The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back

PostItNews.com ^

[general_re]

LOL -check your mail ;)

[stremba]

And meteorology is having trouble with that gap about the origin of the atmosphere. So what?

[Right Wing Professor]

Nice discussion and history here .

[stremba]

The real problem with the argument that established scientists have such a vested interest in evolution that they won't ever publish any data that tends to refute evolution (besides the fact that it is a paranoid conspiracy theory, of course) is that there is always an infusion of new blood in science. These younger scientists do not have any vested interest in the truth of evolution. In fact, probably the fastest way to fame and riches for a young biologist today would be to provide conclusive evidence AGAINST evolution. Most of the really major and well-remembered advances in science are ones that overturned well established ideas. Einstein would never have become famous, for example, if his main work was some confirmation of Newton's laws of motion. The fact that his main work overturned these laws (BTW, the older scientists in Einstein's time had a vested interest in the truth of these laws as well) is the main reason that Einstein is remembered. Einstein also won a Nobel prize for ideas about light that flew in the face of the prevailing wave theory of light. (He explained the photoelectric effect by theorizing that light is composed of particle-like quanta) If there is serious evidence against evolution, it will see the light of day. Some young, brilliant biologist will bring it to light.

[Right Wing Professor]

As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

As a rule of thumb, I assume when a large number of very smart people with a great deal of practical expertise in the field have struggled with an idea for a couple of hundred years, and are still worrying about it, but haven't discarded it, I assume:

• It's probably useful and should be retained.
• The really obvious issues - i.e. the ones I can come up with in 5 minutes or even 5 months - have probably all been worked through.
• By and large, the ideas that are a product of this work shouldn't be discarded simply because I don't like the answers they give me.

Then again, I'm routinely accused of arrogance.

Speciation is a human categorization, and as most such it's fuzzy at the boundaries. That doesn't means it's wrong, subjective, or a mere tool of eevil eevilutionists. Species were not dreamt up to confound creationists; most biologists have too much contempt for creationists to bother.

What most bothers me about these threads is the anti-intellectualist streak they manifest among conservatives. I hate it when we act like the stupid party

[js1138]

I really need to spend more time on controversial threads... then I'd be able to witness some of these bannings!

Goodseed wasn't banned on one of these threads, although the banning was related. She was banned for getting into a flame war with JimRob and accusing him of being a leftwing heathen, amother things. (Some poetic license taken here)

[Right Wing Professor]

As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

As a rule of thumb, I assume when a large number of very smart people with a great deal of practical expertise in the field have struggled with an idea for a couple of hundred years, and are still worrying about it, but haven't discarded it, I assume:

• It's probably useful and should be retained.
• The really obvious issues - i.e. the ones I can come up with in 5 minutes or even 5 months - have probably all been worked through.
• By and large, the ideas that are a product of this work shouldn't be discarded simply because I don't like the answers they give me.

Then again, I'm routinely accused of arrogance.

Speciation is a human categorization, and as most such it's fuzzy at the boundaries. That doesn't means it's wrong, subjective, or a mere tool of eevil eevilutionists. Species were not dreamt up to confound creationists; most biologists have too much contempt for creationists to bother.

What most bothers me about these threads is the anti-intellectualist streak they manifest among conservatives. I hate it when we act like the stupid party

By the way, that's a general observation, not directed at Betty Boop, who tends to fall less into this trap than most of us do.

[Jehu]

Or what, you'll tell mommy? I will call you the vilest thing I know..."Liberal!"

[stremba]

I personally have never understood the "...In His Image" objections. In His Image, to me, means sharing imperfectly in the most important qualities of God. Do people really believe that the most important quality of God is His physical appearance? It seems to me that His most important qualities are His intelligence, goodness, mercy, and rightiousness. These also happen to be the qualities that most distinguish us from the rest of the animals (I am not saying that other animals don't exhibit these, but rather that no other animal exhibits ALL of them to the degree that humans do). If you look at it this way, there's no problem with the idea that God created the universe with all of the laws of nature and then allowed things to pretty much take care of themselves from there. (I am donning my asbestos suit, as I am sure a flaming is coming from the fundamentalists)

[js1138]

I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity.

Like nearly everything else on these threads, this has ben pointed out hundreds of times.

The ID argument works something like this: when you are court arguing ID as science, no deity is mentioned or claimed; in fact the need for a deity is explicitly denied. Meanwhile, back on FR, anyone not believing in ID is an atheist.

[Jehu]

Not that you guys use evolution more than a blind man uses his cane is a windstorm. It was evolutionists that built an entire caveman family display out of the tooth of a pig.

At least Biblical stories are verified time after time by archeology, while the evidence for evolution grows weaker as more REAL scientists have the guts to speak up in the repressive Darwin church.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Please cite your source that 100% of the scientists support evolution.

[Right in Wisconsin]

evolution is a theory, gravity is a law

[Right Wing Professor]

Not that you guys use evolution more than a blind man uses his cane is a windstorm. It was evolutionists that built an entire caveman family display out of the tooth of a pig.

You going to retract or apologize for the lie you posted about Alan Feduccia?

[Jehu]

OK, where does ToE begin? Single cell? Amino Acids? Frog? You guys propose a process and talk endlessly of the process, but you never EXPLICITLY state where that process begins? It is like someone talking about Fords and Chevys and how they run and their horsepower but never mentioning Detroit.

Sorry but ToE infers that life ultimately came from the inorganic by natural processes. Even current textbooks in secondary education still show pictures, or give the hypothesis of life climbing heriocially out of the muck.

You evolutionists started this game, you don't get to change the definitions and the rules in the 4th quarter.

[js1138]

If there is serious evidence against evolution, it will see the light of day. Some young, brilliant biologist will bring it to light.

The basic thing wrong with the view that scientist conspire to protect evolution is that theories are not overturned by arguments and review articles. Theories are overturned by the slow accretion of ill-fitting data -- the kind that ID would provide if ID scientists actually did research instead of writing review articles.

It is ill-fitting data that makes careers more often than blinding insights.

[Quick1]

I guess we shouldn't be teaching the Theory of Gravity, either.

[WashingtonSource]

One whose real God is Karl Marx and who may be a homosexual himself.

[js1138]

Please cite your source that 100% of the scientists support evolution.

You read that from this??

Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Isn't the belief in superstitions, that is, an unproven theory, going back to the dark ages? If we are to move forward, should we not have honest debate?