An interesting quote submitted by "carl" at "Atheist Central"

     "Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have obtained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets..."

     Now, I didn't take carl at his word about the quote. I sought to verify it. The source article from Nature's website is not available without payment. However, talkorigins has verified the quote for me by complaining about a quote mine. (Carl has included the very part they complain is being left out.)
     Now, the sense that I get from this quote is that the "theory of evolution" is (currently) completely untestable but not useless. That could just be confirmation bias on my part as that is my own stance. Talkorigins argues that because Ehrlich and Birch do not advocate scrapping the idea of evolution they must not regard it as untestable. I disagree. It can still be considered useful as a concise representation of prior observation. It can also serve as a signpost of current belief. And, perhaps, at some point a test will be conceived. But I should note that they have produced no context that would indicate "every conceivable observation can be fitted into it" does not mean what it appears to mean on its face. And, indeed, it is the same assertion that I have made on this blog (without knowing of the prior quote.)

A note to fullcircle

     Yes, I deleted a post of yours that contained nothing but insults and foul language. If, at some point, you decide to start behaving like a responsible adult, I will let your comments stay. Unless and until that happens, I will delete your nonsense. We've covered this. Changing your screen name doesn't make a difference. I am not nearly so unobservant as you prefer to imagine.
     If it's any consolation to you. I don't prescreen my comments and I check my own blog rather sporadicly. In all likelihood, there will be several people to witness your infantile rantings before I notice them. But your disruptive actions have attracted my attention. And so you are more likely to be deleted. That doesn't mean you can't argue against my position or that I will delete such arguments. But you haven't done that. Your posts have consisted of name-calling and insults and have had no merit whatsoever. I don't need that on my blog. Ray may like that when you "play atheist" on his blog because he likes to say that is what "atheists" are like. Perhaps you should go back to being his shill.

UPDATE:

     I am more interested in giving my blog taste and sanity than in preserving the evidence of your four-letter vocabulary. You may think it makes you a great wit. I am inclined to believe you are half right.

Penn finally got back to me.

It's been quite some time since I asked you that. But recently I've been on Atheist Central and thought of you.

It really makes a difference whether or not one has a desire to resolve a question.

You asked why Christians claim outsiders believe in our God but suppress the truth? Well the simplest answer is that the Bible says all people (not just those outside the Christian religion) suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). From my perspective, the question in your title requires a theological answer. From your perspective, or from others outside my faith, a theological answer may not be expected.

I could explain it like this briefly. We all suppress truth in our minds. That's why we lie, or more obvious, why we often deny our own mistakes or faults. On a larger scale, the evidence is there for us in nature pointing to a supernaturally intelligent Being, but we suppress the knowledge of this Being in our unrighteousness (think denying, lying and taking advantage of others).

That's only the beginning of the theological answer, however. It ends in a message about restoration to righteousness (or uprightness) and peace with our Maker, but not through our own means, rather as a gift from the Creator to the creatures.

I hope you realize I'm only trying to help or at least provide food for thought.

Thanks,
Penn


     The bible may indeed make the claim. But it is an incorrect claim. Since the bible is wrong (it makes a claim about my state of mind that I know to be incorrect) its unverifiable claims are suspect.
     There is dispute over whether the natural world constitues evidence of a supernatural being. But, even if there is a supernatural creator of the universe, it needn't be your god. The bible is already incorrect about my beliefs. It is, therefore, a dubious reference to any gods.
     If you are trying to help, you are going about it rather badly. Consider, if I were to insist that you knew your god to be a work of fiction, you would likely pay little heed to anything else I said on the subject. Claiming to know someone else's beliefs pretty much cuts off discussion. (It cuts off discussion with that person, anyway. One might be trying to persuade third parties by demonstrating that stated beliefs are implausible.) If you want to convince me that your god is real and deserving of worship, it is counterproductive to tell me I already believe that but am lying for whatever reason.

A comment I made to Ray Comfort

     Well, Ray, I suspect that you do not believe christianity. I think that you regard it as a very profitable sham. I am, of course, open to the possibility that I am wrong; so I propose a test.
     If christianity is true, then the verbiage found in the Monty Python version holds and you will happily approve Bathtub's comment as written. After all, whatever caused the lifeforms we like to exist also caused the lifeforms we find hideous. This is what is known as a "two-way street."
     On the other hand, if you consider christianity to be a profitable scam, you will delete his comment, and will probably have done so already. If you refuse to print an attribution of "all things dull and ugly; all things short and squat; all things rude and nasty" to your deity, you don't believe. And if you don't believe, you can't possibly have "repented and trusted the saviour."

     I am reproducing this here because I expect that he will have all the intestinal fortitude necessary to his delete. I think what I have to say is meaningful and should be seen even if the intended recipient will not look.

Somebody actually posted this.

     If you were on the beach and saw a trail of footprints behind you, would you say that Jesus carried you all that way, that you walked all that way yourself, or that the footprints were set by random people that have no connection to you?
     Any reasonable person would say that they just walked across the beach. That is how fossils work, an unbroken line of footprints showing the process of evolution to anyone willing to see.

     Now, one thing that fossils most decidedly do not do is create an unbroken line. A better analogy might be trying to construct the trail of a herd of animals that travelled over largely stony ground, but in which there was enough exposed mud for the occassional partial footprint, and trying to make identifications.
     It is quite clear that there are people who believe in evolution that do so uncritically. This is where we get such "potential falsifiers" as the "precambrian rabbit." People know that a scientific theory is supposed to be falsifiable. But when someone who believes in evolution uncritically tries to come up with one, he can only come up with something he thinks can't happen. After all, he think that falsity of evolution cannot happen. But it generally results in a "falsifier" that people will agree can't happen even if evolution is false. If you come up with dogs giving birth to cats as a "potential falsifier," your belief is uncritical.

Here is something interesting.

     Many people (myself included) would have expected that Einstein would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for his revolutionary theory of relativity. (He did win the prize, but not for relativity.) This link has something interesting to say about it. "After years of sifting through letters and diaries of the Scandinavian archives, science historian Robert Marc Friedman says it was an intentional snub fueled by the biases of the day—a prejudice against pacifists, Jews, and, most of all, theoretical physics."
     Now, there are many people, when arguing for evolution that trot out the conversation-stopper "Well, then, disprove evolution any you can win a Nobel Prize!" Even assuming that large-scale evolution is false (possible) and that it can somehow be demonstrated to be so (rather unlikely) today's prejudices would likely preclude any recognition. Indeed, I would expect that anybody who proposed an experiment in an effort to show large-scale evolution to be false would be met with "zero funding."
     Now, none of this is to suggest that creationists make good arguments. If any have, I have not seen it. No, my point is that I see a lot of closed minds and dishonest tactics on all sides of just about any issue.

Have you ever noticed...?

     A lot of people say that the US was founded as a "christian nation" (leaving the Treaty of Tripoli aside, for the moment.) Yet, when certain unpleasant actions committed in the name of christianity are pointed out (e.g. the Inquisition) these same people will say that those who committed the actions "were not real christians." Well, it doesn't work. Slavery and wife-beating were endorsed by this country for many decades from its foundation. How could this nation possibly have been a christian nation if no one was "a real christian"?