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.

[mlc9852]

I still think science should have a definition of a planet. We have all kinds of definitions in science that the vast majority of scientists agree with. Seems there should be some sort of formula to determine if indeed an object is a planet or not. I really don't think that's asking a lot.

[mlc9852]

So you want people to learn something before you will give them any credit at all, yet when they try, you insult them. That hardly promotes the interests of science. That's why so many people get turned off to science - attitudes of those who use their knowledge to embarrass and insult people rather than trying to actually become interested in learning on their own. Attitude means a lot.

[bvw]

If he dealt with one thing at a time rather than attempt to intimidate by dumping a truck load of feed-corn on top of the formally-set dinner table, why he might actually be interested in rational discussion. What psychology drives some to post as they do is a curious thing. Some curiouser than others.

[GLDNGUN]

childish taunts and bluster and belligerence

Did you really type that without feeling a hint of hypocrisy? Good grief. Others have grown tired of your condescension, personal attacks, and arrogance and it's quite obvious why.

[furball4paws]

Almost a Balrog placemarker.

[Dimensio]

mlc9852 has been told more than once about the difference between "theory" and "law". Just more creationist tabula rasa.

[furball4paws]

One complete Balrog.

[Dimensio]

Others have grown tired of your condescension, personal attacks, and arrogance and it's quite obvious why.

Indeed, it is obvious. They're tired of having their utter refusal to address facts and instead trash and flame because there are supposedly "no facts" and then trash and flame when too many facts are presented pointed out so obviously. Creationists here are getting tired of being called out on their willful ignorance and deliberate dishonesty.

[101st-Eagle]

And there is no mention of God or any other deity in other scientific theories either but somehow I never see creationists/IDers complain about that. So the Theory of Evolution no more assumes the nonexistence of your god than any other theory.

You have been keeping up with some of the attitudes from some scientists in astrophysics and quantum mecahnics, etc.? I seem to recall many quotes about God from some pretty prominent scientists. Oh yeah, a lot of folks here will explain their own "interpretation" of what that scientist "really" meant. But that's not much different from the M.O. of a fire and brimstone bible literalist preacher.

"The true wise man is the one who realizes he knows nothing"-Socrates

[Dimensio]

Oops! I stole your thunder! Or is that fire?

[Dimensio]

You have been keeping up with some of the attitudes from some scientists in astrophysics and quantum mecahnics, etc.?

The opinion of a science on the existence of a deity or deities is not itself a scientific opinion. The Theory of Evolution makes no "assumptions" whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any deities, despite the non-science related opinions of scientists outside of any relevant scientific field. Honestly, I don't see what the opinions of an astrophysicst has to do with evolution at all. Astrophysics is not biology.

[101st-Eagle]

Your post 177 is eloquently stated and right on the mark.

[whattajoke]

I just still have a lot of questions.

Fair enough. Where can I find your similar questions for the creationists? Are they in the Religion threads?

[BMCDA]

Good grief, how do you suppose we derive such a formula?

I mean this makes as much sense as demanding a formula that determines the difference between a mountain and a hill. And it is just as arbitrary so you haven't gained anything.

[furball4paws]

Never mind - you are sandwiched and you will feel the fire of his wrath.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[Lurking Libertarian]

And since there is such debate over which ones were apes and which were humans, I will go under the assumption that apes were and are apes and humans were and are humans.

And how about the ones which no one can agree whether they were apes or humans, because they have some characteristics of both? What were they?

Can you say "transitionals"? I knew you could!

[mlc9852]

I believe most creationists would agree that they have a lot of questions. Everyone has a lot of questions.

[longshadow]

I mean this makes as much sense as demanding a formula that determines the difference between a mountain and a hill. And it is just as arbitrary so you haven't gained anything.

Well said.

"Tortoise" dealt with the general case thusly:

"Pretending that one can quantize a continuum rarely generates good results around the arbitrary boundary."

That pretty much says it all for this issue. Whether it is trying to draw a line that delineates modern humans from their more ancient ancestors, or planetoids from planets, or hills from mountains, they all fall into the trap of quantitzing the continuum. The boundaries are always arbitrary, and will almost always create debates regarding objects that are arbitrarily close to each other but which lie on opposing sides of the boundary we have arbitrarily imposed on the continuum to quantify it.

[mlc9852]

You say they are transitionals. I say they are either one or the other but with the limited information scientists actually have, it's flip a coin - heads, it's human, tails, ape. There are some obvious things we have in common with apes but that doesn't necessarily prove we had a common ancestor. And all the DNA info that keeps getting thrown around, what is the oldest DNA of an ape that they have looked at? Perhaps they are in fact transitional between something and something else. I don't know but neither do you so in the end, it comes down to what someone wants to believe.