Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash
NY Times ^ | August 22, 2005 | KENNETH CHANG

Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-338 last
To: ml1954



You paint with a very, very wide brush.
***You're right. There appears to be a difference between Social Darwinists and People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution (PWTDFE). Please insert PWTDFE where I said Social Darwinism. If it is too broad a brush, recall that I was mirroring your own words, and that I also qualified the statement as “Before the Scopes trial, one could have said…” If that is still too broad a brush, consider that it really isn't that big of a deal and I can just concede whatever you're trying to say and I still have my experience as well. It's interesting that the post directly afterwards has another example. I think there are a lot of people like me who have had to sit through classes where some teacher in the field of [fill in the blank, unrelated to biology] spouted off on their perspective derived from evolution. Usually one just has to sit & take it.


Since when do "evo teachers" advocate and teach Social Darwinism? I doubt if any but a small renegade fringe of "evo teachers" advocate Social Darwinism.
***Assuming that Social Darwinism is a small subset of Social Theories Derived From Evolution, yes you're right. But my experience has been that teachers from all kinds of unrelated fields are using evo as a backdrop for their favorite PWTDFE philosophy. It would be nice to be in a position to force them to take it to a philosophy class. Kind of like the freeper derogative to Hollywood “Just Shut Up & Sing”, Just Shut Up and Teach.

Such generalizations make a reasonable discussion impossible. But it's about what I've come to expect.
***If someone makes wide generalizations, call them on it, just like you did. How does that make reasonable discussion impossible? If they respond in reason, you have what you want. If they don't, you get to ridicule them, having given them a chance.


301 posted on 08/23/2005 5:49:19 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Astrology has been around a lot longer than ID and has at least the potential to generate testable predictions (which would of course be instantly falsified by testing). It thus has a leg or two up on ID.
****When astrology gets to the point that the president of the US suggests it should be taught side by side with prevailing scientific theories of origins, then I will reconsider my position on it. Until then, it has not gotten that far.




So you didn't dispense with diddly as far as making anything go away. Your wave-aways are breezy, but nothing you're saying bears up under examination as true or logical or sensible.
****Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Thank you for displaying your genuine attitude. For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)



So your "frustration" before was in never bothering to Google?
****My “frustration” was with the tone of the argument. And when I google “crevo” I get 13,400 hits. I don't have the time to drill down. Whenever I had the time and looked at the crevo threads on FR, they seem to spiral into flame wars. But now that it becomes a social policy discussion, the tone SHOULD change. If it doesn't, the side that finds itself fighting against the pres tends to lose. Call him dumb if you want, but it hasn't worked so far.


Your frustration was in never having been on a crevo thread before in your life
***I've lurked. I've seen some of the questions I have that others asked & they got slammed. There are people who are lurking right now, thinking the same things I am, and wondering you're your response will be. When I was up against an abiog on a SETI thread, he didn't answer my pointed questions. Recently I saw on another abiog thread that they don't hold the SETI folks in high regard due to their unmerited assumptions. I think both issues are coming to an interesting head.

or made the tiniest effort to see what mainstream science thinks of ID? Here's what you said:
***I've made the effort, but the mass of data is so large that it takes an expert on each area to drill down. I don't have the time, nor do most others. I have given it the time it was due for myself, and stayed away from the discussion on FR for several reasons. The whole thing changed when GWB stated his position. If you can't see how that changes things, that doesn't really concern me. I'm going after certain facts. I'll spend the amount of time that I can. There are probably a thousand other people like me. If I get slammed, they figure they would have gotten slammed, and that's that -- you find yourself facing a public policy position down the road that you disagree with, without knowing how it happened. Chances are, many scientists didn't see this one coming.


New story! OK. Now your frustrations are over.
****Well, I wouldn't say that my frustrations are over. So I suppose I shouldn't let you say it either.


BTW, the President is the head politician, not the head scientist.
****Ya think? We all might want to chew on that one for just awhile. Here's a hint: An illustration between the difference between public policy and science policy is DNA evidence at the OJ Simpson trial. Those 12 votes count the same as 12 scientists' votes.




