Steve Shaw

Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One. It's rather odd, Snail, that you seem to spend around ten times longer quoting other people's opinions than you do offering your own. In fact, I'm having trouble recalling much of a structured argument from you on any topic (and I said that on purpose to give him another hour's homework trying to prove me wrong).

Note the subtlety of Steve's debating technique. I responded to a post by frogprince. I am sorry if you consider that to be stalking. Those opinions that I quoted represent my position pretty well and demonstrate that I am not alone in that position.. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I think this covers my point of view pretty well -

Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps.

Are you OK with that?

So let me provoke you. Tell me what, in its general thrust, is untrue about evolution. Tell me what burgeoning body of evidence is going to overturn the theory. Tell me how I'm demeaning the generality of science by saying that evolution is true. I only said evolution is true, not any other theory. I just happen to know enough about evolution to know that it can longer be denied by evidence and reason. Not in every detail, as I keep on saying, but in its general thrust. If you don't agree with that, let's have it, please.

Yet again, riddled with ambiguity. When you say "evolution" do you mean the process* or the theory? (There are, of course, a number of theories but let's not get too bogged down.) You accused me of talking crap for not getting the distinction right before.

I will attempt to answer the question I think you are asking. I have no reason to believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is untrue and have never, for one moment, suggested anything of the sort. I have already said this several times.

As a bit of an aside, did Darwin actually use the term evolution? Can't find my copy at the moment but the title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". He is actually talking about speciation rather than evolution.

You really are being a bit of a silly billy about this, aren't you? It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny evolution.

I think I am being remarkably sensible and patient in the face of someone whose primary method of debate is personal abuse and stonewalling bluster. I am not really talking about evolution, I am talking about science and the scientific method. About how it works and why it works and what, for me and I suspect for you, makes it better than religion. Science is not about declaring inviolable truths, it is about asking questions. As TIA said "Scientific Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all! ". Are you saying he is wrong? "Evolution is true." is dogma.

* According to one of my old university text books "Biological evolution means change in the characteristics of descendant populations of organisms."