#1. Work to Dispel Notion Libby's a Radical

Ever count the angels on the head of a pin?

Ever count the theories and beliefs of man?

Ever count the ways that Dems mismanage Maine?

Ever count on the ways to do it better?

Do you want more of the same?

Creationism? Evolution?

Irrelevant.

What a man believes about God or no-God is on his own conscience.

"So much blood has been shed.. because of an omission: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions [and philosophy]; but no religion [or philosophy] is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."

- Mark Twain

I do not beleive we are electing the chief theologian for Maine, but the govenor of Maine.

That being said.

I would bet the historic record would show that most of the governors of Maine including two of its most acclaimed (Governors Baxter, Chamberlain) would have believed in a Creator or something like 'creationism'.

Let the record show that Maine survived, and prospered, despite that belief for some three hundred years, but it is not thriving to-spite that now.

And that makes it fact. I don't think "imperfect theory" is the best way to put it. Science is not omniscience and omniscience is not the criterion by which a scientific theory is judged. Any successful "theory" means that is a confirmed theoretical -- i.e. in terms of abstract concepts and principles -- rational explanation of observed fact, with identified causal laws. "Theory" does not mean speculation as opposed to the supposed omniscience of dogma accepted without proof or evidence (i.e., on faith). A valid theory is fact -- expressed in terms of abstract concepts and principles.

Any scientific theory is subject to revision and expansion in accordance with expanded knowledge and newly discovered facts, but the original conception is just as valid as originally formulated within the context of the same original facts on which it was based. It is very rare that a scientific theory will be completely refuted as erroneous, as it was for example with the phlogiston theory of combustion or the caloric theory of heat flow.

The Darwinian theory of the observed facts of evolution has been extremely successful and is true as what it is, regardless of what new facts and expanded explanations may be discovered in the future. The rejection of the Darwinian theory of evolution, let alone the brute facts of fossil evidence of evolution, by 'creationists' on the grounds of a mystical world view is simply silly and ignorant.

Libby Mitchell is far to the left of the populace for her positions on:

1. Taxes and tax reform - she opposed Question Oone which was strongly turned down at the pols,

2. Gay marriage, which was rejected by Maine voters,

(both positions Peter Mills also came down on the wrong side of)

and

3. Mitchell is a strong proponent of abortion - where does she stand on partial birth abortion?

I have never seen evolution taught as anything other than an imperfect theory - but a theory that seems to agree with all biological science. Like other scientific theories, it is based on the scientific method.

Well, I have seen it taught as fact. Evolution seems to agree with some biological science, but I would not say all. Micro-evolution is evident, but there is still a lot a faith placed in Macro-evolution.

I'd like to see an admission of the gaps in evidence and lack of understanding of the processes of Macro.

The experts admit it among themselves, but never to the uninitiated. And when anyone not admitted to the Holy of Holies brings up the weaknesses, they are impugned. Viciously. Confident scientists do not act this way.

Global warming activists do act this way.

Funny, that.

The Darwinian theory of the observed facts of evolution has been extremely successful and is true as what it is, regardless of what new facts and expanded explanations may be discovered in the future. The rejection of the Darwinian theory of evolution, let alone the brute facts of fossil evidence of evolution, by 'creationists' on the grounds of a mystical world view is simply silly and ignorant.

I find this silly and ignorant. Arrogant too.

One does not have to be a "creationist" to question Darwinian Evolution. Otherwise, where does the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium come from?

To save you the time needed to answer, it came from evolutionists who shockingly admitted, in the 1970's, that Darwinian processes were not possible.

And then, when all the scientific sheeple caught on that there were problems, the accepted revised dogma was," Yeah, that's how it works. Punctuated Equilibria. See how we have it all figured out? Now shut up you ignorant and silly critics!".

"Punctuated evolution" proposed by Eldredge and Gould was not a revolt against Darwinian evolution. It concerned the non-uniformity of the rate of evolution and periods of stasis over relatively minor time periods (in geological time), and its relation to irregularities in the availability of fossil records. (No one advocates complete uniformity of progression.)