Jaw-dropping.
****Really? You folks have been debating numbskulls like me for 5 or 6 years and you find that “jaw-dropping”? Nooo… you're just toying, right? Hyperbole? If not, you might have a rude awakening headed your way. This is becoming a public policy issue, so the doors are opening for more jaw-dropping, knuckle-dragging boneheads like me to enter the debate. If you lost patience before, dude…

You were claiming that mainstream science has not been answering ID. That was wrong. Understand? Wrong.
***You have your way of seeing it and I have mine. I wasn't claiming that unless that's what I wrote. But if you want to discuss that straw claim, you will need to address the fact that the president of the US consulted his science advisers on a public policy issue and chose differently than how you and they see it. If mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it.

Mainstream science thinks ID has no claim to being science and it has a very good set of arguments for its position.
****Apparently not good enough for the guy I voted for. It really is a mystery to me at this stage how & why he chose his position, because I had actually started to think that ID was losing intellectual ground to abiog. I was caught kind of by surprise.


I was linking a sample of that material.
****I'll get to it when I can.

"Not on this thread?" It's on there now and it shows ID is a crock.
****Good. That saves me a lot of time. Try to have patience. 2 years from now, when people Google for ID & abiogenesis, they'll come to this thread.

The President putting his foot in it doesn't change anything. You're either clueless or desperate.
****Clueless is closer to the truth than desperate. But thanks for the false dilemma. Keep throwin' them fallacies at me. I happen to believe that it did change things, and that's why I'm here, now.


Does it matter for the purposes of science class whether a thing is science or not?
****I think it does. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it shouldn't be allowed in a science class. It should be put into a philosophy class. That goes for evolution as well as abiogenesis and creation, Astrology, and any other philosophy. Maybe that's what GWB is hanging his hat on. I think it has merit. It would be healthy for science to encourage discussion in this area and get rid of that tendency to ridicule people just for their faith.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468966/posts?page=12#12


Why are there no valid ID arguments?
****I don't know. I'm here for the numbers for now. As far as valid ID arguments, I'll just hang my hat on trusting ol' George that he found them valid, with his high-falutin' Harvard education & all.


Why is there no theory of ID?
****I don't know. See previous comment. Perhaps there is no theory of ID for the same reason that there is no theory of gravitation: There just isn't enough known yet to postulate. But I really do not know, and it doesn't matter to me for purposes of social policy discussions. It would have mattered to me for purposes of entering the crevo threads prior to GWB stating his position. But that's just me.


The only material the prestigious Discovery Institute can suggest for HS classes is something called "the controversy," a grab-bag of squawks that somehow evolution has not occurred or is not important if it did occur whether or not common descent is true.
****Um, I'll take it that your use of the word Prestigious is sarcasm. From what I can see, it is a legitimate scientific controversy for purposes of discussing public policy. It was legitimate enough for the president to come out with a position on the controversy.


"The controversy," BTW, is a political phenomenon quite outside the science journals. No, there has not been a raging controversy inside science. There still isn't, unless you call 70 nutcases worldwide a raging controversy. How many "Steve"s do you know?
****It appears that the abiogs' problem is that the president of the US, being the political authority that he is, has listened to scientific “nutcases” in determining his public policy. Do I have that correct? How do I verify that they are nutcases? Actually, the Project Steve thing is worthwhile to comment on, because I never heard of it till this thread. It is a “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of 'scientists who doubt evolution' or 'scientists who dissent from Darwinism.'” That makes my task even more difficult, trying to find the trusted creat/ID sources that the abiogs give the nod to. Does anyone know who the creats were that GWB spoke with in determining his policy stance?


302 posted on 08/23/2005 5:56:21 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

"***Yikes, he's your president, too. "
Nope. I'm Canadian.

Sorry about that. Presumptuous of me.


303 posted on 08/23/2005 5:57:37 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

There appears to be a difference between Social Darwinists and People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution (PWTDFE).

