Joined: Jan. 2006
|There are hundreds of scientists, many who are biologists in fields of work related to evolution who reject evolution. So your argument would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.|
I'd be really curious about the basis for this statement. After all, the DI can only find 400 total people willing to sign their statement, very very few of whom are biologists. And the statement they signed, far from rejecting evolution, actually says they are skeptical that natural selection explains all there is about evolution. But minus the (pretty obvious) political intent, nearly ANY biologist would sign such a statement. After all, it's commonly recognized that natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of evolution.
Note please that the statement *admits* evolution; it only expresses skepticism that one single mechanism is the sole mechanism.
Now, here you have "hundreds of scientists, MANY of them biologists" who REJECT evolution. Where'd you get them? The DI would very much love to hear from you!
And if you can NOT produce them, if you are just making this claim out of whole cloth, your argument has no merit.
|You can call it a theory with religious implications.|
Only in the vernacular use of "theory" to mean "wild guess, baseless hunch, or mindless preference." It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of being based on a solid body of evidence, making falsifiable predictions which have been well-tested (and honed as those falsifiable predictions have failed to pan out). In the scientific sense, ID has no theoretical basis whatsoever; it says nothing except "I refuse to accept that a feedback process operating over 4 billion years can produce what we see. I refuse! I refuse! So there!"
|There is no direct empirical evidence as of yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not true.|
You may not wish to lean too heavily on this argument - the Flying Spaghetti Monster may take offense!
It's generally considered rational to presume the absence of anything for which no evidence exists, and that those making positive claims (that something exist) use actual evidence in support, rather than simply saying "you can't prove me wrong."
I eagerly await your source of hundreds of biologists who reject evolution. PLEASE let us know, OK?