Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Calpernia]

In other words: NGO!

This is a motive to put a wedge and break apart the strength of the conservatives.

Our targets are our symbols of strength, richness, and our power. That comes from our science and technology. If this is compromised, we will fall like the towers.

Everyone should have faith. This keeps us morally above the animal. But if we lose our science, we lose one of our strengths.

[js1138]

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is as obsolete as "Newton's theory of Gravity".

That's not a bad analogy. Newton's equations are still quite adequate for NASA to launch satellites and steer probes to other planets. The algorithms for computing transfer orbits do not need to factor in relativity.

But at the fine level, relativity provides more precision, especially when dealing with extremes of velocity or gravity.

In a similar way, Darwin's primary hypothesis of variation and selection is still completely valid, but has been refined over the decades, and further refined by molecular biology.

[Calpernia]

Ping

[Right Wing Professor]

This is a motive to put a wedge and break apart the strength of the conservatives.

Good point. I'm surprised the Dems haven't tried to use evolution as a wedge issue. There was a Garry Trudeau cartoon needling GWB's reported belief in creationism a while back, but it never went very far. I can only suppose it's because a high fraction of their voters are also creationists.

[Servant of the Nine]

In a similar way, Darwin's primary hypothesis of variation and selection is still completely valid, but has been refined over the decades, and further refined by molecular biology.

And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

So9

[Onelifetogive]

Creato-rationalism serves no purpose. Many scientists would find their work impossible without a working hypothesis, and as a practical matter find creato-rationalism to be nonfunctional.

I rechecked my post. It didn't even mention "creationism." I simply implied that anyone who refuses to question his own hypotheses is a fool and sucks as a scientist!!!

You are the one who implies that you cannot allow yourself to question evolution because you guess that there is only one other option and you are afraid of it! Great scientific method you've rediscovered! It was previously used for most of the Dark Ages!

[Dimensio]

And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

Actually, this is often used as a point of attack by creationists. Science, they say, is so inadequate that it must constantly revise itself to account for newly discovered data. Religion, on the other hand, remains the same no matter how much it is shown to be completely contrary to reality.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't understand the attitude around here that crevo threads add nothing to the purpose of this forum. This article is a case in point. Creationism is a religious/political movement which threatens to marginalize the conservative movement and is thus fair game for any political discussion.

I agree. If one political party becomes tagged with the label of supporting pseudo-science, it becomes discredited. Liberals have already got half the country convinced that "socialism is the intelligent position," and that's why idiots out in Hollywood run around spouting leftisms -- so they'll be thought of as more than just a pretty face. We have our work cut out just convincing people of the truism that conservatism is the intelligent position. We don't need the millstone of "scientific creationism" to be dragging us down.

That said, I am officially declaring certain posters herein (or soon to be herein) on my "virtual ignore" list.

Right. Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-science (and especially anti-evolution) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause. Everyone is therefore urged to NEVER respond to such posters. It can be difficult, because they are skilled at inciting flame wars; but it is only in this way that we can maintain a high standard of civil discourse, and preserve Jim Robinson's excellent forum as a place where conservatives can gather.

[js1138]

And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

There is a preponderance on these threads of quotes from prior to 1980, and I would guess that 75% of all anti-evolution quotes date back to before 1925. I wonder how atomic energy woud fare if its science was judged by 1925 standards.

[RightWhale]

I simply implied that anyone who refuses to question his own hypotheses is a fool and sucks as a scientist!!!

Empiricists work without hypotheses.

[js1138]

You are the one who implies that you cannot allow yourself to question evolution because you guess that there is only one other option and you are afraid of it! Great scientific method you've rediscovered! It was previously used for most of the Dark Ages!

Perhaps rather that deal in generalities, you would care to mention some specific case that is not being addressed by modern biology and geology and paleontology, perhaps some specific error that has gone uncorrected by the science community.

[Calpernia]

See here for the mystery of LiteKeeper: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941809/posts?page=9#9

[Onelifetogive]

Empiricists work without hypotheses.

Fine. That is very different from having hypotheses and refusing to question them.

[js1138]

So when this thread gets an INTREP, that means we're intelligent, right?

[RightWhale]

75% of all anti-evolution quotes date back to before 1925

That particular phylum had nearly disappeared from the evolutionary tree by then. What we see now is a new efflorescence growing out of a different base, a new verticil with the partial spectrum of things that crawl, swim, and fly. It remains to be seen if this efflorescence will develop fully or if it will an abbreviated branch.

[Junior]

Many thanks. How's Caesar doing? Still getting those stabbing pains, is he? (Just showing off my classical training...)

[Onelifetogive]

Perhaps rather that deal in generalities, you would care to mention some specific case...

No...I am perfectly comfortable dealing in generalities.

[Dataman]

Right. Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-science (and especially anti-evolution) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause.

Another one of your pathetic lies. You guys press the abuse button regularly and have admitted as much. Creationists have no desire to have the threads pulled. The "monkey" business exhibited by the evolutionists does their cause more harm than good. Let the entire public observe!

[Aric2000]

I found this interesting...

""Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank." "

A secular think tank?

Who so they think they are fooling?

And various parts of Darwinian Theory, where? what the devil is he talking about.

I would love to see the scientific evidence that questions the theory, how about the SPECIFICS of the theory.

The general theory is sound, and has NO one in the scientific community fighting anyone else.

Not only do they lie, then they generalize, and expand it into something that it most definitely is not.

[Calpernia]

yes