I'm not going to get into a discussion about either of these. If you think the TOE is bad, wrong, should be suppressed, etc. because people abuse it, then you must be one of those people that think that all things that a small minority of people abuse should be outlawed.

The truth can always be abused and used and distorted for unsavory ends.

304 posted on 08/23/2005 6:00:00 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

I was mirroring your own words

So you don't think an ID teacher should tell a student that it's possible the ID'er could be a space alien? IIRC, the ID crowd doesn't dispute this.

305 posted on 08/23/2005 6:10:41 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
****When astrology gets to the point that the president of the US suggests it should be taught side by side with prevailing scientific theories of origins, then I will reconsider my position on it. Until then, it has not gotten that far.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc. It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.

For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.

306 posted on 08/23/2005 6:38:44 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

First of all, it's not cowardice to keep your eye on the ball. You have more influence with your degree than as a flunk-out because of a nutty prof.


I had my share and so did my sons. Only one time was a moral principal involved and speaking out required. All the rest were various forms of nuttiness, intolerance or nastiness.

I am bothered though that you seem to equate this writing prof with a biology prof. As a rule Science departments are far less idiosyncratic and one simply doesn't get away with teaching inappropiate material. This does not include fuzzy studies semi-sciences where anything goes.

Your college profs may have had power, but their authority has to be earned and demonstrated.

I am sorry that you do not seem (emphasis "seem") to have enough biology background. At a certain point, say after at least one class beyond basic college biology for science majors, it becomes clear that the foundations of the theory of evolution are quite solid.


307 posted on 08/23/2005 7:16:49 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

Placemarker
308 posted on 08/24/2005 11:38:39 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

... If you think the TOE is bad, wrong, should be suppressed, etc. because people abuse it, then you must be one of those people that think that all things that a small minority of people abuse should be outlawed.
***Well, I'm not one of those people, so your logic fails. For instance, I don't think cars should be outlawed, but people who use cars for criminal activity should go to jail. I can't really identify the fallacy, but since it doesn't make sense to me, I'll just consider it to be a non sequitur and leave it at that. I don't think the TOE is bad, wrong nor should it be suppressed. I think the TOE is the POE, that it doesn't hold water as a true scientific theory and is more of a philosophy, well on its way to becoming a religion. It is a fascinating one at that. And I think it should be taught in P classes, not science classes. I think there is evidence for the time being for both sides of ID/abiog, and that neither of these are really addressed by the evo "theory". But that's just what I think, and it doesn't really matter all that much what I think as it does what the pres thinks and what he's going to do to make it happen. I agree with his stance.



The truth can always be abused and used and distorted for unsavory ends.
***And I have been on the abused end when it comes to evo being bloviated by professors to students under their authority. It's interesting that you call it "the truth". That's more of a sign of a philosophy discussion than a scientific one. Scientists tend to say, "facts can always..."


309 posted on 08/24/2005 2:06:03 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

So you don't think an ID teacher should tell a student that it's possible the ID'er could be a space alien? IIRC, the ID crowd doesn't dispute this.
***I don't have a strong position on that just yet, it isn't all that important to me at this point in time. It sounded like you were making a kind of sarcastic point that the kooky astrology-level ID teacher is nodding his head at any ridiculous idea that floats by, so I felt that turnabout was fair play and that teachers with evo philosophical leanings have been doing that kind of thing all along. By the way, I don't really care what the ID crowd thinks about a particular point (for the most part), that's probably a form of appeal to authority fallacy or playing to the gallery.


310 posted on 08/24/2005 2:11:44 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I am bothered though that you seem to equate this writing prof with a biology prof.
***I also had a Woman's Studies Prof saying similar things, proceeding from an evo standpoint. But at least I had respect for her because I had challenged her on a couple of things and she listened, without zapping my grade. She was one of the rarest feminists I've met, a true bull feminist who acted and thought like a man, a fascinating individual. Ok, so let's move on to my (First Year, First Semester Required Course) biology prof. He said, point blank, that the findings on the Galapagos Islands proved Darwin's theory. I think there are higher scientific requirements for proof than that.


