Still legal to say this about Darwinism and “scientific racism”?

Sirius,

As to “things like antibiotic resistance,” some bacteria were resistant to the antibiotics all along. They merely increased in number.

Yes, this has been demonstrated.

Natural selection shows how we get more of what already exists; Darwin thought it explained the origin of new things.

Exactly. Darwin admitted that he hadn't identified a mechanism from where the variation came---it was only later attributed to mutation. -Q Querius

Regarding dating strata, biologists depend on geologists. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true (indicator fossils), and it's been demonstrated that strata can also be laid very quickly by a fast-moving current. Polystrate fossils such as trees also present a challenge. Finally there's stuff like this. What do you do when you find fossils of sloths unexpectedly in marine layers? Easy. Check this out: http://www.livescience.com/44023-aquatic-sloths-had-dense-bones.html So, ask yourself how much of the "findings" by the researchers were pure speculation . . . -Q Querius

Sirius: " Natural selection shows how we get more of what already exists; Darwin thought it explained the origin of new things." No he didn't. But thanks for playing. Acartia_bogart

As to the "fossil record preserved in geologic strata," well, we used to see old automobile graveyards beside the road. Does that mean old autos were not designed? As to "things like antibiotic resistance," some bacteria were resistant to the antibiotics all along. They merely increased in number. Natural selection shows how we get more of what already exists; Darwin thought it explained the origin of new things. That hasn't been shown. Sirius

Acartia_Bogart, so even 'strong' evidence for Darwinism is in fact not strong at all. What evidence is provided by these other mechanisms of evolution you speak of? Box

As someone who once believed in Darwinism, I'd have to say the what convinced me at the time was the fossil record preserved in geologic strata. I don't remember encountering any scientific racism when I was in school, but I do remember reading about the history of eugenics, and how evolutionary theory was misused at various times in Germany, the U.S., Australia, and so on. There were several factors that later convinced me otherwise, but I would say that the single most powerful evidence for Intelligent Design is the astounding chemical complexity and DNA coding structure that makes life possible. Anyone with a basic understanding of chemical cycles and the mathematics of probability should be able to see the problem with Darwinism. -Q Querius

Sirius, I don't know what the 'strongest' evidence is for Darwinian evolution any more than creationist could point to the single strongest piece of evidence for creationism. . But one strong piece of evidence would be things like antibiotic resistance, nylonase, etc. But, keep in mind, I have limited the answer to Darwinism, which only addresses one mechanism involved in evolution. Acartia_bogart

Having said that, the American Thinker piece, which is mainly about the politically correct refusal to say anything critical about Islam, is really terrific. The MSM would be unable to find, commission or write anything half as good. Sirius

to Acardia Bogart: What would you say is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution? If you can confine it to one paragraph I would much appreciate it. Can you tell me (as Colin Patterson once asked), "Any one thing, any one thing that is true," anything that confirms the theory? Hope you don't just say (e.g.) that the whole of nature demonstrates the truth of natural selection. That's the way Darwinians THINK, but I want something more concrete. "Box" seems to imply that Darwinism is little more than a deduction from materialism. Darwin himself was a materialist, so maybe that is the key to the problem. What do you think. Sirius

Acartia_bogart, it's a strange phenomenon, isn't it? You and I know that materialists lose every intellectual debate. I can't think of one single issue where materialists can stand their ground and fight back. However the consensus seems to be unaware of this fact - at least here in Europe. Box

Box: "The funny thing is that the same goes for Darwinism. Everybody, everyone who gave the matter some thought, knows that there is something fundamentally wrong with it however the consensus claims the opposite." This is a claim not supported by fact. The people who think the most about evolutionary theory are evolutionary biologists, geneticists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, medical doctors, etc., do not support your claim that they think there is something fundamentally wrong with current evolutionary theory. I know that I grew up in an era where math was de-emphasized, but I always thought that there was a huge difference between 'very small minority' and 'everyone'. Acartia_bogart

The American Thinker article is very critical towards political correctness towards islam. The other day it occurred to me, that everyone, who pays a little attention, knows that there is something fundamentally wrong with islam. However that is contrary to the consensus, at least here in Europe. The funny thing is that the same goes for Darwinism. Everybody, everyone who gave the matter some thought, knows that there is something fundamentally wrong with it however the consensus claims the opposite. Box