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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 851-875 next last
To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry; Doctor Stochastic
Hot off the wire:

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that two men who beat him were making references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13336260.htm

501 posted on 12/05/2005 8:20:03 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow (Sneering condescension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

Comment #502 Removed by Moderator

To: Fester Chugabrew
It is easy to study evolution apart from abiogenesis.

Cool, your words, my bedtime. Talk to you later.

503 posted on 12/05/2005 8:23:18 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Morris_Hattrick
Well, it looks like the mentality of the fundies is consistent . . .

Actually, what it looks like is that the position of all materialists and evolutionists is scientifically and morally bankrupt. Look, the guy lost a tooth. He was beaten severely. That proves beyond question evolutionists and materialists are plumb dumb and wrong. It also proves that you had best repent before the rest of us fundies don red baseball hats and wool gloves. Deal with it. Be sure to check the bushes outside before you go to sleep.

504 posted on 12/05/2005 8:43:12 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

Comment #505 Removed by Moderator

To: Morris_Hattrick
But what is to be expected by one suffering from the mental defect that is religious belief.

So why do you have the American flag on your home page? You belong in an atheistic society such as China. Certainly anyone who would call Washington and Lincoln mentally defective should not feel at home here.

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

506 posted on 12/05/2005 8:54:46 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Morris_Hattrick

It smarts not in the least to be "shamed" by someone who knows neither the One to whom all are accountable nor any significant reason for pronouncing judgment upon others.


507 posted on 12/05/2005 8:55:47 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Despite all of the idiotic ranting and shameless lies I've seen from creationists through the years I have never seen such a shameful display of malice and hate, not to mention the most odious demonstration of abject stupidity in claiming that physical violence against someone who accepts evolution somehow proves evolution is false.

You are a very, very disturbing kind of stupid.
508 posted on 12/05/2005 8:59:09 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Again, not unexpected.


509 posted on 12/05/2005 9:00:22 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

I expected shameful gloating over an act of violence. I never expected the disgusting bile that Fester vomited forth.


510 posted on 12/05/2005 9:01:25 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I've observed Creationists for the last half century. It's sad to say, not much has changed.


511 posted on 12/05/2005 9:03:10 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]


512 posted on 12/05/2005 9:04:33 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
...hospitalized Monday after an apparent roadside beating...

...Just a minor glitch in the heartless process of natural selection, etc. Just the "laws of nature"

What a class act you are, FC.

513 posted on 12/05/2005 9:06:58 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I expected shameful gloating over an act of violence. I never expected the disgusting bile that Fester vomited forth.

I did. Over on the main thread more than one person has expressed chagrin the beating was not more severe. I hit abuse on the first of those. No result. Evidently management agrees that Mirecki was not damaged enough.

I have to say I'm withholding judgement on this incident until the police weigh in. We've seen too many cases like this that turned out to be fakes. But if it turns out to be legitimate, I will be blogging on the FReeper reaction, and it won't be pretty.

514 posted on 12/05/2005 9:07:48 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Actually, what it looks like is that the position of all materialists and evolutionists is scientifically and morally bankrupt. Look, the guy lost a tooth. He was beaten severely. That proves beyond question evolutionists and materialists are plumb dumb and wrong. It also proves that you had best repent before the rest of us fundies don red baseball hats and wool gloves. Deal with it. Be sure to check the bushes outside before you go to sleep.

You gotta be kidding me.

515 posted on 12/05/2005 9:10:25 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Over on the main thread more than one person has expressed chagrin the beating was not more severe.

There's a main thread? I couldn't find it with several search terms.
516 posted on 12/05/2005 9:11:40 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
We've seen too many cases like this that turned out to be fakes.

It's possible. It's kind of a shame when people want pity so badly that they'll stage something like this. If this is the case, he should suffer the consequences of filing a false police report.

We've seen too many cases like this that turned out to be fakes.

I gotta see this. Where?

