cyborgVision, your commments about wanting "give some helpful pointers about critically approaching any subject" are generally good. And it's true that "that evolution just as religion can generate almost religion-like following." However, that has nothing to do with the science of evolution as such, but is a problem with how some people use the science, or perhaps, misuse it. Science of all forms has been misused by plenty of people. Hitler's henchmen misused medical science, but that's no black mark against medical science itself. Some advocates of evolution use it as a means of denigrating religion, but that's a complicated question that I will barely touch on in this post.
I want to point out, as I'm sure you're well aware, that the basic notion of evolution -- that populations of plants and animals have changed radically over long periods of time -- is as well established as any other historical science. The fossil record proves that populations have changed over time, and radiometric and other forms of dating techniques establish the time scale. To disagree with these things is like disagreeing with the physics that resulted in the atomic bomb.
What is not so well established -- and what is argued about, often vehemently within the science community -- is the mechanism of evolution. Since in principle there is a range of possible mechanisms, from mutation acted on by natural selection, to direct creation by some unknown, extremely intelligent designers of life, the problem is to figure which is correct.
As you know, in every science the primary methodology to figure things out is to assume that the universe works according to what some would call "natural law" (although this is a misnomer) rather than according to the whims of invisible god-beings that inhabit the air or material objects. Thus, we explain gravity as being an inherent property of our universe, not as the result of some god or gods pulling on material objects. Can anyone prove that gravity is not the result of the latter? No, but most people agree that it's a pretty stupid idea. Similarly, evolutionary scientists look for naturalistic explanations for the evolution of life, rather than supernaturalistic ones. Can they prove that a naturalistic explanation is correct, rather than a supernaturalistic one? No, but the fact that most people are trained from early childhood to believe in some kind of God or gods prevents a lot of them from similarly agreeing that a naturalistic explanation can be correct.
You're correct that many religionists don't engage in rational thinking about evolution. That's why they're rightly viewed with suspicion, or as outright nutjobs, by rational people. Young-earth creationism is clearly irrational, because it goes against too many well-established facts. Old-earth creationism, in its many forms, doesn't pose many coherent explanations for our universe aside from "God did it". The recent notion of "Intelligent Design" does no better, since it's largely a sophisticated argument from ignorance -- "we don't know how evolution could possibly be, so it must not be so."
Most scientists, or educated laymen like me, who know something about evolution and have engaged creationists in discussion, quickly learned that arguing with them is like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses about problems with their religion. They usually demonstrate extreme ignorance of the subject, and refuse to learn, and keep coming back with either the same nonsense, or just piles and piles of more nonsense. They present a lot of irrational and non-rational arguments. So how can anyone who knows the subject take them seriously?
Take Forscher here. He seems a nice enough person, but demonstrates woeful ignorance of the details of evolution that he writes about. For example, he claims that it has been demonstrated that species have limits of variablity, as proved by sterile hybrids. But he seems not to know about the massive radiation of one or a few founder species of fruitfly in the Hawaiian islands into some 800 non-interbreeding species over a period of many millions of years. Nor does he know about the radiation of cichlid fishes in certain large African lakes like Victoria into hundreds of different species over a period of several million years. There are plenty of other examples of quite recent adaptive radiations. Forscher's mistake is in applying the experience of a few decades of experimental biology to what occurs in the natural world over millions of years.
Forscher also brings up that classic creationist chestnut, "true transitional species just do not occur in the fossil record." Well of course, unless one defines "transitional species" upfront (which creationists never do, so far as I can see), that's a completely meaningless statement, because no matter what examples are trotted out from the fossil record, creationists can just narrow the definition and can say, "See! Now you have two gaps to explain!" While archaeopteryx has been called a transitional species, new fossil discoveries of ancient birds indicate that it probably was not, since more advanced birds seem to have been roughly contemporary with it. But this is not a problem for the notion of transitional species, since it merely means that one possible example has been eliminated. No particular suprise, since the fossil record is demonstrably spotty. Furthermore, Forscher neglected to mention the far more important issue that archaeopteryx was a mosaic of dinosaurian and avian features -- something that creationists absolutely hate to discuss. In other words, archaeopteryx had some features exclusive to certain dinosaurs, and some features exclusive to birds, which perfectly illustrates the notion of evolution.
