More Judegement Rebuttals (Slides 6 and 7)

Slide 6, I'm not sure what to make of this one. Science has never claimed other than naturalistic explanations. Their objective has always excluded supernatural explanations and they have made no bones about it. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation and it's currently the only explanation that fits the observed facts and evidence. Every other explanation requires to either bring in the supernatural or disregard facts and evidence to be even the slightest bit plausible. The problem is once you start tossing facts and evidence to the side, you have no credibility -- case in point the Discovery Institute.

What I do see in Slide 6 is another attempt to equate belief in a religious philosophy with belief in a scientific theory. Once again my argument is that the two are not the same thing! Belief in science is acceptance. As Dr. Kay said (dean of University of California, San Diego's Division of Biological Sciences) " . . . it is more accurate to type that they are convinced or adhere to the body of evidence, rather than "believe" in it."

Slide 7 starts off with a very common error on their part. Darwin didn't use Haekel's drawings. It would have been rather hard since Darwin published the "Origin of the Species" in 1859, and "The Descent of Man" in 1871, whereas Haeckel's embryo drawings did not appear until 1874. But since when did facts get in the way of the Discovery Institute's writings. It is a common fallacy that many who seek to tear up Evolution use this as ammunition, too bad it's like firing blanks. OK, learn how to read a calendar!

It continues with an attempt to claim part of evolutionary biology as it's own. I guess when you can't convince people you are right because the evidence doesn't support you, change your tune and co-opt the evidence.

While intelligent design is certainly compatible with common ancestry, PBS ignores the possibility that such recurring fundamental genetic programs across species could also be explained as the result of common design, i.e. the re-usage of genetic programs that fulfill the functional requirements of animal development.

While I agree God is omnipotent we have one theory that traces genetic evidence and it includes experimentation that can show the track of gene flow . . .and then you have ID which says God/Designer did it with no evidence. Which one is science going to accept? As Homer Simpson would say "Doh!"

The rest of slide 7 is a reiteration of the God and the Gaps story. There are gaps in evolutionary knowledge, so evolution must be wrong. I have to salute a group that can keep saying the same things over and over again and refuse to see the direction things are going. Yes there are gaps, but fewer gaps than there was a decade a go, and many fewer than there was in Darwin's day. The number and size of the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller. You keep trying to force God into those gaps, where does your argument go when the gaps disappear?

I can see it in the near future. The fossil record is complete, we have traced the gene flow from the earliest single-celled organism to modern man, we have established the Theory of Evolution is correct in every particular and the Discovery Institute will still be on the sidelines saying "Well the designer created Evolution like he did everything else, so we're still right -- so there!"