Unless I miss my guess, probably very few from the churches of Christ.

Not because they disagree with the tenets, but because they will not sign up with others with whom they may have other doctrinal issues.

But I could be wrong...[/color]

Todd-

Apparently I owe you a couple of apologies:

1.  I apparently overlooked your reply.  I am sorry I did for they are usually most entertaining, and

2.   Apparently my premise was not explicit enough.


This is actually the "game" that you two have been playing since the beginning of this thread.

You have absolutely no idea what information the signers are basing their opinion on, yet you dismiss them out of hand because they are not "specialists."  Yet we are supposed to accept that any opinion you post, and reference you cite, is the "last word" on the subject.

BTW, sometimes we share the same opinion on some issues…

But that don’t make you right, either… :D

 -Your squire first posted a remark that the anti-Darwinist list was "crap."

-Then he explained that that was not his own evaluation, but that of the NY Times,

-Then he explained that it was just a casual remark by some anonymous "commentator."

How am I to give any credibility to any "opinion" of his?

BTW, I hate to bore you further about the Darwinism issue, since ageism is much more interesting, but I hope you have noticed the irony of the "crap" designation…

The proponents the evolutionary theory would, without hesitation or reservation, especially in front of school boards, insist that without a proper appreciation and acceptance of the theory, biology, anthropology, immunology, genetics, medicine, even behavior research and political science, would make little sense.

Yet, when experts in these many fields, with much publicity, sign off that there are substantial weaknesses in the theory, suddenly the wagons are circled in real tight, and we are told that only those who with credentials in certain biological specialties should have any credibility. :doh:[/color]

Hi, Norm.

I notice that - as usual - you take things out of context and then use the lack of context to distort what is or is not being done.

Norm, look at the context of this discussion thread.

Any particular argument that these men have on some particular subject is not what is being discussed. We are indeed discussing the mere opinion of these men in the context of a statement being presented by the Discovery Institute that these men have apparently formally expressed agreement with.

Norm, keep this context of this discussion thread in mind.

I seriously doubt I have ever stated or implied that we can just dismiss someone's argument on a subject (in the context of discussing science) out of hand simply because he or she has not engaged in professional science research in the area being discussed, or that I have ever stated or implied that you or anyone else is "supposed to accept...any opinion (I) post." So you have misrepresented me on that as well. (And, Norm, you make these kinds of badly misrepresentative statement an awful lot.) Therefore I haven't played any such game.

Norm, please keep this context of this discussion thread in mind. Context is important in regard to the meaning of what is being stated.

The statement put out by the Discovery Institute is nothing more than a list of scientists who have for the most part never even conducted relevant professional science research in the areas in question. (There is also the other issue about problems with accuracy of certain people being on that list, and there is also another issue about just what the statement itself is really saying in the first place, all of which I have already addressed very early on in this discussion thread.) As such, the statement is not an argument. It is a political ploy. Ostensibly, with the wording it has, its purpose is to get people to think that in the scientific community there are some serious questions about whether or not Darwinian evolution can fully explain biological evolution. But a lot of people don't even get that mechanisms of Darwinian evolution and the general concept of biological evolution are two independent concepts. Indeed, as has already been pointed out elsewhere, virtually all biologists/evolutionists think there is more to the mechanisms of evolution than just Darwinian evolution, so the statement itself is rather misleading. But anyway the purpose of the statement and the "500+ Scientists" because of what it is and who the scientists actually are is nothing more than an opinion poll. Which is why it lacks credibility.

Norm, keep this context of this discussion thread in mind.

Regards,
Todd Greene
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter[/color]

Insinuation based on unsubstantiated premise that evolution is strongly held to by scientists in relevant fields just for some kind of "dogmatic" reasons rather than for scientific reasons. Typical Normism going on here. He seems to enjoy making these kinds of insinuations a lot.

In other words, we should pay attention to the opinion of a guy who is anti-evolution because of his religious beliefs and we should ignore those people who actually work with evolution in some relevant field of science. According to the anti-evolution creationist Norm, whose opinion is based on his own religious beliefs.

Plus it's pretty ironic seeing a guy attacking science on the basis of his religious beliefs complaining about dogma.

— Todd Greene[/color]