Confusion within the scientific community concerning the theory of evolution?

I agree. I've always found it interesting that so many people - even scientists themselves - believe in evolution not because there's "scientific evidence" for it, but because it's something that everyone else around them believes: "We know it happens and is happening, but we don't know how."

Just think, what if lawyers went into court with this kind of reasoning? What would happen if a prosecutor on a murder case stood up and told a judge, "We know the defendant is a serial killer. However, we're not quite clear on how, when, and where the murder took place and there are no witnesses. We did find a knife in the defendant's kitchen sink, and although the detectives didn't have it tested for fingerprints or the victim's blood, that's all the evidence we needed. Everyone involved, the detectives, the forensic pathologist and myself all agree. We KNOW he did it." I think it's safe to say that any judge would laugh this prosecutor out of court.

Similarly, it seems that people who believe in evolution are (most times) unknowingly following this same line of reasoning. I think that if they examined the supposed evidence of evolution, they would discover for themselves just how faulty this theory really is. I think these two quotes sum it up well:

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." - Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory." - Luther D. Sutherland, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems"

Here's what's wrong with the web site you list and all of the effort that has gone into compiling the quotes:

If the ID people were serious about the science of ID or the truth of ID, they would be out compiling evidence to show it is true. But, no, they don't do that. They look for minor disagreements or take quotes out of context and use them as proof that evolution is not true.

Where is their proof of any alternative? Very simply THERE IS NONE WHATSOEVER. It's a lot easier to attack the honesty of science where people readily admit they don't yet know every detail (but that doesn't make the overall concept any less true).

Edit: I will use just one example from the web site you posted for me that is blatantly false:

"Biological novelty appears in the fossil record suddenly and without

similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is the prime example."

This is simply not true. There are plenty of step-by-step examples in the fossil record and when paleontologists talk about the Cambrian explosion, they are not talking about it happening over night but instead over 100s of thousands of years. Our short little lives are not even a blink of an eye in evolutionary history and we have a hard time seeing a longer view and recognizing 100,000 years as a short time.

None of the web site you mention is evidence but is merely statements of what seems improbable. Why don't you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. I read what you suggested. I challenge you to read this book.

Sigh.

No theory that tries to cover the whole of history of living organisms on Earth is ever going to be clearly understood.

What you should do is study some examples of 'ring species' and bacterial mutations. These examples clearly demonstrate change in species over time. The rest is all detail.

As for your faith, Jesus is modern history, evolution/creation are ancient history and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

No one " ardently believes " anything, but is convinced by the evidence, which just happens to be available to all.

The process of evolution are quite well understood and not to put too fine a point on it, your assertion makes you a black liar, sir.

Quote mining is the last refuge of the scoundrel, R and S hanger on. You used a partial quote from Richard Lewontin!! Obviously you do not know Richard Lewontin is an ardent Marxist and a flaming atheist!!!! What a fool you are!!

Well, we see what faith you profess. The faith of the liar and the coward! You thought to sneak in here and spew more of your garbage, but the challenge ( if you could call your weak arguments, challenge ) was met and beat back. Your moronic assertions will not get ID a hearing, so, why don't you slackers try doing some real science?

I guess you either missed the Dover Trail or are just ignoring it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

OK, I read through all that. All the misconceptions about evolution and what Darwin was about are present. Not to mention a healthy dose of misquotes and misrepresentations. It is truly shameful of you people to resort to this kinda propaganda. I personally wish some of these people would file legal action against Detecting Design.

All you do is feed ignorance. Is that how you get new members? Is that how you fill the pews?

The general public has never been "led to believe" anything about evolution from the scientific community. The general public, especially the religious right, tends to warp and confuse things.

Please remember the basic meaning of words, if you do that, there is no confusion. Let's all remember that the scientific community ALWAYS refers to it as the "theory" of evolution. That means that it is NOT proven, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence.

There is so much evidence that anyone that is honest and accepting of factual evidence cannot refute: the theory of evolution is VERY viable.

If you need to see modern examples of evolution, look at bacteria especially infectious bacteria. At the time of the introduction of penicillin, it was speculated by many doctors that infection had been conquered. There was no bacterial infection that penicillin could not kill. That is no longer the case anymore. Bacteria evolve at a much faster rate of speed than plants, animals or insects, so much so that it has been witnessed.

Sorry, but if you are looking for a toehold for your faith, remember that it is OK that this happens. Why is it so difficult to imagine that a god would not want changes occurring in the universe? Where is the crime in that? I have never understood that. People always say at funerals that "the lord works in mysterious ways" and "it is not for us to understand the plan of the lord", so why is this so hard to grasp? It really just baffles the hell out of me.

well there'll always be confusion where there is religion. The theory of evolution was scattered when people asked the impossibly answered question of what is the meaning of life and everything else. So in answer to your first question, yes, there is confusion. And this confusion is usually in the minds of scientists who are religious (not necessarily loads) but enough to make them doubt it because it won't answer questions they believe that 'god' will.

The scientist (genetics) that I know are not confused about evolution. They say the only problem is that in their life time it is maybe not possible to "witness" the evolution of a new species as it happens: when and where such a thing occurs is so random that we could not find it or detect it. The change is so very slow that in terms of human history more species have went extinct than were created. If they could witness and study new speciation they could answer the details what causes a new species to be created and survive to procreate. There is only some questions about very fine details.

Personally the DNA evidence is enough for me to be 100% sure evolution happens - why it happens is almost as abstract as asking why the universe exists. There are more pressing questions to ask: how do we save the planet from human destruction? It really irritates me when people are after "problems" which mean nothing to us while real problems go unsolved.

BS. Scientist are virtually in unanimous agreement that evolution has occurred and is occurring. They do bicker about the details of the mechanisms.

Some favor genetic drift (Neutral Evolution) as being the primary force behind it, while others still prefer natural selection as the most important force. All agree both occur, the debate is the role they play.

The debate often cited by creationists, er...excuse me, ID advocates is the conflict between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. The overriding question here is whether evolution is capable of occurring in spurts.

These debates are blown out of proportion by some to the level of a civil war in biology. This is not the case. Scientists are merely bickering about the details of the process.

It's no use you trying to divide and conquer science. Wherever there is disagreement amongst scientists it is because the facts are not established in a certain area. Over time through greater emperical evidence or intellectual insight a breakthrough is made and disagreement is removed. The whole process of discovery and understanding moves on in an open way.

Science is under attack from ideologues on the far left and the religious right but I don't think that intellectuals have anything to fear. Ultimately the truth will not be kept hidden no matter how politically incorrect it is.