Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[PatrickHenry]

You realize that one of the definitions for a "myth" is a story that is unverifiable, correct? Explain to me how one can reproduce evolution, empirically, such that it is fact, again?

We can't kill Nicole Simpson all over again. But we can look at the clues and figure out that OJ did it. That's how it is with any historical science. Life on Earth developed over time, and all species are related. Those are facts.

[whattajoke]

Science is empirically demonstrated. Show me the process of evolution empirically, and you'll have proved that it is scientific

Ok, just do what your biblical heroes did and live a few thousand years (but you may have to outdo even Moses) and then you'll be able to observe it.
Stop asking for the impossible and repeating the same hackneyed nonsense the creationists love to spew. What's next, "How could something as complex as an eye evolve?" Sheesh. by the way, the use of the incorrectly spelled, "gaul" was initially put forth by the person I was responding to, purposefully mispelling it. Just thought I'd get defensive on that point.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The obvious intention here is to inculcate doubt in the minds of the students regarding evolution, as compared to such equally well established models as the atomic theory of matter, or universal gravitation."

These three theories are by no means equally well established, nor are they equal in their effect upon those who belive them. Do you really think "universal gravitation" is as speculative as evolution?

No. Evolution deserves to be singled out and labled. Of all the ignorant notions foisted upon humankind as "fact," this one has had a sorely deleterious effect, bringing forth and sustaining rotten fruits from the beginning. It is Pseudo-intellectual hogwash exhonerated by self-deceived frauds. It certainly does not deserve to be treated as fact. It is well-deserving of ridicule.

True enough. Louisiana and Alabama hit upon a dumb idea. Small disclaimers in a textbook gives evolutionary superstition more credit than it deserves.

[ALS]

Your low IQ is showing... again.

[BikerNYC]

Do you really think "universal gravitation" is as speculative as evolution?

So this is all a matter of degree? Both evolution and general relativity are the best explanations around for the subjects they deal with. Both may be abandoned sometime in the future due to paradigm shifts, who knows. Neither is perfect. But right now, they are the best we have.

[ALS]

"It's a theory. Why the fear to call it such?

Because the science textbooks are filled completely with theories that are not labelled as such, but only evolution is singled out for the label. The obvious intention here is to inculcate doubt in the minds of the students regarding evolution, as compared to such equally well established models as the atomic theory of matter, or universal gravitation."

Is evolution a theory or not? Why do you fear children knowing that it is? You are bringing your own narrow minded faith based theologies into your weak argument.

There should be doubt that a theory is a fact. Your problem is you can't get off your high horse long enough to tell the truth.

another low IQ moron...

[ALS]

"so what", means if you plan on arguing against another point, you better have a clue what it is. It's irrelevant if the bible is full blown truth or made up, if you want to reduce yourself to ground level by poo-pooing it, have a reason based on what it says, not your own personal embarassments that we'll all see what an amoral loser you are.

shoo fly

[ALS]

The bible is already written. You can write your own with all the disclaimers you wish. A science book is suppose to contain known facts. That includes the fact that a theory is a theory. Science is so afraid someone will think outside their pathetically teency box, they stoop to outright deception. Of course, it follows that those who do deceive, usually have a projection problem in hopes to cover their own shortcomings, of which, you make an excellent case for.

[whattajoke]

You must have been a real treat in those Kansas schoolboard meetings a couple years ago when your state adopted this type of short-lived, much maligned, stupid policy.

Moderator: "Up next to refute ALS's christian/creation view of things, is Harvard Professor, PhD, Nobel winning scientist..."

ALS: "Sit down you moronic, Low IQ, know nothing!"

Whatever my IQ is, I still find it easy to point out your nonsense.

[The Grammarian]

Prove it. Empirically.

[The Grammarian]

Ok, just do what your biblical heroes did and live a few thousand years (but you may have to outdo even Moses) and then you'll be able to observe it.

You almost get my point. You can't verify it, therefore it is, at best, theory. Because it cannot be proven by direct empirical evidence (recreating the circumstances), it is a matter of faith.

Stop asking for the impossible and repeating the same hackneyed nonsense the creationists love to spew.

Then stop passing off the impossible-to-verify as scientific fact.

by the way, the use of the incorrectly spelled, "gaul" was initially put forth by the person I was responding to, purposefully mispelling it. Just thought I'd get defensive on that point.

I was intentionally correcting your spelling. Note the FRName.

[Aric2000]

Bump to watch the creationists get stupid again.

[f.Christian]

Probably most everything you were taught you learned w/o understanding---start thinking!

[Aric2000]

I do think, that's why I believe in evolution, not some book with lots of good myths and a little history in it.

You need to learn some critical thinking skills, but that would mean too many hard questions and of course means that you would have to question the basis of your faith. So never mind, you live in a rubber room already, they would have to make it even softer.

[f.Christian]

rubber room...rubber science---you're immune to TRUTH/life!

[Aric2000]

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you F.Christian.

I think that you are an unthinking, easily suckered goofball. You don't look at facts, you got grabbed young by some fanatic who turned you into a younger less intelligent version of himself. You are a true blue religious fanatic, there is no point in debating with you, because no matter how many facts I bring to the table, your fanatical thinking will not be swayed.

You have a picture of the world that will not be swayed by facts, so why should I bother?

[PatrickHenry]

You: Explain to me how one can reproduce evolution, empirically, such that it is fact, again?

Me:
We can't kill Nicole Simpson all over again. But we can look at the clues and figure out that OJ did it. That's how it is with any historical science. Life on Earth developed over time, and all species are related. Those are facts.

You:
Prove it. Empirically.

You've just made my point. Creationists are a pack of OJ jurors.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND

Date: 12th century

1 a

(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(2) : a branch or variety of logic

(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS

(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >

- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun

[ALS]

I take it back, you have no IQ.

[Physicist]

Do you really think "universal gravitation" is as speculative as evolution?

I do.

On what do you base your belief that the force that prevents the moon from flying off into space is the same force that makes apples fall to the ground?

I'll tell you what I base my belief on: Newton's Universal Gravitation is simple enough for me to understand, and the numbers (as measured by others whom I trust) work out. Ah, but wait a second. If I look carefully enough at the data, I'll find that the numbers don't work out, at least not for that simple theory. Go to enough decimal places, and they actually rule it out: orbits precess at a different rate than predicted. Fortunately, there's a different theory--General Relativity. I don't understand that theory nearly as well, but I'm told (by other people I trust) that the numbers work out significantly better. (OK, I did work through an example or two, but it was hard.) But it's not intuitively obvious why that should be the case, and furthermore I don't believe that it's the final theory in any case. (It lacks a property called "renormalizability", thus we don't understand its quantum properties in the least.)

Evolution, on the other hand, makes instant intuitive sense. The data are very incomplete, even non-existent in some cases, but where we have data they fit the model brilliantly. We have an understanding of the basic mechanisms by which it occurs. So while gravity wins on data, evolution wins on understandability and elementarity. I call it a draw.