Forward Biased (Less-than-current Events)

Looky here, folks

Every now and then, in the course of human events (at least when surfing the net) I'll come across a site that's both new to me and that I think is a real gem.  I always delight in sharing these with you folks.

The EvC Forum is one of those gems.  It's not a blog, but a message board/web forum devoted to the issue of Evolution vs Creation.  After spending a couple of hours perusing several threads and topics on this board, I can say that it is truly a rare find in the midst of hundreds of message boards/blogs that are mostly echo chambers for the views of the founder.

This one, most certainly, is not an echo chamber.  Oh, no.

The founder is, from what I can tell, both a Christian and a Creationist, but this does NOT significantly bias the board in that direction.  And sure, you'll find a few cases of people who have no interest in really debating anything, only trying to press forth their own views.  But they are quite in the minority.

For starters, try taking a look at this thread.  I would personally be proud to have built and administered this forum, considering the quality of most of the posts there.  Sure, there's some "name-calling and feces-flinging," as one reader once said, but the quantity and quality of the good posts—on both sides of this issue—far, far outweigh anything like that.

By the way, the way I discovered this site was by checking my refer logs, particularly those refers that come from search engines.  One of these days I've got to write a post on the search terms that bring people here.  Most are predictable, but a few are really bizarre.  And mostly, if I do say so myself, it's gratifying to know that I actually show up high enough in these search engines that people actually can find me that way.

"Get over it."

Dan Melson's Sunday post up at Searchlight Crusade has several interesting items that are worthy of your attention, but its leading item really got me to thinking.  A lot.

Here's the website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Here's the news story: Couple Sues Operators of Evolution Site

Three words: Get. Over. It.

Evolution may not be scientific fact, but it is a scientific theory supported by as much evidence as relativity or quantum mechanics. It was formulated based upon observed evidence. It can be debunked at any time by facts which actually contradict it. We just don't know of any. It is true that it is only the best idea we have so far and that it is possible that we'll come up with something better some day. But thus far subsequent discoveries (in multiple disciplines, yet! Engineering. Mathematics. Physics. Genetics.) have strengthened and reinforced evolutionary theory and our understanding of it. The fershluggin' Catholic Church, of all the world famous stick in the mud institutions, accepts evolutionary theory as the explanation which best fits observed facts.

Get. Over. It.

(The fourth sentence, "Evolution may not be scientific fact," even understates Dan's case.  Actually, there is an aspect of evolution that is a fact.  Evolutionary changes occur in nature.  Period.  What the Theory of Evolution does is put together how these changes have worked together over the ages to produce what we see today, and this theory cannot yet explain every observation that is made.  But there aren't a lot of such "holes" in the theory, and anyway, "holes" hardly invalidate a theory.  Falsification does, and we know of no observed facts which contradict this Theory.)

Now, this is the sort of thing that I hesitate to say, because I have some very good friends who disagree with me, but I call 'em as I see 'em, and if I didn't, you'd have no respect for me at all.  Creationists and I.D. ("In Denial") proponents remind me, in two important ways, of political leftists:  they interpret facts and observations in such a way as to promote their beliefs, to the point of ignoring and attempting to hide facts which are difficult to fit into their worldview, and they (amongst themselves) repeat the same untruths over and over, long past the point where these untruths were disproved, until they are believed to be fact by most adherents and even convince some outsiders.  Examples:  "Bush lied us into war," and "the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution."

I am beginning to think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (pseudo) argument will never be let go by some people.  Ever.  It matters not that their own argument would prove (if it were true) that reproduction would be impossible, even life itself.  I guess they just don't think that far—they go as far as is necessary to make the point they want to make and seem to stop there.  William A. Dembski, in his "law of conservation of information," basically recasts this old argument in new "information age" terms in support of I.D. 

I.D.ers will claim, as they have for years, that evolution is "only a theory," that "random chance" could never have produced what we see today, that there is precious little real oberved evidence that supports evolution, that no, or at most very few, "transitional" fossils exist, that speciation has never been observed, that evolution is not falsifiable, that it is an "atheistic" belief system or philosophy that is corrupting our society, and that non-evolutionists have been given "short shrift" in scientific journals through a system of prejudicial discrimination.  It's easy to debunk these statements, but they keep coming right back to them over and over again, recycling these until some new "scientific" discovery is made which they then co-opt as their newest rallying cry.

Rob and I have had some terrific debates over this issue, but I never have to make any point that others haven't made over and over again.

Now, please note carefully:  I said that Creation/I.D. proponents remind me of leftists in two ways only, not that they are similar to leftists, or that they are in any way leftists.  Actually, if I'm honest with myself, I could find instances where I've fallen into the same traps, if only because they're easy ones to fall into.  But there are people who occasionally fall into a trap, and then there are people who seem to live there. 

Also, I have a great deal of sympathy (or something like that) for Creationists/I.D.ers, because I was one of them until recently, and I hardly morphed from an "ignorant moron" into a "paragon of intelligence and reason" overnight.  This is why I don't really believe that all, or even most, supporters of Creation/I.D. are merely ignorant fools.  But that's another post.

Open post/thread

Rob and I have quite a thread going on regarding evolution and its scientific verifiability, so I've decided to move it here.

One other reader has already weighed in, and you are all welcome to do the same if you like, as well as posting about anything else on your mind.

Oh—and if any bloggers want to do the "open trackback" thing here, such as you do at other bloggers like Mudville Gazette, feel free.  I'll have to post them here manually, but that's no problem because I don't expect a deluge of trackbacks.  Just know that there may be a few minutes before they appear on the front page here (or longer if I'm taking a nap).

Please include a courtesy link either to this post or the main page in whatever article you track back to.