As a rule Science departments are far less idiosyncratic and one simply doesn't get away with teaching inappropiate material. This does not include fuzzy studies semi-sciences where anything goes.
***One reason why I liked engineering. We had almost none of that nonsense. It has its own level of nonsense, but I didn't run into this garbage. Engineers build things. You can hold whatever philosophy you want as long as your circuit works.


Your college profs may have had power, but their authority has to be earned and demonstrated.
***And their authority was abused. I am in favor of empowering individuals to say, "shut up and teach."

I am sorry that you do not seem (emphasis "seem") to have enough biology background.
***Is that your way of saying you're sorry for the day you ever met me? ;-) This is the situation, such as it is. Now that this is becoming a public policy debate, I have as much footing as the next guy.

At a certain point, say after at least one class beyond basic college biology for science majors, it becomes clear that the foundations of the theory of evolution are quite solid.
***One could say along the same vein that, if someone were an antievolutionist, they would start to stand out in such a program and their grades would start to reflect it, regardless of the person's capability as a scientist. That's a true shame, and I think science should stick to science and GWB probably sees it similarly.


311 posted on 08/24/2005 2:30:37 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

So far, no one has bitten on my Ivan Sanderson Astrology stuff. I'm reposting here on this thread.





To: bobdsmith


Interesting stuff. But, since I'm not an astronomer, I have no idea whether this stuff follows the scientific method. My suspicion from the tone of your post is that it isn't all that scientific.

That's one of the problems I have with the whole debate on ID/abiogenesis/evolution. It very quickly moves to areas where the high priests need to take over. I have heard in the christian circles in the silicon valley that there is relentless pressure to keep one's mouth shut so that funding is not at risk.

OK, so let's assume that the astrology stuff does follow the scientific method. Then it should be allowed in the classroom. If it doesn't follow scientific method, it should not be allowed.
23 posted on 08/20/2005 8:22:43 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]



To: bobdsmith; SunkenCiv


I think the guy's name was Ivan Anderson, and I found a reference to his theory on the web:



http://www.present-truth.org/psychic_roulette_2.htm



[snip]

Ivan Sanderson, who debunks modern astrology completely, thinks he has stumbled upon the real origin of the zodiac.

He has traced the zodiac, in his research, back to the ancient Sumerians. He says it had nothing to do with ancient astrology, that it was nothing more than a road map such as you might get from an oil company today. In other words, it was simply traveling direcútions for anybody setting out in any direction from the head of the Persian Gulf.

He explains, "If you copy the zodiac wheel, as used today, on a piece of clear plastic; stick a pin through its hub, and then stab that pin on to the home-base of the Sumerians [and he supplies a map with the zodiac superimposed] you will immediately see what this is all about. . . .

"Imagine therefore that you are residing at the head of the Perúsian Gulf about 6,000 years ago. You will find that whichever way you might have wanted to travel from there-except down the sliver of the Gulf itself -you would have to traverse several hundred miles of desert before hitting a coast. Now, all deserts look alike, and especially flat ones. Unlike maritime navigation, there are no steady winds, currents, coasts, tides, or other even fairly stable natural phenomena to aid one. On deserts, where the winds can come from anywhere and at any time, and where there are no landmarks, the only things you have to guide you are the stars.

So, the Sumerians devised a star map for desert travelers, divided it into twelve segments, and gave each a simple symbol so that illiterate cameleers, horsemen, donkey-drivers, or plain foot-sloggers could keep going in at least the correct general direction that they desired. And the Sumerians were consummate astronomers, geographers, and also most knowledgeable students of international affairs:' He says that Sumerians seem to have been basically an economic empire, interested in trade and commerce. So they designated each land by its principal product.