517 posted on 12/05/2005 9:14:28 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

The "narnia" review thread is almost as bad. Perhaps the Moon has slipped phase tonight.


518 posted on 12/05/2005 9:17:00 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Just to comment before the fact: if it's a fake, the faker should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; likewise if it's real, same to the perps.


519 posted on 12/05/2005 9:18:18 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
That proves beyond question evolutionists and materialists are plumb dumb and wrong. It also proves that you had best repent before the rest of us fundies don red baseball hats and wool gloves. Deal with it. Be sure to check the bushes outside before you go to sleep.

Inappropriate!

520 posted on 12/05/2005 9:20:48 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I have to say I'm withholding judgement on this incident until the police weigh in. We've seen too many cases like this that turned out to be fakes. But if it turns out to be legitimate, I will be blogging on the FReeper reaction, and it won't be pretty.

And what will that be? A broad brush that equates your opponents with the village idiots surrounding castle Frankenstein? Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but I'm sure most Creationists decry physical violence against anyone. But, whatever comes of the story, if the violators exist, they should be appropriately punished and it should be aggravated punishment for allowing opportunists to use Creationists/IDers as scapegoats.

521 posted on 12/05/2005 9:21:03 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
... I'm sure most Creationists decry physical violence against anyone...

Perhaps, but there are some (on this and other threads) celebrating it. Your response if refreshing in this matter.

522 posted on 12/05/2005 9:22:51 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Just to comment before the fact: if it's a fake, the faker should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; likewise if it's real, same to the perps

Bingo!

523 posted on 12/05/2005 9:23:28 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Thank you.
524 posted on 12/05/2005 9:24:36 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: All

I can't help being a bit skeptical. Oh well, we'll know soom enough.


525 posted on 12/05/2005 9:27:25 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

I really think most Creationists, felt "OH NO". It is no help to anyone to have that happen. I don't even want the other outcome to occur, it, to me is just as bad. I'm stuck. This is a distasteful situation. It might be wise to consider what the Gideon rep told me about his actions when the police told him to leave. He was handing out Bibles to those who would accept them. He left without comment. This happened in the U.S.


526 posted on 12/05/2005 9:30:48 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Thank you.

And thank you.

527 posted on 12/05/2005 9:35:36 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Doctor Stochastic
Welcome to the "Festival of the Violence-Celebrating Cretin".

I recommend PERMANENT VI™ for the guilty party. People who are that warped and demented deserve to be cyber-shunned.

528 posted on 12/05/2005 9:35:58 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I'll withhold judgment (consonant clusters are not as tasty as peanut clusters) until the evidence is in. I find many of the comments over the ugly edge though. Too many people jump to unwarranted conclusions; many wanted to execute the boyfriend of the "fiancee" who ended up in Albuquerque.

I did find the comments about Matthew Shepherd problematic; that case was not fake, but I still see (various internet sites, sometimes FR) some justyfing his murder.

529 posted on 12/05/2005 9:39:07 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

Festering placemark


530 posted on 12/05/2005 9:56:24 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I did find the comments about Matthew Shepherd problematic; that case was not fake, but I still see (various internet sites, sometimes FR) some justyfing his murder.

Yes, people do rationalize things. But that is not truly rational.

531 posted on 12/05/2005 9:57:00 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; CarolinaGuitarman
Some observations of my own:

1) Atheistic liberatarians can never live down that they live under a system instituted by God-fearing men.

They skirt that (ahem) inconvenient point.

(But I confess that I delight in it.)

Our wonderful (and brilliant!) system of government allows for the greatest latitude in personal freedoms exactly BECAUSE it was devised by God-fearing men.

2) Science progressed in Europe not despite of, but largely BECAUSE OF the influence of Christianity.

Science could not have evolved anywhere else on the globe as rapidly as it did in Europe precisely because Christianity (almost always) was tolerant of scientific inquiry. Certainly far more so than Islam. It also valued education, which directly supported science.

532 posted on 12/05/2005 10:13:59 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: sauron
TOUCHE

Wolf
533 posted on 12/05/2005 10:18:24 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow; dread78645; Coyoteman; CarolinaGuitarman; Right Wing Professor; AndrewC; ...
I noted that many in this discussion (and there have been excellent arguments on both sides) abandoned ship, fled for the hills, or diverted arguments when abiogenesis was mentioned.

Abiogenesis is their *weakness* in the discussion of creation vs. evolution.

If it were their strength, believe me, you'd be hearing more about it. But they can't tout it, because no one understands it.

(Again: Remember that Genesis says specifically that "the Earth brought forth life"--which implies evolution from abiogenesis. Judaic tradition sure describes the origin of all things better than Eskimo, eh?)

Say what you will, but the lack of progress with the abiogenic field speaks volumes about the limitations of our understanding of how life first formed. We simply *don't know,* but only a few honest biochemists will fess up to the truth. The rest remain guilty in their silence.

There's a huge amount of peer pressure to toe the line in science. If you want continued grant funding, you need a good word from your peers as a future reference. If you don't have it, you lose your livelihood. Few will dare to buck the establishment.

ID is new. There's no hurry. I think they're onto something, because they can't disprove Intelligent Design. In fact, many unanswered questions are hinting at, pointing at, Intelligent Design as the cause for why we can't answer a simple question: How did Life begin?

Why should there be something...rather than nothing?

While we cannot (and probably never will be able to) prove ID, the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming...but not quite proof.

Conversely, they cannot disprove I.D.

As for me, I view evolution and the entrenched cabal defending-it-at-all-costs as very close-minded. They're putting forth their own "just so" story.

For me, I view evolution as the Theory of Accidentialism.

There just hasn't been enough time elapsed here on Earth to generate life from inorganic materials, even by their own theories.

There's also the problem that life appeared the minute liquid water was able to form. In reality, that's the point where the countdown should have begun, and add many billions of years to that date. But that's not what happened. Life seemed to have been either introduced, or pre-programmed to introduce itself (Genesis, anyone?).

Either way, I think this univese was meant to have life in it. We have some bacteria that have more than a hundred times the genetic material you would expect for a bacteria...is it meant to be "seed material" to create other organisms?

Here we are, living on this Goldilocks world...right orbit, smack dab in the ecospshere...right inclination...right star...right part of the spiral arm...right age...a tiny fraction in change of temperature and matter wouldn't exist...quantum gravity "tuned" to be just right...even Hoyle said that it appeared as if Someone has "monkeyed" with the physics of the universe, that it was fine-tuned for life....

I'm sorry, but I think O.J. murdered Nicole because of all the circumstantial evidence, and I think God exists because of all the circumstantial evidence, too.

We're sitting here discussing the evidences for Design in biology. There's PLENTY, if you want to be honest about it.

But what's more important--there's even MORE evidence for Design in the cosmos. Some of the older Christians here can recollect when a select sect (cult, cabal...I'll use the word "sect") of slightly less-than-honest-to-the-general-public astronomers held out for far too many years for the Steady State Theory, held out beyond all reasonableness, and held out--by their own admission--because the thought of a universe with an "origin" carried too weight of an implication, and made them "uneasy." (Hints at the existence of a God to whom they might be accountable.) It all gets down to the desire to be libertine, rather than accountable.

If the universe is ultimately uncreated, eterally self-existent, or even accidental...then it has no purpose, and neither do we. Morality becomes irrelevant.

If, however, it was created, then morality becomes paramount. And this frightens some. But on the good side, it would mean that love, perception of aesthetic beauty, and the concept of altruism and mercy actually do have meaning, and our having them was by no means an accident.

I'm sickened by a few deceitful astronomers who clung tenanciously to the Steady State Theory (now on the ash heap), only to discard it and immediately jump onto the (minority) bandwagon of Brane Theory. They weren't held accountable. (Scolding would be sufficient.)

They'll simply do anything to DENY that this universe had an origin, a creation, in time.

(Brane Theory says that another universe "bumped" into this one, creating it. It conveniently begs the question of what created THAT OTHER universe. Another "just so" story we're supposed to accept. Oh, and there are 11 dimensions to it...did I mention that? We're supposed to lay back and accept this stuff, cut from whole cloth, unprovable, posited from nothing but imagination, and yet we cannot posit a Creator? Dudes, you guys must play by the same rhetorical rules. If you can make up your universes, we can posit God, for whom there's tons of circumstantial evidence.)

My $0.02, again. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Let's all rest easy.

Sauron.

534 posted on 12/05/2005 10:26:32 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: sauron
Abiogenesis is their *weakness* in the discussion of creation vs. evolution.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant in a discussion of evolution. Evolution occurs regardless of how the first life forms came to exist. Anyone who tries to claim that evolution somehow relies on a specific type of abiogenesis event is either fundamentally ignorant of evolution and not to be trusted when speaking on evolution or an outright liar and not to be trusted when speaking on evolution.

Conversely, they cannot disprove I.D.

That ID cannot, under any hypothetical situation, be falsified is precisely why it is not science and has no place in a science discussion.
535 posted on 12/05/2005 10:38:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: sauron

I hear you Sauron. Thank You.

Wolf


536 posted on 12/05/2005 10:41:35 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
If you are going to blog about the 'FReeper reaction',

then you should blog however the case turns out to be (legit or not)

What kind of bs is that??

Wolf
537 posted on 12/05/2005 10:51:33 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: sauron
Likewise: Do the scientists truly understand the DNA they're cutting and pasting?

I believe you're moving the bar. You asked if anyone could prove that life could be made from non-life. I gave you one example of how this might be done.

And what's to understand about DNA? It's a simple organic polymer. You know. Plastic.

538 posted on 12/05/2005 11:09:45 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; sauron
And what's to understand about DNA? It's a simple organic polymer.

I find that akin to "What's to understand about Linux? It' a simple sequence of 1's and 0's."

Well, when you think it is that simple, you end up with billion dollar spacecraft crashing into the surface of Mars instead of gently landing there.

539 posted on 12/05/2005 11:32:08 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Yeh, like one of the other evos said he could design a better universe by kicking something around on the ground with arms tied behind back.., LOL!!

Hmmm..,, the best of science in the name of evo.

Well okaaayy, let's see it then.., HA HA HA HA!!

Wolf
540 posted on 12/05/2005 11:38:36 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: sauron
We're sitting here discussing the evidences for Design in biology. There's PLENTY, if you want to be honest about it.

I think we're all honest about the appearance of design in life, even Dawkins admits that. It is that some assert that it can appear by chance and unguided selection.

541 posted on 12/05/2005 11:40:29 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: sauron
I noted that many in this discussion (and there have been excellent arguments on both sides) abandoned ship, fled for the hills, or diverted arguments when abiogenesis was mentioned.

Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution says nothing about creation. The tenor of your posts suggests that you have a bizarre idea that those who support evolution are atheists. That is false, and so your following few paragraphs are based on a false premise. BTW abiogenesis is being studied, and if I were you I wouldn't predicate my faith on those studies ultimately failing to provide a naturalistic explanation. Worshipping the God of the Gaps is risky.

There's a huge amount of peer pressure to toe the line in science. If you want continued grant funding, you need a good word from your peers as a future reference. If you don't have it, you lose your livelihood. Few will dare to buck the establishment.

THis is just paranoid nonsense. The fame and fortune that would await anyone who falsified a central unifying theory such as evolution with genuine evidence would be undying. The idea that scientists (most of whom are religious believers) are hiding the evidence to further some kind of evolutionist agenda is beyond parody.

ID is new. There's no hurry. I think they're onto something, because they can't disprove Intelligent Design. In fact, many unanswered questions are hinting at, pointing at, Intelligent Design as the cause for why we can't answer a simple question: How did Life begin?

ID isn't new, it is one of man's oldest ideas. In the last few-thousand years ID hasn't produced one single insight. Incidentally are you aware of the opinions of the main scientific exponent of ID, Michael Behe?

Is that a set of beliefs you are happy to sign up to? If not then best drop the support for ID.

Either way, I think this univese was meant to have life in it. We have some bacteria that have more than a hundred times the genetic material you would expect for a bacteria...is it meant to be "seed material" to create other organisms? Here we are, living on this Goldilocks world...right orbit, smack dab in the ecospshere...right inclination...right star...right part of the spiral arm...right age...a tiny fraction in change of temperature and matter wouldn't exist...quantum gravity "tuned" to be just right...even Hoyle said that it appeared as if Someone has "monkeyed" with the physics of the universe, that it was fine-tuned for life....

About .000000000000000000000001% of the universe appears to be "fine-tuned for life" as you put it. Isn't that rather wasteful. Another way of putting it would be, "to get life like us, you'd need a universe and a planet just like ours", Well duh! And wasn't your argument just now that life was so unlikely that God had to tinker to make it appear. Now you've reversed that stance to say that we've got a goldilocks universe where all this is inevitable. Which is it, then?

It all gets down to the desire to be libertine, rather than accountable. If the universe is ultimately uncreated, eterally self-existent, or even accidental...then it has no purpose, and neither do we. Morality becomes irrelevant. If, however, it was created, then morality becomes paramount. And this frightens some. But on the good side, it would mean that love, perception of aesthetic beauty, and the concept of altruism and mercy actually do have meaning, and our having them was by no means an accident.

You make an enormous jump from "The universe was created" (if we accept that, for the sake of argument). To "morality becomes paramount". Whence comes this jump. Why should the creator of the universe share our notions of morality? Why should the creator of the universe care about us at all? He seems to have created this "rather large" artifact of which we form a vanishingly tiny and insignificant portion. To get a sense of the scale of the universe, imagine a cubic mile of fine powder, 10 grains to the mm, 1000 grains per cubic mill. Each of those grains is a sun in the universe, spread them out so the average distance between them is many miles. Near one of them, and a thousand times smaller is a miniscule speck, and on its surface is... us. You really think that the whole shebang was created just to get us? What kind of Goldilocks universe is that wastefulness?

542 posted on 12/06/2005 12:14:35 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: KamperKen
No trace of charaltanism anywhere that I could detect,

The joke's on you kid. The whole book is a hoax.

543 posted on 12/06/2005 3:09:44 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: highball
I apologize for my tardy reply, work sometimes interjects itself...

If I created the impression that I was suggesting that science should be poll driven I made my argument poorly.

My intention was that the "public relations" of the situation isn't being handled well.

I work in a fairly technical area (not science) and I work with clients every day that don't have a clue. They're not stupid, they're not morons, they're ignorant of the issue surronding a reasonably technical area.

Not that I would even use the word ignorant, rather I try to explain, using situations that they can relate to their lives, the reasons why they're morons (there's a bit of an attempt at humor there). If I were to simply say "hey, you guys are morons" I suspect I'd be shown the door immediately and lose a client.

For instance as a non-scientists I have an idea of what the word "theory" means: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.". However the scientific definition of theory is, of course, quite different.

It's not the publics fault that they go with the one they're likley to understand from their non-scientific lives. They're not morons, they've simply not been exposed to the fact.

So the point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is that it is incumbent on science to educate, not simply call people morons. Present a cogent argument starting with the basics and continue from there.

It may not work, but I would observe that in the last 30 years science hasn't engaged in enough education. We see junk science used to advance an agenda and fairly or unfairly, it's a big brush that the public sees as tarring all science. We also see science that has become, at least in my view, timid in challenging junk science because of tenure, funding or even being outcasts in their peer group.

Rather than education it's been more of a case of "we're real smart, we're right, you don't agree, you're an idiot".

Simply a thought.

544 posted on 12/06/2005 3:13:07 AM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sauron
Oh, I forgot one of Michael Behe's beliefs (founded, he maintains, on the physical evidence):

* Evolution is true

* All of life on earth shares a common ancestor (by implication including men and other apes)

* The earth is billions of years old

* There is no physical evidence that the designer has intervened in natural processes such as evolution for many millions of years

* The Designer may not still be around

Of course you may well be content to agree with that set of beliefs, but it is hard to be sure without asking you. Most self-professed Freeper IDers recoil when they discover what the scientific vendors of ID are selling. Curiously they seem to have signed up to it without checking what it is.

545 posted on 12/06/2005 3:17:12 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: KamperKen
There are things, like the Cambrian Explosion, that should make one wonder about ID

The "Cambrian Explosion" is an oft quoted troublesome event of creationists and IDers. Explosions sound like exciting events don't they. But it doesn't seem to bother professional biologists so much. The "explosion" did last for tens of millions of years, which is actually a very large number of generations, and there were pre-cambrian organisms, but their fossils were just so small we didn't have the techniques to spot them until relatively recently.

546 posted on 12/06/2005 3:26:11 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

What you say isn't unreasonable. Part of the problem that those of us on the evo side of the debate is that we see the same canards and easily refuted weak arguments for creationism/ID coming at us again and again.

Various forms of this behaviour can be very irritating, which makes us tend to post snappily.

* The same Freeper posting the same refuted argument again and again in a thread
* An evo refutes an argument, and then sees it pop up again from the same poster in a later thread as if the refutation had never happened
* Argument by lucky dip, where a Freeper posts a succession of arguments and as each one is refuted just goes back to their favourite creationist website for more, ad nauseam within the same thread. Don't they realise how stupid this makes them (and by extension their religion) look?
* Argument by continuous cheerleading for bad arguments being posted by other Freepers, without ever actually proposing any arguments of their own.
* Putting forward arguments which could only be true if 99% of professional biologists are either stupid or liars engaged in an enormous atheist conspiracy. (the classic 2LOT argument falsifies evolution is an example of this, do the posters really think that biologists are unaware of the 2LOT?)

But you are quite right. We owe it to the lurkers and newby creationist posters who have genuinely been misled to be as factual and down-to-earth as possible, and to avoid being snappy. I fail all the time myself though.


547 posted on 12/06/2005 3:38:21 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
We also see science that has become, at least in my view, timid in challenging junk science because of tenure, funding or even being outcasts in their peer group.

Do you have any examples of what you mean by "Junk science" in this regard. The scientists of my acquaintance are an opinionated bunch who are quick to deride any notions that they regard as fallacious, and who don't seem overly concerned with maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat. Scientists are naturally argumentative.

In the past I've seen "junk science" used as a catch-all term that describes science whose conclusions a poster feels uncomfortable with, without regard to the actual validity of the science.

548 posted on 12/06/2005 3:43:35 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

The range of dates I've seen for the Cambrian explosion from 5 million to 30 million years, which is hugely problematic for the theory of evolution. So, in literally no time at all geologically, all of the phyla of the world appear literally at once. Their fossil precursors were all microbes.

BTW, the term "explosion" has no meretricious appeal for me. I find that "explosions" are used by theorists to get themselves out of the corners they've painted themselves into.


549 posted on 12/06/2005 3:48:30 AM PST by KamperKen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
In the past I've seen "junk science" used as a catch-all term that describes science whose conclusions a poster feels uncomfortable with, without regard to the actual validity of the science.

We have a winner.

550 posted on 12/06/2005 3:54:32 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 851-875 next 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