Evolutionism is Science?
1. Observation of the facts.
These would be such things, in the case of evolution, as the
consistent nested hierarchy of life (first noted but not explained by
the creationist Linnaeus), the biogeographical distribution of living
and fossil species, the existence of parahomologous (similar
for dissimilar functions) and analogous (dissimilar "designs" for
similar functions) organs in living things, faunal succession and
transitional fossils in the fossil record, and so forth. There are a
great mass of facts that fall under these various categories, from,
e.g. the skull ER1470. which some creationists call a "fully-formed
human" and others call a "fully-formed ape" (but which none
acknowledge to be clearly intermediate between human and nonhuman
apes), or shared pseudogenes between humans and other primates. None
of this data is explicable under the assumption of recent separate
creation; some of it (e.g. feathered dinosaur fossils or fossil
with legs) clearly struck creationists as unexpected and in bad
2. Measurability of the facts.
Sequence similarity between the DNA of different species is quite
measureable, as are rates of change in gene frequency in populations
under different selective regimes, as are both the brain dimensions
successive hominid species and the rate of change in brain size over
time, as are quite a lot of features of the data adduced to support
3. Repeatability of the facts.
Normally, what scientists ask for is "repeatability of observations."
It's not quite clear what you're asking for with "repeatability of
facts." Do you mean repeating the course of evolution from basal
archosaurs to birds? That was a unique, unrepeatable event, but
so is every arson or homicide investigated with the techniques of
forensic science. Indeed, at a fine enough level of detail, even the
simplest chemistry experiment cannot be repeated perfectly (done with
the same exact atoms at the exact same point in time and space a
second time). On the other hand, mutations are repeatedly
as is reproduction, inheritance, and the effects of natural
selection. It seems to me that evolutionary theory has
of facts" to the same extent as other sciences.
Evolution cannot provide any of the three.
False, false, and, again, false. You at least have the virtue of
Therefore evolutionism is just another man made religion...
Here you are wrong on two counts. First, of course, you are mistaken
or lying about evolutionary theory and the applicability of
methods to evolutionary questions, as noted above. But even if you
were correct (a conceivable if yet unevidenced state of affairs), an
unscientific claim is not a religious claim. Few mentally normal
people consider that, e.g. astrology or homeopathy are religions.
Karl Popper famously denounced both Marxism and Freudian psychology
untestable by scientific standards, yet never suggested that either
was a religious claim or system.
You seem to be assuming that any claim that contradicts a religious
claim is, itself, a religious claim. There are creationists who
insist, on biblical grounds, that the sun orbits the Earth, but this
does not make heliocentric astronomy a religion, "man-made" or
Evolutionism consists of fairy tales, just so stories, wishful
thinking, science fiction but never 1. 2. 3. facts.
Repetition of empty claims does not fill them with evidence. You
really need, if you wish to even begin to make you case, to
which evolutionary claims do you dispute, and how do you deal with
evidence offered to support them?
Don't forget to couch your arguments in name calling now...(which
indicates that your have no argument and you have lost).
If you insist. You are a coward, an ignoramus and a poltroon who has
neither the ability nor the inclination to defend his assertions, yet
is offended that they are treated with no more respect that might be
granted any primate hurling his feces about the internet. If you
wish, you may show me mistaken by actually defending your claims and
answering the arguments presented against them; if you do this, I
retract my insults (even though, please note, you LITERALLY asked for
-- Steven J.