He proceeds to illustrate. "So, take your zodiacal wheel and center it on Sumeria, and then arrange it so that the north-to-south line runs due north between Capricorn to the west and Sagittarius to the east. Imagine then that you are a merchant starting out from Sumeria to prosecute trade to the northwest-of-north. You will point up the left-hand side of the Mesopotamian valley and you hit the mountains and, if you get there, what will impress you most? Goats-both wild mountain goats, ibexes, and domesticated goats, since the last were the first animals to be domesticated -and by just those people you will find living there. Thus, the land of the 'Capúricorns' or 'Goat-horned Ones.' Further, to aid you in your travels the scientists back home have given you a pretty picture of a bunch of stars that you must find at night and which they have linked together by straight lines to form a goat."

He covers the other eleven sectors in equal detail, and then says, "Thus, having come around the full circle of the so-called zodiac, we find ourselves holding but one conclusion. This is that the original zodiac was, to early land travelers, what the later wind roses were to mariners. . . . However, the travelers who used this map were illiterate and so had to be given simple symbols-a mountain goat seen in profile for Capricorn; a ram seen from the front for Aries; and so forth. Having done this, the priests of Sumeria, who were true astronomers, took a bunch of stars that could be recognized in each segment, joined them up arbitrarily with lines to look like goats or sheep or oxen, and then trained these travelers to spot them, and so to send them safely on their way...


312 posted on 08/24/2005 2:40:29 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

I only have time to hit a couple of points here.

First and most important I mean nothing derogatory when I say you seem not to have enough background. There's no reason at all why you should. The only circuits I do are small electric appliances with easily accessible screws.

It's just that it's easier to have a shorthand conversation with someone who can pick up on the bits without needing backgrounding. The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.

My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.

Disagreement is fine, but in exams or in labs there is always...always the unspoken "What we currently believe" as part of the question.

But all the best research comes from questioning the current. Secondary research comes from expanding it a bit.

No more responses until much later or tomorrow.


313 posted on 08/24/2005 2:44:54 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; longshadow

Tasty, tasty noodle placemarker


314 posted on 08/24/2005 2:51:10 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Tasty, tasty noodle placemarker

Beware the Collander of Creation.....

315 posted on 08/24/2005 2:59:01 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I'm going to ignore the rest of your fingers-in-the-ears restatement
****First of all, it's not "fingers-in-the-ear", but thank you for the obvious ridicule which suggests that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy. Secondly, it is more than a restatement, it points out an obvious difference in the level of political authority on a social policy issue. Is it that you really can't see that?


and just say this. What gets taught in science class should be reflective of the current understanding of science as reflected in the professional journals, etc.
***I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. But I draw the line at philosophy; I consider evo/abiog/creat to be philosophical in nature. From the level of someone with an engineering degree, the Ian Musgrave article seems pretty advanced for some high school kid to learn in his first biology class. Origins is really more suitable for a 2nd year bio class, if at all (better suited for philosophy). All this attention on getting it into the first bio class a kid takes is just indoctrination attempts for adherents to a philosophy.



It is not particularly legitimate to worry about what parents think or even the current President thinks.
***Very interesting. I happen to think that it IS legitimate to worry about what parents think, and I imagine most of the electorate in the United States probably agrees. Am I missing something here, should I repeat that this is becoming a social policy discussion? Are you saying that you don't agree that it's becoming a social policy discussion? That is true head-in-the-sand thinking, so I doubt that is what you're saying. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.


For sure, the history of life on Earth is what it is and will not depend on your vote one way or the other.
***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.


316 posted on 08/24/2005 3:03:15 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

It's just that it's easier to have a shorthand conversation with someone who can pick up on the bits without needing backgrounding.
***A very good point indeed. My suggestion to all, creats & abiogs & evos is to have one page where you post articles that everyone agrees are even handed and bring one up to speed on the debate. Patrick Henry's home page is very interesting, but it is a bit overwhelming. One thing to keep in mind, also, is that PatrickHenry might lose his posting privileges and then all that work goes down the drain. A beginner's FAQ that everyone acknowledges would be a good idea -- it would save everyone a lot of time.

The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
***And hereby you reinforce a point that I made earlier. Origins belongs in a 2nd year bio regimen due to its advanced nature (of course I think it should be a philosophy class, but that's just wandering off on a tangent).