There is nothing in this to even remotely suggest that "Darwinian processes are not possible" or that it lends any credence whatsover to divine intervention. The proposals, within evolutionary science, of Gould and Eldredge and their followers were not nearly the radical changes they have sometime been promoted as, especially in the popular sensationalizing press and by creationists shrieking with glee over a claimed demise of Darwin.

Science is not static. New ideas are routine and to be expected in the progress of any kind of science. There is always a desire for more evidence and more understanding in some realm within any science. Serious scientists are always looking for new breakthroughs to improve on and expand knowledge in new details or new areas. This does not invalidate previous knowledge based on facts known at an earlier time. New ideas are often hotly debated, but the progress threatens no one.

Science is not ominiscient and does not claim to be. It is objective systematic identification and explanation of what is known. Unlike dogma it is neither "intrinsic" nor subjective, nor closed to new discoveries. The facts, not competing claims to infallible faith, are the final arbiter in any scientific dispute as scientific knowledge progresses and expands. That is as true in evolutionary theory as any other science. The notion, sneeringly promoted, that "experts admit it among themselves, but never to the uninitiated and when anyone not admitted to the Holy of Holies brings up the weaknesses, they are viciously impugned" is pure bunk, as the sarcastic "Holy of Holies" rhetoric suggests. Science always allows for dissent and questions, but that requires competence and knowledge of the subject.

Those who do not understand a science and its methods have no business accusing it of ignorance and arrogance, let alone sensationalizing scientific disagreement or new discovery into a swaggering, sarcastic excuse to caricature and trash science. Like it or not, evolution is confirmed fact; it is creationism and its dogmatic mysticism that tolerates no dissent.

I know what punctuated equilibrium offered. It was an attempt to describe the mechanisms of a gradualist evolution process that has left no widespread evidence of multiple changed forms.

N & E postulated that speciation occured in localized populations, that have left no records, and then relatively rapidly those innovations in form and function spread rapidly, which is why we see new species fully formed.

If you believe the foregone conclusion that macroevolution exists, PE is a good mechanism.

But macro evolution is not a confirmed fact. You cannot say so. Maybe you'll prove it someday, but it hasn't happened yet.

One does not need to be a creationist to point out the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. And it isn't anti science to do so. I haven't seen a very humble attitude from any evolutionists. You are a good example.

And by all means, never can this be joked about. Why, that would be blasphemous!

It sounds from some of your description that there may be a (not uncommon) confusion between punctuationism and "saltation". But either way there is nothing that suggests that "Darwinian processes are not possible" as you originally wrote.

Darwinian evolution -- meaning the essential theory of Darwin expanded in modern form -- explains and integrates all the facts of evolution in terms of causal principles, is not contradicted by any of them, is confirmed by subsequent observation, and has no viable alternatives. Like any scientific theory it is an inductive generalization, not "deduced" from brute physical evidence (fossils), which doesn't come with instruction manuals telling people what to think. That is the nature of conceptual knowledge, not a weakness.

Darwinism is an extraordinarily successful theory. Whatever form it take in the future as more phenomena may be discovered and explained to expand the theory to account for new discoveries, it is a valid, i.e. true, scientific theory accounting for all known facts in the context on which it is based and to which it applies. The only issue in the science is more details of mechanism of how evolution occurs in its different facets under different conditions, not if. There are no grounds on which to reject the theory of evolution, for 'species' or anything else, or the fossil records that show it occurs. Personally I don't have any interest in promoting any particular mechanisms between species, subspecies or anything else, only that they be determined by objective, scientific methods.

The issue here is not whether scientists or anyone else would like to know more, expanding knowledge and discovering and understanding more details, with new and expanded theory where required. The issue is whether the scientific outlook is to be subjugated to or replaced by religion based on faith and sacred text from ancient myth to fully or partially account for evolution through divine intervention. That isn't science and does not represent knowledge of the world. "Scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms. The distinction, as a matter of how to proceed and what to teach in schools, is not a joke. You aren't explicit beyond resentment of "evolutionists", but if the alleged possibility of creationism is the question on which you want "humility", there are no grounds for it.