DD
If you note I actually addressed the points raised and their validity; I don't care if the people making the points self-describe themselves as evolutionists. The arguments were poor and in some cases quoted arguments that have been comprhensively refuted. I'm not interested in arguments from authority, I am interested in what can be proved.
My tone derives from the fact that if you can find the arguments you've quoted, you certainly are competent enough to find the refutations of those arguments. Instead, you make a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe you genuinely think they have a valid point, but you obviously haven't even checked-up on me informing you that Behe's arguments are false; his examples or irreducable complexity have been shown to be reducable (i.e. the components are still functional seperately as well as when working together in the claimed irreducable forms Behe concentrated on).
If you really want to figure stuff out, judge a tree by it's fruits, not by its label. The fruits of Creationism and ID-ism are rotten, regardless of who makes them. Of course, someone may come up with a decent argument that falsifies Evolution or otherwise impacts significantly on 'conventional wisdom'. Then science will have to change.
This is no problem; it is in science's nature to change, as it's based on evidence, and new evidence is discovered or existing evidence is re-analysed in light of other new knowledge or techniques. This means it has to change; but the 'new light' has new, hard evidence; not 'new light' coming from someone finding a new way to read a static text that allows them to retain existing beliefs, which is the basic modus-operandi of Creationism and in a dilluted form, ID-ism.
But no one HAS come up with such arguments. Bring them on, please, but make the effort to check you're not presenting arguments that cannot be disected and disregarded in fifteen minutes of web-based research. The knowledge you gain from this and the satisfaction you gain from that are well worth the effort, and you won;t have the obvious pointed out to you time and again.
I think you might not be aware of the ID-ism's founding principle, "The Wedge". This stratagy might seem a commendable defence of belief, but it is worrying. For a start, it is a stratagy to discredit or dispose a paradigm when it has no equivalently rigourous paradigm to replace it. It's not like they can say "Evolution is wrong, we can prove it like THIS". They try, but far not one argument advanced by the Creationist and ID community has gained even minor acceptence. They have produced some brilliant science - the refutations of Behe's irreducable complexity being prime examples of some beautiful science.
But evolution is esentially still the most valid theory for the development of life.
The start of life itself just has interesting theories, nothing is proved or demonstrated.
But cover-up? Here's some facts;
1/ Some scientists believe in god in a way which moves them to speculate that god is the guiding hand in evolution and the instugation of life.
2/ Everytime one of these scientists says they have an argument which proves their beliefs, their argument is shown to be flawed by the scientific community.
3/ Most of it is so bad it isn't published outside of Creationist and ID-ist circles.
4/ People who present flawed arguments get bad reputatiuons, especially if they do it frequently.
5/ Bodies of opinion (Creationists, Phrenologists) who as a group present flawed arguments get a bad reputation.
6/ As any professional with flawed work thoroughly deserves a bad reputation, be they plumber or biologist, there is nothing wrong with 4/ and 5/.
7/ Most scientists as per 1/ are more than bright enough to realise that because Creationism and ID has never come up with ONE good argument EVER, there will be a natural assumption by scientists in general that any more arguments in that vein will be of similar quality, and that the credibility of anyone making those arguments is will suffer. They are reluctant to go public due to the damage doing so will do to their reputations. Flat Earther geologists have EXACTLY the same problem.
8/ Thus they come up with 'clever' stratigms.
Now, to be blunt, this is THEIR problem. All it needs is ONE decent theory. Why general science gets attacked for Creationism and ID's failure to come up with decent theories is quite beyond me. It's almost as though they haven't got anything better to say.
To see through their "wicked godless scientists strangle promosing new science" propoganda requires a little study; it'n not about being smart, it is about knowing stuff.
You see, it has NOTHING to do with god.
Many people, scientists as well, believe in a more expansive god than the one at the heart of ID and Creationisms agendas.
Which god is bigger, a god like a potter, casting each thing by hand, or one who 'throws the dice' at the Big Bang just the right way to have things end up like this, or one who having set things along as they would be raises a hominid species to sentiency? A god that is part of all of us and everything? Unfortunately accepting god might be far grander than imagined by the goatherds means giving up on other stuff imagined by the goatherds.
This is why Creationism and ID exist. They're the defence mechanism of dogmatic, literalistic, organised and controlling religion. They might just be stopping many people thinking about god as it might be, rather than as they were bought up or would like to believe.
As I think we would all like to see the back of such religions, maybe we can find a common ground and I can suggest stuff to read so you can examine the arguments you've made yourself. Of course, if at the end of the day you're trying to prove Biblegod, we ain't gonna agree, but that's fine. Just as long as you understand this discussion has nothing to do with god's existence either way. Abiogenesis would not disprove god, just ideas of god that required god for life to start.