My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
***This is kind of interesting. My impression was that one was there to learn facts first, and what scientists think might come later. I don't mind a philosophy professor telling me his philosophy, nor a poly sci professor telling me his political views. But I do mind a bio prof telling me his religious/philosophy views, and the bleedover that has been resulting where other profs take their cues and proceed from evo to lay in their pet philosophies.

Disagreement is fine, but in exams or in labs there is always...always the unspoken "What we currently believe" as part of the question.
***Hmmm, that's interesting also. In electrical engineering, folks are likely not to tell you what they currently believe because a research grant or paper might be at stake. I'm gonna have to chew on that one for awhile.

But all the best research comes from questioning the current.
***If you question evo in an anthropology department, your funding will likely dry up. I wonder if some good research is lost because of that.


317 posted on 08/24/2005 3:25:55 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
"Sorry about that. Presumptuous of me."

No apology needed.

318 posted on 08/24/2005 6:00:50 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

http://www.talkorigins.org

A bottomless source of well written articles, and a forum.


319 posted on 08/24/2005 6:04:20 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.

Fortunately, much of the work confirming evolution is being done by the medical industry. It really doesn't matter WHY the research is being done.

320 posted on 08/24/2005 6:07:05 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
"***I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. But I draw the line at philosophy; I consider evo/abiog/creat to be philosophical in nature. From the level of someone with an engineering degree, the Ian Musgrave article seems pretty advanced for some high school kid to learn in his first biology class. Origins is really more suitable for a 2nd year bio class, if at all (better suited for philosophy). All this attention on getting it into the first bio class a kid takes is just indoctrination attempts for adherents to a philosophy. "

I'm curious; why do you consider the study of evolution a philosophy? You aren't taking Phillip Johnson seriously are you?

It might be advantageous for your understanding to separate abiogenesis, which is in its infancy and just starting to falsify hypotheses, from the ToE, which is at least 146 years old and built upon even older science and is a true theory with verified hypotheses, reams of concrete evidence, verified predictions and tens of thousands of scientists actively developing and testing hypotheses. It is also supported by a number of other scientific disciplines.

"***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.

But only in the US (and Canada, we do everything the US does). Other countries have their own funding and are getting ahead of the US in science. Many if not most new publications are from Europe with the number from Asia increasing. The US is loosing ground quickly.

321 posted on 08/24/2005 6:22:22 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Much more is being done abroad.


322 posted on 08/24/2005 7:42:22 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

I don't think the TOE is bad, wrong nor should it be suppressed. I think the TOE is the POE, that it doesn't hold water as a true scientific theory and is more of a philosophy, well on its way to becoming a religion.

Let's get back to your original reply....

I can just picture an (evo) "teacher" nodding his/her head and saying "Absolutely" when a student asks, "Does that mean (one race is superior to another?" or "Does that mean Social Darwinism is true?")

And once again my response to this...."Disingenuous. Darwin made no such claim."

You're response to this....It doesn't matter that Darwin made no such claim, the evo teachers make the claim for him.

Please define "evo teacher".

323 posted on 08/25/2005 5:43:02 AM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Thanks for that post. It appears excellent.

All that we need for a bozo like me to come up to speed is 2 more websites: The creat authoritative website and a middle-ground website (which keeps in mind that 95% of us really don't have that much time to devote to this topic).

From the talkorigins web page: The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.


324 posted on 08/25/2005 6:01:03 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

Your wish is my command. This site is run by an "evolutionist", but it evenhandedly lists books from all points of view. It does so without being snide.

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm


325 posted on 08/25/2005 6:08:30 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: js1138

This site is so good it makes me weep with jealousy.


