<<1) My observation that evolution is extremely popular among atheists is not 'irrelevant' as you suppose. The Christian walk is fraught with many difficulties and temptations - as you should know - and when we find some doctrine (whose fruits are, invariably, seen to be bad!) peddled with evangelistic zeal by atheists it would be exceedingly foolish of us to gobble it all up as gospel truth. Wouldn't you agree?>>
Why would I agree with such a portrayal of reality. I do agree that the Christian walk is fraught with temptations. But that atheists tend to be evolutionist does not mean that evolutionism is therefor an atheist 'religion'. That would be a logical fallacy. So all you have established is that atheists tend to adhere to good science. But so do many Christians who have found little problems merging their faith with their acceptance of evolution.
Vernon:
MM2) You regard as 'incorrect' my suggestion that the strict rigour of the scientific method has been laid aside to accomodate this particular theory. I believe the facts speak for themselves. Consider, for example, the matter of assessing geological age. Isn't this the way it's done:>>
<<a) Assume evolution is true.
b) The Earth must therefore be very old.>>
You might want to read G Brent Dalrymple's excellent book "The age of the earth'. The age of the earth is not determined by evolutionist''s beliefs but by scientific analysis of the data. The data are convincing by themselves and do not need any presumptions. Such suggestions merely show an ignorance of science and the scientific method.
<<c) Ignore all evidence which suggests a 'young' Earth.>>
Such as ? I would love you to share such data with us.
<<d) Make appropriate assumptions relating to geochronological dating methods (e.g. uniformitarian conditions throughout life of earth, initial composition of rocks containing radioactive isotopes, etc). >>
You appear to be unfamiliar with radiometric dating. The assumption of constant decay rate is very well supported by fact and observation. For instance the data we observe from distant stars support this. Also the impact of a variable decay rate on many basic physical constants and behaviors should have left its traces. But it didn't. The constancy of decay rates is based on good solid science and data. The problems of initial contamination is also dealt with by the method of isochron dating.
<<e) Never publicly confess these assumptions.>>
Your ignorance is showing.
<<f) Reject datings which 'don't fit' as 'aberrations' or 'anomalies'.>>
When there is good reason to reject datings then there is nothing wrong with that. There will always be some outliers. When these can be explained then there is no reason to worry.
<<g) Project the impression of genuine overall scientific activity by focussing attention on the laboratory techniques of analysis and the 'men in white coats'.>>
What is wrong by using solid scientific methods ? I'd assume that anyone who is furthering a scientific theory would adhere to such standards ?
<<h) Arrange the fossils in 'proper' order - explaing the many anomalies by invoking notions such as 'overthrusting', 'reworking',etc.>>
There is plenty of evidence of the overthrusting. That you do not like the explanations might be related to your lack of understanding of geology .
<<i) Advance the outcome - the 'geological column' - as prime evidence for evolution.>>
Another commonly used incorrect argument . First of all the Geological Collumn was established by creationists. Second of all the Geological collumn is not nearly the only evidence supporting evolution. Of course the succession found in the geological collumn from simple to more complex life indeed has been a problem for creationist's who try to fit the story into a few thousand years and a flood.
Vernon: <<In the trade, this would be referred to as a classic case of circular reasoning and deceit on a grand scale. >>
Given the continued lack of understanding of the geological collumn and how it fits in with evolution by some creationist, I suggest that we should try to educate them about the true facts and not the 'strawmen' used by you. Arguments from ignorance, no matter how honest the ignorance, is never an excuse.
Vernon: <<Where in it do we find the evidence of unbiased inquiry? It is surely a tragic caricature of
science!>>
It surely is. I am glad that you recognize your own strawman as such. A tragic caricature (sic)
Vernon: <<Can you really wonder that people like myself take all 'evolutionary' claims (e.g. the sudden influx of 'intermediates') with a pinch of salt?>>
I can understand that when faced with so much data that some deny the existance of it, in favor of their interpretation of their faith. Is this a fault of our educational system, I don't know. But rather than deny the data, or portray the people who collect is as 'strawmen' caricatures, you should try to learn what God is trying to show you through these data.
How little faith one has if one has to resort to denying what God is telling us through hard evidence. I am truely shocked to see such lack of faith portrayed here.