The politicization of science has serious consequences that hinder finding the truth:

[St. Paul/Minneapolis archbishop]
“Flynn’s dogmatism reflects the totalitarian attitude of his fellow activists. Skeptical scientists are called “deniers” and treated as if they were denying the historicity of the Holocaust. Worse, they are increasingly unable to procure research funding.”

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, told Toronto’s Financial Post in February. “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

On the other hand, the Financial Post reported that American scientists who support the hype receive $1.7 billion in grants every year.

Some evidence not being heard:

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming,” Evans said. “We have the missing (human) signature (in the atmosphere), we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years.”

“Dr. Vincent Gray, a climatologist who reviewed all of the IPCC’s drafts since the panel was formed in 1990 and who shares a Nobel Prize awarded to the panel, was even more emphatic:”

“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”

And yet the UN FCC supertanker was refueled in Bali and is proceeding with incredible inertia!

This has amazing parallels with the politicization and funding of evolution vs seeking the full truth.

I have Spetner’s Not By Chance and ReMine’s Biotic Message. I’m not a ‘standard’ guy so I’ll probably read Sanford’s book next.

This site may help understand the implausibility of evolution from the information standpoint.

Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
By William A. Dembski, Michael Ruse

http://books.google.com/books?.....2QYXaXbOHE

Both camps like to switch back and forth between 2 claims. First, environmentalists will claim that humans are causing global warming. When it turns out that there is no global warming, they switch to the second claim that humans are causing ‘climate change.’ Heads I win, tails you lose. The first claim, that they can explain an upward trend, is the hook.

I suggest you come up with a definition of evolution. The official one of neo Darwinism and used in biology is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.

Despite what neo Darwinism claims, evolution has a direction. While some species persist for tens of millions of years without any visible change others appear and the new ones seem more sophisticated. The number of cell types for example has gone from about 30-40 during the Cambrian Explosion to about 220 today. Each new cell type represents a new capability for the organism.

So there is two ways to look at evolution. Find your own way but don’t beg the question of what causes it by your definiton.

This really should be not part of this thread since it is on the pope and global warming.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

I should point out that the global warmers pull off a similar trick. oh it’s now cold? well aha you see the real problem is “climate change”

I find it very hard to believe that an ape could give birth to a human being. How? Immaculate conception? And even if it could, I doubt that such a “freak” would last very long, let alone take over a population.

Anyway, to answer the question: One of the central tenets of the “modern synthesis of evolutionary biology” as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is not the case. As such, Darwinism does not have exclusive positive evidence for any mechanism to explain evolution, and scientists are in the middle of formulating a new hypothesis, while ID has exclusive positive evidence that intelligence is capable of producing such mechanisms. In addition, ID also has the design detection method EF, which also provides exclusive positive evidence for ID since it has never produced a false positive (and if it has it should be simple to provide an example along with the relevant calculations). There’s also IC. I could go on but it’s rather obvious at this point that ID has exclusive positive evidence for it while Darwinism does not. And, no, universal common descent is not exclusive positive evidence for Darwinism since UCD is also compatible with ID.