326 posted on 08/25/2005 6:09:42 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I'm curious; why do you consider the study of evolution a philosophy? You aren't taking Phillip Johnson seriously are you?
***I haven't read his book yet, but I do think I saw him on a relatively even-handed TV documentary. He said something about how every great empire/society had its own creation story. The more I hear of him, the higher his book gets on my list of priorities because I seem to have come to some of the same conclusions as him. I don't consider the STUDY of evo to be a philosophy, knock yourselves out. It's a fascinating scientific endeavor. It is the adherents to evo that use it as a philosophy, and in particular in the teaching professions where there is an attempt to indoctrinate. The moment an evo/abio/creat/ID point of view is ever pushed forth onto a classroom in any other class besides philosophy is an abuse of authority unless it's a private school (such as a Mormon University, you shouldn't be surprised if the teachers push Mormonism). I would grant that the study of evo/origins would be suitable for higher level bio classes, but students should not be judged according to their adherence to a philosophy.




It might be advantageous for your understanding to separate abiogenesis, which is in its infancy and just starting to falsify hypotheses, from the ToE, which is at least 146 years old and built upon even older science and is a true theory with verified hypotheses, reams of concrete evidence, verified predictions and tens of thousands of scientists actively developing and testing hypotheses.
***Yes, there does appear to be a lot of factual information behind the TOE/POE. ---SIGH-- I can imagine that if we had spent 146 years and corresponding effort into discovering the universe without having an overriding philosophy zapping the lesser adherents, we would probably know more about the universe than today. As an example, there's some creat guy who studied astronomy & found that the speed of light might not necessarily be a constant..." an international group of physicists reports. After analyzing light from distant quasars, the team has concluded that the fine-structure constant, which is related to the speed of light, has shifted over time”
http://smccd.net/accounts/brenner/lsci106/ballein.html
Why weren't the abio/evo guys looking for the same info, and why are his findings initially treated with scorn? Because of his philosophical bent. I think the priorities for science should be for practical discoveries first (what does all this evo stuff get us?) then after that some pure science pursuits. Wherever there is an intersection with engineering, medicine, daily life, those areas should get priority, instead of more angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin controversy. Imagine if we had chased down electrogravitics -- we'd have that theory of gravity as well as antigravity drives by now. /end rant

It is also supported by a number of other scientific disciplines.
***True, I see that. Here is where I see that evo/abiog becomes a philosophy. There are always going to be things that we don't know. Even in that abiog article, they say, "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two .... For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown." At that point of the unknown, the way all of us connect the dots is an inner matter of faith. Some have faith that the probabilities/the missing link in the fossil record/ the great microparticle discovery that explains everything/whatever will be found by scientists because they are so clever and their fact-filled theory explains so much. At the point of the unknown, it is a philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class, right next to some other fascinating philosophies.




327 posted on 08/25/2005 7:23:38 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Please define "evo teacher".
***I was plugging & chugging, substituting back into your statement. I suppose I should have been more accurate and said something like evo-biased teacher. Sorry about that. For purposes of policy discussion, let's just substitute PWTDFE there. Was there some kind of point you wanted to make?


328 posted on 08/25/2005 7:27:08 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I wish I had a $billion. Let's all hope that's not the last we see of you ;-)

Thanks for the link. It's bookmarked.


329 posted on 08/25/2005 7:37:15 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

Was there some kind of point you wanted to make?

Yes. Are you condemning evolution because there are "People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution" (that is charlatans) who advocate bad things?

330 posted on 08/26/2005 5:14:07 AM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

I'm going to break this up to keep the segments short.

First: re PatrickHenry's Lost o' Links.

It may seem overwhelming but that harks back to the complexity of the subject matter. He does have good subtopic headings so you can paick and choose.

Then there is Ichneumon's resource article explaining the basics in one fell swoop.

I'd suggest printing that one out and perusing it at your convenience. It's quite clear if taken in small bites.


331 posted on 08/26/2005 7:40:03 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

"...The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
***And hereby you reinforce a point that I made earlier. Origins belongs in a 2nd year bio regimen due to its advanced nature (of course I think it should be a philosophy class, but that's just wandering off on a tangent)..."

Complex aspects do come later but the basic idea helps to explain so much, as in the dinosaurs kids are so interested in, that some mention needs to be made early.


332 posted on 08/26/2005 7:42:54 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

This one is a biggie in terms to the notion of putting Creation into biology classes.

