That’s a fools errand because the term evolution is based on hypothetical goo to begin with. Given the structure of typical Darwinian reasoning: “If I couldn’t imagine a sequence of events that seem natural to me, then my theory would absolutely break down. Yet see how I can always imagine something.” Darwinian theorizing will remain stuck in goo.
“No critic of evolution has ever come remotely close.”
Only if you’re using the term evolution the way popularizers of Darwinian creation myths do because they use to term to mean anything from all change that has ever happened in the Cosmos to a minute change in the size of finch beaks. To those adhere to “evolution” as a metaphysical system it seems that it is the be all, end all, which makes the term itself an “evolving” form of equivocation. When evolution is that sort of be all, end all to a person it doesn’t really make sense to try to reason with them. After all, intelligent selection is expelled from such a mind as it imagines more “natural selection.” Its own words and symbols and signs aren’t an artifact of intelligence by intelligent design, instead their words trace back to natural selection operating on some worms. A mind of the synaptic “gaps” which believes that may as well be excrement, so one may as well try to reason with worms.
“The default-judgement is against creationism, not evolution.”
Is that just what your Mommy Nature selected for you to say or do you think that you actually just say something?
“One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea?”
It’s ironic given that the Darwinian creation myth is often propped up by relatively “MASSIVE” amounts of State funding, from PBS to textbooks (which have contained frauds that biologists have generally failed to correct.) Sometimes it seems that they’re little better than the eugenics movement, probably because they adhere to the same root philosophy of Life.
“It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.”
That’s true. History shows that Darwinian reasoning was generally propped up based on theological arguments favorable to naturalism, not empirical evidence. So arguments of this structure: “I don’t think God would make things this way.” “God wouldn’t get his hands dirty like that or something.” “How could a good God make cats to play with mice?” and so on and so forth are used to justify the Darwinian tendency of citing your own imagination as evidence. E.g. “God wouldn’t make the panda’s thumb like this but I can imagine something about it, so that’s evidence for the theory of natural selection.”
It seems that Darwinists are frightened of any answer to their “panda’s thumb” type of negative theology in some form of positive theology. Negative theology has always been used to prop up the Darwinian creation myth, yet supposedly these little fellows who want to crawl back in the womb of Mommy Nature are being so “scientific” that theology has nothing to do with it.
“Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution.”
Except when people use the term evolution to describe all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos. It’s an interesting little question though, for what defines change as change?
“Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did.”
Now I suppose “Evolution” is just about a sentient being…. why just the other day Evolution told me that it was about to naturally select something for me.
“And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.”
Translation: “Even among those of us who make rules allowing us to cite our imaginations as naturalistic evidence (naturally enough), the origin of life is still a problem. In fact, it’s enough of a problem that we almost can’t imagine anything right now…. but just wait a little while and we may be naturally selected to imagine something.”
For some Nature selects, Nature calls… and excrement happens…