Funkyderek gave a nice, very detailed answer to Forscher's post, but the latter responded with nothing more than a wrong-headed complaint about being personally attacked. To be taken seriously, Forscher should have responded to Funkyderek's arguments, along with making his complaint. So you can see my point about the futility of trying to intelligently discuss anything with most ardent creationists.
But Forscher wasn't even right about being personally attacked. All that Funkyderek said was that he hoped Forscher's fellow creationists could do better in presenting valid arguments than the ones he just got finished demonstrating were uninformed and/or wrong. And I've shown above why some of them are wrong. Is it any wonder that evolutionists get jaded after dealing with people like that?
In a later post, Forscher complained "that a number of the commentaries here illustrate why creationists are so loathe to try to engage the other side. Already, commentators have questioned our intelligence, our knowledge, etc... It is the old game of attacking the person rather than the message." But he hasn't got the sense to see that he well illustrated why evolutionists generally question the intelligence and knowledge of creationists -- either they fail to respond to criticisms at all, or fail to respond substantively, or they engage in precisely what Forscher complained about but turned right around and did himself -- he wrongly attacked the person of Funkyderek with a dishonest claim.
Later, Forscher illustrated the way that far too many creationists fail to grasp simple analogies, in an exchange so out of touch with reality that it's amusing. Funkyderek had said:
Creationism is not "the other view". It's like flat-earthism. The first time you heard somebody say that if the earth was round, people would fall off the bottom, you might be polite and explain gently and carefully about how gravity works. The hundredth time you heard the same tired argument - even if it was from a new source - you might be a little less helpful.
Now, Funkyderek might have been more clear, saying something like:
Creationism is not the only other view; there are other views. Furthermore, arguing about creationism is like arguing about flat-earthism in the sense that you hear the same tired old arguments again and again, even though they've been refuted time and again. The first time you heard somebody say that if the earth was round, people would fall off the bottom, you might be polite and explain gently and carefully about how gravity works. The hundredth time you heard the same tired argument - even if it was from a new source - you might be a little less helpful.
But I had no trouble understanding what he meant, the first time I read it. But Funkyderek's point went completely over Forscher's head, who replied:
Flat-earthism? I think you just proved my point Funkydereck. If that wasn't a personal jab at those you don't agree with, what is? And that IS the problem.
And of course, Forscher simply ignored Funkyderek's comment:
Now, if you have a compelling argument, please make it; but don't expect to be able to talk nonsense here and not get called on it.
Both Funkyderek and Abaddon explained this to Forscher, but in true creationist fashion, he ignored it, and went on (in the post immediately below yours) to repeat his error. In that post, Forscher made a typically horrible creationist argument. I'll refocus it slightly, so that readers can see how bad it really is:
Another thing that makes it a little hard for flat-earthists to articulate their postion well is that they just aren't being allowed into graduate programs in the natural sciences on this side of the pond. The few who do make it through the cracks find themselves weeded out pretty quickly if they are discovered. As was pointed out, round-earthism gets the same kind of devotion as any religious doctrine, and since the round-earthists now control the scientific community, they enforce conformity to their views with the same zeal that characterizes fanatical religionists. Thus, we had the spectacle of an editor of a respected scientific magazine being castigated for allowing an article on scientific flat-earthism to appear in that magazine.
The point is that mere complaints like this don't prove anything, and so are useless. The only thing that matters is the facts about the subject at hand. And so far, Forscher and whatever other creationists have commented on this thread, have provided no facts whatsoever.
Finally, Forscher said: "I'll confine my comments to a rebuttal of the facts which I am going to take a little time to prepare." Somehow, I think he's going to exactly that: try to rebut the facts.
AlanF
