Y'all a jus' so much fuuun!

Note that my description of evolution here has consistently been:

[color:"blue"] Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. [/color]

That definition is in my very first post on this forum: it was to you on your thread.

Now we were talking on that thread about ethics: is this another example of christian ethics? To misrepresent what I said? Phylogeny - the tree of life - is a result of evolution, the “macro” effect if you will, but it is not the process nor the theory nor the science of evolution.

Or is it just basic incomprehension of concepts? Delusion? Professor Dawkins talked about the possible reasons for misunderstanding or misrepresenting evolution when he said:

[color:"purple"]"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."[/color]

Once you've been told the truth you can no longer be ignorant, so that would leave the other three. Now, I find him a little heavy on the antitheist side of the issues, but I have to wonder if there are any other reasons that can make people (a) make false statements about evolution and (b) about what other people say. Particularly any valid reasons.

Um, because it is?

A straw man is defined as
Russ' “definition” does not even begin to describe what evolution is as a process, as a theory or as a science, therefore it is a straw man. It's a slogan that helps define his argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy (and one that's a different issue).

With another logical fallacy. It's an invalid construction this time:

All {A} is {B}
{B} exists
Therefore {A} exists

All designers make designs
Design exists
Therefore a designer must exist.

The problem is that there is {C} that is also {B} and that is not{A}, and the existence of {C} means you have {B} but cannot conclude {A}. The construction is invalid and it leads to an invalid conclusion.

Design happens naturally, in snow flakes, in crystals, in the orbits of planets around stars, all occurring by natural processes with no designer needed to explain them. Therefore {C} exists and you cannot conclude {A} from the existence of {B}.

I hope that helps.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.