"My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
***This is kind of interesting. My impression was that one was there to learn facts first, and what scientists think might come later. I don't mind a philosophy professor telling me his philosophy, nor a poly sci professor telling me his political views. But I do mind a bio prof telling me his religious/philosophy views, and the bleedover that has been resulting where other profs take their cues and proceed from evo to lay in their pet philosophies. "

When I say "what scientists think" I am referring to the current state of the field. You might term it "facts" but I, as a teacher in the field, prefer "data" and "current scientific interpretations."

Without that, of with diluting that, the student has no basis to go further.


333 posted on 08/26/2005 7:48:31 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley

Hasn't Maxwell's demon been sorta changed?


And "question an evo in anthropology" doesn't mean much. Perhaps you meant paleontology.

Your funding dries up if your research proposals don't look good. It's got to be based on soomething. DI's got lots of money so if there are good research proposals out there that are being ignored, they can fund it


334 posted on 08/26/2005 7:54:08 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Are you condemning evolution because there are "People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution" (that is charlatans) who advocate bad things?
***When I was more snide in the past, I would simply have answered, "no." I would have been suspicious that you're trying to trap me and that there is some issue with condemning a belief system because of its followers... Then we'd have to go back & forth and you'd finally figure out that my problem is with your use of the word "condemn", it's just a little bit stronger than how I view it; I suppose I would call it an annoyed tollerance of that belief system. So, in the interest of moving the conversation forward, I'll go ahead and tell you what I do think.

I don't condemn followers of a belief system unless they do something wrong. However, for purposes of social policy discussion, there is a point of critical mass where some or most or many followers of certain idealogies cause too much trouble. That may be fallacious thinking, but it doesn't matter for purposes of social policy. An example is Islam... the current political environment seems to be realizing that there is something within the Islamic belief system that lends itself to violence (look even at its founder). Another example is Nazism -- at what point do we "condemn" Nazism due to its negative influence on society and how it lends itself to evil?

My viewpoint towards evo/abiog arises from my contact with its adherents as well as what I perceive from its soulless conclusions. My perceptions might be right, they might be wrong, and so might yours. As a social policy discussion, the terms tend to move towards what is the ultimate good for society, whether most people have perceived that as worthwhile, that kind of thing.

I like to think that the difference between a charlatan and a crackpot is that one believes his pet theory and the other doesn't. I would think that much of what I have seen resulting from evo isn't from charlatans, but from crackpots. They're sincere in their belief system. It's possible to be sincere, and be sincerely wrong.


335 posted on 08/28/2005 12:12:10 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

PatrickHenry's Lost o' Links... may seem overwhelming but that harks back to the complexity of the subject matter.
***That's one place to hang one's hat. The subject matter is so complex that a guy with a BSEE and another important political figure with a Harvard MBA might not be able to comprehend it fully. It is therefore not suitable to be teaching to children. Teach Biology in Biology class. Teach evo/abiog/creat in a philosophy class, and perhaps in a 2nd year bio class. For all the rest of those english/women's studies/fill-in-the-blank teachers, Shut Up and Teach your Own Subjects.


He does have good subtopic headings so you can paick and choose.
***It is excellent. And overwhelming, yes.


336 posted on 08/28/2005 12:18:31 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Hasn't Maxwell's demon been sorta changed?
***I dunno. Not aware of that thingie.

And "question an evo in anthropology" doesn't mean much. Perhaps you meant paleontology.
***I'm afraid I don't understand what you wrote.

DI's got lots of money so if there are good research proposals out there that are being ignored, they can fund it.
***Really? I had no idea that was the case. I find myself rooting for the ID side as long as they stay honest.


337 posted on 08/28/2005 12:38:00 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Complex aspects do come later but the basic idea helps to explain so much, as in the dinosaurs kids are so interested in, that some mention needs to be made early.
***And yet the basic idea explains so little in comparison to the creat/ID side, so by that measurement the ID side wins the argument. I gotta go, maybe we can explore this one later.


338 posted on 08/28/2005 12:40:54 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-338 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson