Skip to comments.Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
Posted on 05/23/2007 8:19:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Why don’t you try reading all the posts on this issue - I believe I said that and then was challenged on it. Perhaps you need to straighten out coyoteman on this issue - not me.
Better yet, before you comment, try to get your ducks in a row.
I did read the whole thread...coyoteman needs absolutely no straightening out on this issue...he actually knows exactly what he is talking about...
My ducks are in a row, yours are not...
Thank you for these additional insights. Jeepers...
Thank you. I are indeed granulated.
(That means I've been through the mill!)
[No, but some mutations result in individuals that produce more offspring than others.]
That’s not in dispute- Science is clear on that- however, you propose that ID needs to describe motivational aspects of a designer in order to be concidered ‘true’ science, but don’t require any such thing from Evo.
actually, during the formative years in Americas history most of the schools were religious in nature. Look at the hearty and respectful citizens it produced. So many people willing to build up a new country and withstand immense hardships. It was largely their belief in God that gave them the strength to indure and help create this great country that you enjoy. To try and eliminate that from present day publically funded schools is terrible and destructive. If anything, the balkanization is occuring by creating mind numbed school kids who are filled with doubt with the help of bad scientific teachings which are afraid of some good competition...of course that competition is labeled unscientific in order to excuse their blindness. But, upon just a little bit of research their house built on sand and much mental imaginations falls away.
Evolution does not work toward specified goals. Are you asserting that this is true of the Designer?
Well, if coyoteman needs “no straightening out on this issue” you definitely do. It should be obvious to any logically thinking person that your post contradicts coyoteman. Personally, it’s an argument that’s a total waste of time and i’ve no clue why you felt some compulsion to defend coyoteman since he’s already stated he’s so brilliant. I guess you have doubts about his own ability to defend his own words? Are you “his mama” too?
I’ll state my thesis again so that perhaps some people can get back on track: To reject macro-evolution does not make one anti-science.
I believe when I made this statement in response to coyote, he immediately told me how brilliant he is and that I don’t need to “lecture” him on the issue because...well, he’s brilliant and I guess i’m not. LOL
You are such a whiner....you are already behind, the more you talk, the further behind you get...
As for Coyoteman, he is brilliant, I am not his mama, and nothing I have said, contradicts anything Coyoteman has said...keep whining, it gets funnier as it goes along...
And getting this thread off track, started with your postings, not mine...
Your opinion that rejecting macro-evolution does not make a person anti-science, is just that, your sole opinion...and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what? You reject macro-evolution, and I dont....
[Evolution does not work toward specified goals. Are you asserting that this is true of the Designer?]
Nope- I’m not stating that at all- I simply said, if Design is true, and if it’s true on all levels, and results in assemblies of complex designs at higher levels, then one of two things is also true, either God is the designer, or another natural element is the designer, and it is the responsibility of science to explain how design could happen in a random fashion. That’s all. Students deserve to have science in it’s entirety taught, and a huge part of hte scientific mystery is the design and specified complexities we see. One hypothesis from the Evo side on design is that an accumulation of small mutational changes within species can account for design and for complexities- however, this is a very vague statement with nothing but annectotal evidences to prop it up somewhat.
The problem with design and specific complexity for the evo side is that these design elements would have had to assemble very quickly and in a linear fashion with an end result in mind, if you will. The multitude of non specific mutational mistakes would have had to have been ‘filtered’ if you will, while the assembly took place. The further problem for the evo hypothesis is that design is seen at every level and exhibits signs of an intelligence when it comes to everythign working together seemlessly. Natural explanations attempt to declare that mistakes just kept happening until the right combinations took over for the benifit of a species. That’s a powerful lot of mistakes just to get at even a few successes, and we simply do not find the remains of all the mistakes that must have happened, nor do we see partially developed systems en mass as we should in the fossil records. There are a few tantilizing annomylies in the records for sure, but htese are open to much hypothetical speculations and subjective interpretations.
[and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what?]
So what? Coyote has declared ad nauseum that anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution and proposes design is not a science fan but an apologist- that’s not a ‘so what’ statement- that’s an accusation that demands rebuttle. That’s ‘so what’!
Well, I see that you are hopeful, that someone will offer a strong rebuttal to Coyoteman...so far, I have not seen one...and I am not hopeful of seeing one in the future...I will be out for a few hours, but am certainly waiting to see such a strong rebuttal forthcoming, upon my return...tho, I doubt such a strong rebuttal will be found...not one that makes any sense anyway...but do try..
[and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what?]
You try to propose that because everyone has an opinion, and all differ, that whatever someone’s opinion, is of no real consequence in the overall big picture, but the interpretation to your proposal is this ‘Because we all have different opinions, then we, the evos, can belittle the opposition, and if anyone defends their position, then we, the evos, will jump on that person further belittling them’ which is what you and Coyoteman have been doing in this and other threads. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Coyoteman post statements that flat out deny that ID has any scientific merrit, and insinuationg that anyone that has an ID opinion is nothign but an ignorant apologist who believes in fairy tailes and old ‘myths’ from a dusty old man written book. Arguments like that are quite frankly friggin childish and imature!
Coyoteman and AAMM are both right about graduate school. A Masters takes about 2 years, but a PhD takes at least four in the U.S and Canada. And that is after completing relevant undergraduate studies. An 'average' student would likely fail most graduate programs sine a 'C' in grad school is the equivalent of an undergraduate 'F' and raises serious concerns that the student is not suited for an advanced degree. I had a good thesis advisor would boot your from the PhD program if you didn't finish in about 4 years. A Master or PhD is not something awarded for simply participating, unless you family members mailed in their check for $50.00 and had one mailed back to them a week later.
The term "graduate degree" is a very loose, generic term and should be avoided. The specific title of the degree should be used since different schools and institutions have different nomenclature, particularly when you include international schools.
Actually I’m not even following the argument about the social concerns in society that they are having, I have no interest in hypotheticals about society. Coyoteman started the ball rolling with his typical predictable inflamatory and unfounded ‘ID is anti-science’ crap statements, and people responded- You state that you haven’t seen any worthy response to that? I have yet to see any evidence from him other than “ID has a statement of faith- therefor, they can’t be science oriented and conduct actual science”- Brilliant! He offers NO other evidence that ID doesn’t conduct science, but wields that bat as though it were the rod of condemnation that renders everythign other than evolution hypothesis useless. If that’s all He’s got, and if that’s what folks concider brilliant rebuttle to ID science, then it makes one wonder just how objective and honest a poster is. Wielding that bat only goes to prove how dedicated to biased oppression, and how angrilly bitter against the opposition the bat wielder really is. It is a position that ironically is antithetical to true objective science itself. It is more becomming of a highschool bickering contest than it is of a higher learned person who should be secure enough in their position that they don’t have to repeatedly attack the opposition with nonsense ad hominem attacks.
In case there’s any confusion about ad hominem- here’s the defintiion:
adjective 1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
There is plenty of intellectual reasoning in ID, but the opposition is simply unwilling to ceede any ground based simply on nothing more than prejudices. Sorry, but “ID is nothing but apologetics’ is nothing but a biased blanket statement that has no merrit. A statement like that does nothign to cover up the facts that ID does indeed have sound science.
Degrees are fine, but degrees don’t nullify bias and pettiness and non-objectivity in the person holding degrees. A true practicioner of science who is objective will argue their point while confessing hte problems with their points, and listen objectively to counter points and give credit where credit is due and warrented instead of brushing it aside with the wave of a biased hand as though meaningless.
I’ve seen arguments for example, here on FR, about the issue of Radio Halos, and seen statements that because objections were rasied to the findings, that the matter was settled and the insinuations fly that Gish was therefore an idiot and charlatan who beleives in nonsense fairy tales. But the fact of hte matter is that Gishs’ findings and hypothesis have stood up to peer review criticisms for 15 years now, and no good rebuttle has been able to undermine hypothesis and settle the matter. The true objective scientists who objectively criticise the findings, do so in a proffesional manner, and welcome counter arguments that raise valid issues with the points being made. This is true science in action- not some petty biased science on display in hopes of silencing the opposition through ridicule and pressure tactics as soem posters here with degrees continuously engage in. Again, degrees are swell- but, again, it means little when pettiness clouds the ability to be objective which, objectivity is an absolute must if pure science is the objective.
Of course it's true that science is obligated to show how "design" happens through natural processes. I suggest you start with the Origin of Species and work your way through the half century and a half of biology. when you can demonstrate that you understand how it works, come back and we'll talk.
Try this: “We insist you cannot publicly disagree with the belief of naturalism while on state grounds.”
No creationist is “insisting” that the natural science community “do” the supernatural.
The scientific community is already in trouble for not “doing” the supernatural; sooner or later, they have to.
Is this what the theocrats think? That they are going to take over and force science to adhere to their particular religious beliefs?
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.