Creationism has become simply another pseudopod reaching out for the only perceivable goal of its proponents: absolute, irrational, unchecked political power.

Actually, there have been observations which at first blush appeared to be inconsistent with evolution by natural selection which is what we really mean by Darwinism. (Evolution didn’t start with Darwin; he provided the mechanism to explain the observations.) My favorite is “directed mutation” which seemed to be due to Lamarckian inheritance. If verified, this would have caused a major paradigm shift in the Modern Synthesis, if not the death blow that the creationists hoped for. But it wasn’t so. The lesson here is twofold: (1) genuine paradoxes (i.e., those based on data rather than theology) are examined closely by the “scientific establishment,” and (2) in the process of such examinations, we learn a lot about how evolution works.

Note the obvious contrast with the rants of a so-called “think tank” and its fellows.

fossil evidence, fossil and geological evidence, radioactive dating, tectonic geological evidence, DNA evidence. If these were not in broad agreement evolution would long ago have been laughed out of the university. While this is not a syllogistic proof I believe that the huge amount of congruent evidence stands as an equivalent of proof, and the test of new evidence time after time. An iffy evolution would have to be re-written every time a major new field of science begins to address it. On the contrary new evidence has been, I believe in every case, broadly supportive of the whole general theory. And scientists have tended to find that challenges to specific items have only strengthened the theory as they have perfected it.

> Finding a fossil of a unicorn with finely-developed wings would disprove evolution rather quickly

Exactly how? What would be the evidence that it couldn’t have evolved? Sorry, it doesn’t make sense at the moment.

A bunch of pretentious, self-important intellects clawing for the apex of their scientific career; i.e., publication in some glossy science magazine just, makes me ill.

Me too. Makes me wonder why Ahmanson keeps funding them.

Fortunately, though, the IDers have never MANAGED to get published in any glossy science magazine. Mostly, I guess, because their crap isn’t science. (shrug)

But their self-important, holier-than-thou (literally) attitude does indeed make me ill.

Another question: Mutations in the very early stage of embrionic development would then also lead the mutations that is inheritable in offspring?

Another question: Mutations in the very early stage of embrionic development would then also lead the mutations that is inheritable in offspring?

Yes, that is correct.

Why you would turn to KCFS for info is puzzling; look at their posts, they are controlled by a faction of agressive atheists (about 6 or 7 regulars) who specialize in viciously insulting selected targets.

Not much to learn there, except perhaps a little about how atheists “argue”.

Aggressive atheists? My mind summons forth an image of a rabid dog, snarling and snapping at the thought of theists, starkly contrasting the reality of the KCFS leadership, many of whom are Christian.

To oppose the efforts of the creationists does not require “aggressive atheism.” It merely requires citizenship, which KCFS has in spades.

BCH

agressive atheists

I’m not an atheist. (shrug)

But now you’ve made me curious. IDers have been telling us loudly for YEARS now (and testified in court, under oath) that ID is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Nothing at all whatsoever. No religious aims, goals or motives. None. Not a shred. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a one.

And now here you come barging in here shooting your mouth off about everyone being “atheists”.… .

I’m curious —- if ID isn’t about religion, then what difference does it make in this argument whether or not someone is or isn’t an atheist, or a baptist, or a buddhist, or a zoroastrian? The speed of light doesn’t change according to one’s religious views. So why does ID?

(sigh)

Thanks for once again demonstrating so clearly that (1) ID is nothing but religious apologetics, (2) IDers are simply lying to us when they claim it’s not, and (3) Judge Jones was perfectly correct when he concluded that it is.

And, thanks for once again demonstrating so clearly why ID will never win in court. In order to survive court challenges, ID *must*, absolutely *must*, deny that it has any religious aims, motives or goals. And as you are so kind as to demonstrate for everyone, IDers simply can’t do it. They don’t WANT to do it. All they want to do is preach —- and every time they preach, they undermine their own side. They KNOW, absolutely KNOW, that if they preach, they lose in court. So what do they do … ? They preach anyway. Indeed, none of them can go ten minutes without shouting “Jesus saves!!!” and thus giving the whole game away.

They are by far their own worst enemies.

DabveScot was ranting on about the wrong target — it isn’t their rejection of “common descent” that demonstrates the religious aims and goals of ID “theory”. It’s the utter complete total inability and unwillingness of IDers to shut their mouths about their religious opinions. And since ID is all ABOUT getting their religious opinions into other people’s heads, there’s not a thing they can do about it. ID is all about preaching, and there is simply no way for them to preach without letting the whole world KNOW they are preaching.

It’s why ID will never win in court.

i dont get it it confuses me

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Burt Humburg published on March 4, 2006 10:39 AM.

John West’s attempt at “swift-boating” sinks was the previous entry in this blog.

Lecture on ‘intelligent design’ flaw Monday is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter