Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[darbymcgill]

Thanks for the PING)))) E.S.....

But what's up with all the spam..??? is this the new EVO strategy?

Looks like DC sent out a memo....

[jwalsh07]

Lord knows that Ichy and I have our differences but he is one of the few committed ND's that does contribute to threads concerning issues of concern to conservatives. You gotta give the "devil" his due. No offense Ichy. :-}

[BMCDA]

The study was to show the change in population because of an environmental shift. It was a fraud, because the moths don't rest on tree trunks, the primary assertion for the population shift. Yet, it is taught to this day as a case study of natural selection at work in a species.

Aw geez! I guess you got me there. Every five year old knows that peppered moths never ever rest on the trunk of a tree or any other part of a tree covered with bark.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Colleges and universities must compete with religious institutions for grants, donations, and bequests. When churches are discredited, the schools get more $$$$$$. That's what it's all about.

Actually it's the creationists and ID'ers that have created a multi-billion dollar industry separating believers from their money. Dr. Hovind claims to be taking in $24 million a year (the last time I checked) from donations alone.

And you should be aware that most biologists are Christians. I have to assume, Syncretic, that you don't know very many.

[whattajoke]

But what's up with all the spam..??? is this the new EVO strategy?

Lemme guess... in your world, the mountains of biology books and scientific papers is "spam?" Boy, you guys really have no shame, eh?

[WildHorseCrash]

Instead, all they have to offer are lies.

...and, disgustingly, the slander of a dead man's name. No character a--holes.

[PatrickHenry]

I put some research into those definitions, and tried to limit them more to scientific than lay uses. If you can suggest specific language changes, I would be glad to consider them.

We need a thread devoted to working up definitions we can all agree on, and then we can forever link to the final result. What we end up with may be what you already have, or it may get tweaked a bit. It should probably be posted in the smokey backroom or something. I'm mulling it over.

[BMCDA]

And you should be aware that most biologists are Christians.

Yeah, so they claim but them Darwin-worshippers are no Troo Christians^TM.

;-)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I thought I was going to get the trademark on that...

:o(

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Why do we acquire pubic hair only at sexual maturity? Why does our hear grow thickest between the legs and under the arms--the two warmest places on the human body?

Wouldn't these also be the smelliest parts of the human body?

Isn't odor a part of what attracts one animal to another?

[Ichneumon]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Indeed, which makes me wonder why the fraudulent creationists keep throwing stones. No one lies as frequently or unashamedly as an anti-evolutionist. Even the liberals have (slightly) better track records.

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees

Did you actually read that article, or just the hysterical commentary that followed?

Clue for the clueless: It's an article about how data that has commercial value (i.e., for patents, etc.) isn't made publicly available for free, because the researchers want to be able to make a buck on it and not just give it away.

The horror! The horror!

So anti-evolutionists are anti-capitalist now, too, along with just being grossly dishonest and anti-science, eh? Hardly surprising.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You've raised some interesting points. I don't lay claim to any expertise on the subject of evolution or ID -- though I've learned some things from these threads. My interest is the philosophy of science and the scientific method, where I do know a few things.

The only thing I "know" about this is that the ToE has not been proven -- it never will be, no more than any other theory can be proven. (Including, I suppose the theory of falsification, which I just cited. :-) ) Of course, we have to go with what we've got -- Occam's razor tells us to make things as simple as possible, without oversimplifying.

What I'm doing essentially is being a "free-rider" on this debate. I'm content to just let the various factions have at it, until someone is declared a winner. Then, I'll probably adjust my thinking accordingly. (Well, maybe I'm paying for my ticket to ride by nagging people about Popper and other philosophers of science.)

[frgoff]

Nice disinformation article.

The initial charge stands, even though the article tries to dance around it. Exposed bark is key to the study.

I fail to see why this is such a dogfight for evolutionists. There are others studies that are much more solid that clearly demonstrate environmental selection at work. There is obviously something more at work here than just science.

Just drop it already and use the example of smallpox in the New World.

[WildHorseCrash]

The reason I connected the TOE and no mention of God and no other scientific theory, is that the TOE directly contradicts the Christian creation story. Relativity, gravity, etc. are merely theories observing how the universe works. The TOE attempts to explain our origins, creation (yes, I know, but the TOE relies on the Big Bang, etc. theories), and tries to discredit the Creator.

This is where I have to shake my head... The theory of evolution doen't "tr[y] to discredit the Creator," it explains the diversity of living things. If that "directly controadicts the Christian creation story," than that means that this story is unrealistic and does not reflect nature and the real world. It isn't that the theory of evolution is making a statement about Christianity, it is making a statement about nature. The fact that the Christian story doesn't coincide with the theory or nature is a problem of the story (or your understanding of that story), not of the theory or nature.

[ShadowAce]

I will never apologize to you for anything.

Proverbs 16:18

[BMCDA]

Good idea. I think it should also be pointed out that science is much more conservative with its definitions than the vernacular and that the definition of "theory" as it is used in science is the original one, since it's only a rather recent phenomenon that nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry "has a theory" or thinks that the ToE is "only a theory".

[longshadow]

generic placemarker

[BMCDA]

;-Þ

[ShadowAce]

The theory of evolution doen't "tr[y] to discredit the Creator," it explains the diversity of living things.

...by removing Him as the cause.

[ThomasNast]

Nast: Here comes the name-calling.

Ichy: ...or I'll add you to the list of folks knowingly making false accusations.

I guess I should restate my position. There has been no name-calling on this thread. No one used the word "idiot".

ichy: Are they idiots or just liars?

No one has been called an ignoramous, a--hole, liar or any other name. Please do not claim that I was making a false accusation...I must've somehow misread those particular posts.