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

Skip to comments.

Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom
Townhall.com ^ | July 5, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 last
To: Fichori
he forgot the on that one
101 posted on 07/05/2008 1:42:42 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

that’s supposed to read “he forgot the “sarc” on that”


102 posted on 07/05/2008 2:04:00 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Maybe they need a monkey-god idol, huh?


103 posted on 07/05/2008 3:08:18 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

And one could teach thermodynamics by showing the energy transfer required for it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights was not possible in any real world.


104 posted on 07/05/2008 4:49:47 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Society is well governed when the people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

sorry. I know it’s not fair, but miracles leave no tracks.


105 posted on 07/05/2008 6:23:27 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
miracles leave no tracks.

Neither do invisible pink unicorns

106 posted on 07/05/2008 6:33:50 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Society is well governed when the people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

nor a lot of overthrown science


107 posted on 07/05/2008 6:38:03 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; Coyoteman; xenophiles; Non-Sequitur

A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.

I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.


108 posted on 07/05/2008 7:18:57 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.”’

I always wonder WHICH religion are they talking about. They never name a religion.

Many evolutionists don’t even want a HINT of God, and that is their problem.


109 posted on 07/05/2008 7:33:52 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.

I posted a picture of H. ergaster in post 47, upthread.

And don't worry overmuch about laymen having to apply "common sense" looks at the general morphology of these specimens.

Scientists are applying very detailed looks, as well as multivariate statistics to remove the subjectivity.

I think all your post proves is that when it comes to science and the interpretations therein, it is no use listening to creationists.

110 posted on 07/05/2008 7:35:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith; xenophiles
I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used

My post had lots of pictures, but, "none are so blind as they who will not see".

Xenophiles called it too!!

"Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional. It will be quietly removed from the the list of fossils that should exist but don't (like reptiles->birds or land mammals->whales) and they won't admit they ever challenged science to find it. From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians"

111 posted on 07/05/2008 8:10:00 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
"My research comes from VERY old books and LOTS of beople believe it too. Shouldn't that be good enough? Belief does not equate truth.

And my sarcasm is sometimes missed by posters on FR

112 posted on 07/05/2008 8:14:55 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Evolutionists are too defensive. Most if not all posts by evolutionists require some sort of character defamation against creationists—associate creationism with an emotional response, because the more rational consideration it gets, the more believable it is.

To those who haven’t made up their minds, I would say look at both sides of the argument. Read everyone from Darwin up to the contemporary biologists. And of course Gish and Behe.

I would recommend listening to Perry Marshall and what he has to say about information theory:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm


113 posted on 07/05/2008 8:16:35 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

That’s pretty much it. I sort Creationists with 9-11 Truthers. Really the truth is irrelevant as they’re just trying to shoot down verifiable or plausible theories of what happened in order to shoehorn implausible scenarios. Yea, we’re not sure the exact evolutionary path of man...but we’re damn sure we didn’t pop up out of thin air 6,000 years ago with everything exactly as it is today. Unless you believe in a Trickster God who decided for fun he’d give us a planet that was indistinguishable from one that was hundreds of millions of years old. But then you have to throw out anything not directly verifiable by you because you never know what he’s pulling on you.


114 posted on 07/05/2008 8:25:21 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Don't call them jihadis. Call them irhabis. Tick them off, don't entertain their delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Evolutionists get touchy and frustrated because the inherit dishonesty by Creationists. It’s like arguing with 9-11 Truthers. Shoot down one theory they move onto the next and ignore their defeats.


115 posted on 07/05/2008 8:27:06 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Don't call them jihadis. Call them irhabis. Tick them off, don't entertain their delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

“Shoot down one theory they move onto the next and ignore their defeats.”

To tell you the truth, I have never seen an ID theory “shot down.”

Can you point us to a couple of examples?


116 posted on 07/05/2008 8:49:01 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I would recommend listening to Perry Marshall and what he has to say about information theory:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

This is phenomenal! A true must-hear! I work in the IT field and this guy knows his stuff. (So far I'm almost half way through the first audio track.)

The other day I mentioned some similar things in a post here

I also did a little crude math and found that the chances of the first cell springing to life from non-life is statistically impossible.

Thanks!

-Jesse

117 posted on 07/05/2008 9:05:28 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Sun

“An ID theory”? Set some parameters. young Earth. shot down in a horrible defeat. Man made whole a few thousand years ago? Never stood a chance.


118 posted on 07/05/2008 9:33:19 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Don't call them jihadis. Call them irhabis. Tick them off, don't entertain their delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
All right, your philosophy is that any event that occurs without a human witness is unknowable. Fine. (I suspect that the reason you purport to trust witness' reports more than evidence is so that you won't have to believe in evolution, but never mind.) Doesn't it strike you as a little bit strange that I can make these predictions and be right time after time? If I'm not working from a theory that makes accurate, testable predictions (albeit with a model that you consider pure fantasy) then I must be on an amazing lucky streak.

And I'll just point out a few of your misconceptions in passing (not that I think it'll do any good).

...do [organisms] change for the better by progressively becoming more complex?

Evolution makes no such claim.

..the past is NOT subject to falsifiable experimentation and testing...

Yes, it is.

To posit a bottom line that random processes made the Universe...

This has nothing to do with evolution (and I doubt it's even meaningful).

I simply don’t... believe order “arose” from disorder, especially when a scientifically accepted law (and testable/falsifiable) on energy (2nd Law of Thermodymics) says just the opposite.

The physicist's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ("The entropy of an isolated system does not decrease.") concerns isolated systems, which Earth's biosphere is not. The creationist's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ("Everything gets more disorderly... or something.") is pseudo-scientific drivel.

How about this: if I discover something new about nature, I won't call that God, and if you believe something on religious grounds, you don't call that science. All right?
119 posted on 07/05/2008 9:45:36 PM PDT by xenophiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Big Government School indoctrination fanatics alert.

More evidence of the phony political liberals posing as conservatives alert.

120 posted on 07/05/2008 10:06:56 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
There are two kinds of evolution: That which I have seen (many call it micro evolution) and that which I have not seen (which I'll call All Speciation by evolution, or ASBE for sort, but most call macro evolution.)

What I do see is a lot of quick-switching between saying "Oh, evolution is well demonstrated" while referring to micro evolution, then switching silently to ASBE - for which I heretofore have not found any good evidence. (Oh, yeah, I've been referred to lists of 93,000 links or all of google itself with no clue as to where to start, but never even one single article which provided clear conclusive evidence for ASBE.) Remember: If I can't see it for myself, I can at best only take it on faith - which isn't science!

When I see those pictures of a handful of skull bits stuck onto fixall - maybe in the correct shape, maybe not - it's usually with the claim that they are good evidence for ASBE, or at least humans from apes. Of course we have no idea of real shape and real scale. If you ask me, they could all well have been caused by micro-evolution as is depicted in the photos below. Do we really have anything that goes beyond demonstrating variation in the caliber of micro-evolution? I haven't found anything.

As far as I can tell, the theory of ASBE doesn't have any great evidences which you could see and say "Oh wow!" but rather is made up on thousands of tiny little clues, each of which by itself would be totally unconvincing, and each of which only has merit because of all the others which support it. Reminds me of the farmer who knew that a single ostrich couldn't produce enough lift to fly so he tied a hundred of them together to see if their combined lift would work!

Furthermore, science dogmatically rejects all non-natural events - not because they are impossible and regardless of the evidence - for the simple reason that they posit a non-natural cause. The problem is that until proven impossible, a non-natural cause is possible - so science dogmatically rules out something that is possible.

Let me put it this way: If God did exist, just as the Bible said, could science still exist? Could man still study the world around him? Of course he could! so why dogmatically rule out the possibility? (Especially when the chances of life arising from non-life is about impossible.)

And no matter how certain somebody else is of a claim, if I cannot see it myself, I can at best accept it by faith. And if I take purely by faith a statement which I myself cannot know -- that's not science, that's faith!

And my observation has been that the majority of people who believe in ASBE (All Species By Evolution) do take it by faith -- for them, it fills the role of a religion.

So what evidence do we have that actually proves more then what well may be just microevolution, like these photos below?

How about these (not to scale):

How about these, to scale:

----

This one wouldn't inline

----

Micro-evolution in short time periods can produce some very drastic changes.

-Jesse

121 posted on 07/05/2008 10:19:19 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent
That's the other thing I was wondering - how many millions of government dollars can we throw behind a theory (like All Species By Evolution, or ASBE) before it becomes impossible to tell whether the theory lives on the evidence or the money?

-Jesse

122 posted on 07/05/2008 10:28:49 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

Thanks for your insights.

I look forward to checking into your “crude math” later.


123 posted on 07/05/2008 10:55:20 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
-- the recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho

What cracks are those? In 1964, puntuated equilibrium hadn't been proposed yet as far as I know. It resolved a lot of problems that evolutionary scientists had found with the gradual continual evolution model. As I said in my earlier post, the TOE changed as a result of new fossil evidence.

I never heard of Gish before. When I looked him up in response to your post I found the following comment on the web [Source]:

... Gish's debates are canned---he repeats more or less the same stories and arguments against evolution over and over, from place to place, from month to month, from year to year. The same arguments are even reproduced in his books and articles. Because of the nature of debates, it's inevitable that some of Gish's arguments get refuted by various scientists over time, often more than once. But Gish just goes to the next debate without ever changing any of his storyline. He succeeds at this, because in the next city, with a new audience and a new scientist to debate, who's to know that his argument got shot down, with evidence, by that other evolutionist last week?

I know posters like that on FR on other topics. The critique of Gish continued on that web site:

In his debates, much of Gish's diatribe is directed towards the fossil record and the alleged lack of transitional forms between earlier and later forms of life. Gish has admitted that if transitional forms can be shown to exist, then creationism is dead (see Debates-Parrish 1991). Creationists, including Gish, are able to deny the existence of transitional forms because they use their own home-made definition of the term. For example, Gish claims that to be intermediate, fossils must be on a direct line of descent with each other and that transitional creatures would have to possess half-formed, and therefore useless, body parts (Gish 1985, 1995). But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972).

124 posted on 07/05/2008 11:04:30 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.

The link explains why science believes these are examples of transitional fossils. Why are they wrong?

Why do you depend on pictures for your evidence? Why isn't a description sufficient?

...of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.

Well of course there are unfilled gaps and unanswered questions. Science is all about filling those gaps and answering those questions, and it attempts to do so every day. Unlike Intelligent Design, science doesn't claim to have all the answers already. And unlike ID, there are no questions that science isn't interested in trying to answer.

125 posted on 07/06/2008 5:29:45 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
I sort Creationists with 9-11 Truthers.

I sort you with NYT editorialists

126 posted on 07/06/2008 6:03:40 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

I would suggest reading Gish instead of relying on the word of critics who were biased against him before they wrote their criticism. That way you’ll see exactly what Gish said, instead of what other people said about him.

One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.


127 posted on 07/06/2008 6:16:30 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Language is important. To fix your misunderstanding: I never said I depend on pictures for evidence. That’s a distortion.

Language and graphics should be used. When language alone is used, it gives a false sense of detail.


128 posted on 07/06/2008 6:19:16 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.

Your ideas concerning how science works appear flawed.

What evidence changed from before to after the idea of punctuated equilibrium was introduced? Didn't the evidence remain the same?

Didn't the theory of evolution change in some small ways to better account for the existing evidence? Is not the theory then more supported by the objective, physical evidence than it was previously?

Isn't that what science is supposed to do?

129 posted on 07/06/2008 6:54:51 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.

Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness? It is a strength. The altered theory explains the fossil evidence, both new and old, better than the old theory.

130 posted on 07/06/2008 11:49:46 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Holy cow. It’s like I’m stuck in the Twilight Zone.


131 posted on 07/06/2008 12:18:49 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
"I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions." [excerpt]

Here's the best Transitional Form I have yet to see:

(Of course, I'm partial.)
132 posted on 07/06/2008 7:12:23 PM PDT by Fichori (Primitive goat herder, Among those who kneel before a man; Standing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972).

As if well-known makes it somehow correct. My leg. but I digress.

Do you evolutionists actually believe in punctuated equilibrium?

It's pretty funny. When a man argues that the first cell could not have sprang to life because its too complicated, the evolutionary scientist argues that it it happened a little bit at a time and really was no big deal. But when a man argues against ASBE (All Species By Evolution) saying that we're not finding the billions of intermediate species fossils that we should be, then the evolutionary scientists argue that it happened in spurts, where multiple benefits were being prepared for before they were of any use.

Reminds me of the guy who murdered somebody, but who plead innocent on account of insanity. At first the defendant's lawyer argued for insanity and the prosecutor argued that the defendant was sane. Then the judge sentenced the defendant to life in a mental ward. But a year later, the defendant decided he's feeling fine now - so now the prosecutor and the defendant's lawyer are arguing over the exact same thing, but now they've both changed sides - now the prosecutor is arguing that the defendant is insane and the lawyer is arguing for sanity!

Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?

So when we're talking about tiny cells which don't leave fossils, then it's a slow gradual process. But if we're talking about stuff that should have left fossils, then it goes in jumps!

What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium? Isn't it just a result of "We know we evolved but since there are so many missing links they must have equiliberally punctuated?"

By the way, I realize that evolutionists don't like to admit to the vast missing links, but they do well know about them and it bothers some of them otherwise we wouldn't have bright minds proposing things like punctuated equilibrium.

So when the prediction is first made that all species came by evolution, it can be rightly be said that "We just haven't found all dem bones yet." But after enough time we ought to expect to be seeing some more of these billions of intermediate (and I do mean incrementally intermediate - not a few sparse handfuls that jump millions of years and could well be produced by the degree of variation observed in dogs in the last 200 years) Anyway, after enough time of nothing like we should be getting, one must ask the question "Maybe we've been had." Just how long can we go on before we see that the bill isn't just late - it's entirely missing?

-Jesse

133 posted on 07/07/2008 10:30:33 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Do you evolutionists actually believe in punctuated equilibrium?

Yes, but I'm not a biologist. Evolution isn't my specialty.

What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium?

As I understand it, the fossil record shows many species staying relatively unchanged for large periods of time. Then when change occurs it appears in the fossil record to have been quick or essentially instantaneous on a geologic time scale. Other species evolved very slowly or gradually.

To me this suggests that environmental conditions and competitors were fairly constant for species that evolved slowly while they differed substantially or changed dramatically for species who were geographically isolated from each other. The geographic isolation and different conditions favored different characteristics in the species. When isolated species came in contact after millions of years of isolation, there were enough mutations in the DNA that they were effectively different species unable to reproduce together.

Something like that anyway. As I said, I'm not an expert in evolution. It just makes far better sense to me than one of the creation stories.

I gather there are examples of so called missing links in the fossil record that show change occurring in multiple stages over eons. But you'd best ask an evolution scientist about it.

Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?

As new evidence is found that indicates problems with a theory, new or modified theories that better explain the data are proposed. There is nothing corrupt, perverted, or dishonest about the process. It is a search for truth based on evidence.

134 posted on 07/08/2008 12:11:25 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

“Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness?”

In a court of law it’s called perjury.


135 posted on 07/09/2008 10:40:26 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

‘“Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness?”

In a court of law it’s called perjury.’

LOL!!! Goodness. Thank you for that. Demonstrating you know nothing of science OR law. It’s a two-fer.


136 posted on 07/09/2008 12:41:43 PM PDT by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

“Thank you for that. Demonstrating you know nothing of science OR law.”

Lying on the stand is known as perjury.


137 posted on 07/09/2008 5:38:49 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

I’ll break it down for you.

A guy on the witness stand, or in a science journal, declares that x because of p. (Where x is the truth claim based on p, the evidence.)

Then p is shown to include no physical evidence, so the guy changes his mind and says no, I didn’t mean x, I meant y.

He’s making things up, known as lying.


138 posted on 07/09/2008 5:49:39 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

That’s not the same as changing a theory due to new evidence. Investigators do it all the time. Scientists do it all the time. The only people who try to change evidence to fit theory are demagogues, zealots and frauds.


139 posted on 07/10/2008 4:12:23 AM PDT by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Just to make sure we’re clear on this—I’m talking about changing theory to fit evidence, not the other way around.

The first theory was Darwinism. Then it was changed to punctuated equilibrium, in order to be more consistent with evidence.


140 posted on 07/10/2008 8:35:37 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

“I’m talking about changing theory to fit evidence, not the other way around.”

Exactly. Changing a theory based on additional evidence, or a better understanding of existing evidence is expected.

It’s called learning.


141 posted on 07/10/2008 9:22:06 AM PDT by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

“Changing a theory based on additional evidence, or a better understanding of existing evidence”

At best it hurts credibility, at worst it reveals dishonesty.


142 posted on 07/10/2008 10:02:44 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

So, for example, Issac Newton, John Dalton, J.J. Thomson, and Niels Bohr were liars?


143 posted on 07/10/2008 2:25:26 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 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