Quote
Quote
Quote
I'm sorry but the premise here is faulty. So many scientists accept the ToE because it explains the evidence, not because of an evil conspiracy.
A good historian doesn't accept assumptions as firm conclusions without investigating. We have evidence of several motives, so we can pretty much rule out your single-motive model, at least until we see some evidence.
Motives for what? What on earth are you on about?
Motive, as in why people do the things they do. Your words were included directly above my sentence. How could this be missed?
Quote
Are you now going to attempt to show that all scientists who accept evolution, which is the vast majority, have been duped by an evil conspiracy, and that all the evidence they accept is lies and hoaxes? Please, offer some proof for this. I'd be really interested to see it.
And why don't you wait until I make such an attempt before requesting proof, eh?
Quote
If evolution is an evil conspiracy which does not explain the facts, then how else do you explain:

-- the sorting of the fossil record
-- variation among species, increasing over time
-- genetics showing that most animals share a large proportion of the same genes
I always endeavor to explain things without resorting to circular reasoning, for starters. But I'm not interested in venturing off topic here.
Quote
This has got nothing to do with racism or eugenics. It's looking at how well the theory fits the facts. If you are unable to give satisfactory alternative explanations for the above, then you cannot substantiate your claim that evolution is nothing but an evil conspiracy.
If the history indicates evolutionism has nothing to do with racism or eugenics, let it speak.

Quote
Quote
It would be helpful if you could find evidence of a scientist who was committed to the theory of creation, and rejected it on the basis of evidence.

You can find stories today about scientists who decided to become creationists, or creationists who decided to become scientists. I'm not sure why you seem to want me to supply some 19-century miraculous conversion story. Not being an expert on the 19th century but knowing a bit about human beings, I would hazard a guess that those who thought Genesis should be interprested literally might have felt threatened by the ToE and resisted it. Younger people, the next generation of scientists, would have have been more accepting of the idea, and so it went. It usually takes a bit of time for a theory to take a foothold, and blow old and cherished ideas away, but in the case of evolution it didn't take that long.
I agree that a replacement process does appear more likely to have taken place than a conversion process. This is consistent with the evidence we have so far.
Quote
What's more, it is erroneous to blame Darwin for a sudden shift from creationism to naturalism and rationalism, and he was not the first to observe that living things have changed through time. This shift was taking place before he was born. You can read
here about pre-Darwinian scientific ideas about biological evolution.
I have already acknowledged that the ideas were around before Darwin. The question is: how did they suddenly become popular, both generally and in scientific circles? Why weren't these things already accepted?

And I think "credit" would be a more neutral term than "blame". Even so, Darwin didn't get it done on his own.
Quote
Quote
Evidence-based conversion is looking more and more like an unsupportable myth.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution here on this forum. You're just choosing to close your eyes, plug your ears and scream, "I can't hear you."
No. I'm waiting for some on-topic evidence. You yourself have started arguing in favor of replacement rather than conversion, so I fail to understand your motive for complaining if that's how others see it.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson