Posted on 02/11/2009 8:07:30 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Good morning!
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin, he was an important scientist and a nice guy to boot. I would agree that the neo-Darwinists have gone WAY overboard with it all the reverence. The most important progress in evolutionary biology happened in the last 50 years. Darwin and Wallace simply set the stage for the modern synthesis.
Darwin was not a scientist. Nor did he follow the scientific method. He was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist. Origin of Species was largely devoid of scientific evidence. It was nothing more than a long argument advocating a complete reinterpretation of biological history based on minor variations between finches.
Thanks for the ping!
yea, natural historian is probably the better term.
Ah, the positing of irreducibly complexity as an argument for ID and against evolution.
I note with interest that no peer-reviewed scientific study accompanies the positing of irreducible complexity.
Why do you think that is?
Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
==Seems a bit disingenuous of the author to state that “Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent” when the ID side pretty much eschews scientific research.
That Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent is a demonstrable fact:
http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies
What is intellegent design?
“Origin of Species was largely devoid of scientific evidence.”
Oh and intelligent design is chock full of it? Right.
“is a demonstrable fact”
One that gets player out in this website everyday.
You mean people should keep their jobs when they don’t do what they’ve been hired to do?
So you are saying that part of a scientist’s job description should be to tow the Darwin Party line? How open-minded of you! All sides of this issue should be forced to compete in the free market of scientific ideas. Those who resort to intimidation and force are not at all secure in their position.
I can see it now...
“So, Father Stormer, how is your congregation doing?”
“Fine, Monseigneur. But explaining this concept of transubstantiation has me troubled. And rising from the dead? Come on - get real.”
“What are you getting at, my son?”
“I just don't buy it. It's crap. Did I mention I said that during my last sermon?”
[[You mean people should keep their jobs when they don’t do what they’ve been hired to do?]]
And what are they ‘hired to do’? Lie to the public? Stifle any dissent? Ostracise those who don’t tow the TOE line? Ignore hte evidneces and extrapolate wild far reaching assumption driven hypothesis’ about supposed common descent?
Heaven forbid asnyone just look at hte actual facts and point out hte myriad problems and impossibilities with the currently ‘accepted’ Godless hypothesis.
That Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent is a demonstrable fact:
_________
OK. Point me to a place where I can read the scientific dissent related to, say, irreducible complexity, you know, one of the topics mentioned in this thread that you have posted. Note that the request is for the scientific dissent, not philosophical. I’m pretty clear on the latter.
One that gets player out in this website everyday.
_______
I try to read all of the (do we still call them) crevo threads, and read your posts with interest (although not a lot of agreement). I don’t believe we have ever sparred, nor have I ever seen evidence of anything you say, or anyone on the creation side of the debate, having been stifled on this website.
I’m not sure what you’re asking for.
There is no try; only do.
Looking forward to seeing Alabama, Texas, et al in court. Soon.
Quite simply: Is irreducible complexity part of the scientific dissent to the theory of evolution that “evolutionists” are stifling?
followup: where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?
Why am I picking out irreducible complexity of all things? The article you posted, in paragraph 6, uses the irreducible complexity argument in favor of ID and against evolution. Where’s the science to demonstrate this?
The upshot: You mentioned, specifically, that it was scientific dissent that was being stifled. I’m wondering if you really mean that some philosophical arguments against evolution are being kept out of the classroom (read: being stifled).
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.