Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[tokenatheist]

What do you believe what you call Darwinism is trying to explain?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The odds of life forming based upon certain initial conditions is not an empty exercise.

Trying to figure the odds of life forming is not as empty as figuring the odds of our life forming, which is all anyone who brings it up ever seems to be concerned with. From things I've read, it seems like the odds of some life forming under conditions like our earth is actually suprisingly high.

[AndrewC]

What do you believe what you call Darwinism is trying to explain?

If I understand your question correctly, my belief is that random mutation followed by natural selection resulting in speciation is unbelievable. There is too much just-so with the random mutation and the natural selection.

[AndrewC]

Trying to figure the odds of life forming is not as empty as figuring the odds of our life forming,

Well, unfortunately we only know of life from our planet(or IOW our life). Do you suppose that limited knowledge may actually be due to those potentially calculable odds?

[hosepipe]

[ There is no truth; there is only scientific discovery. Which makes me laugh out loud. What discovery is legitimate, if it is not true? And wherein resides the criterion by which truth is finally tested? Atheists typically deny there is such a thing. So, ought reasonable people to consider the atheist “reasonable?” ]

One would think that an atheist somewhere would at least say,, If there is NO God well then there OUGHT to be one in a perfect universe...

[hosepipe]

[ Now lets just forget the fact for a second that philosophers invented science. What I would like to know is, what is a respectable scientist like Coyoteman doing on an internet chat room arguing with a bunch of useless philosophers? ]

LoL.. exactly.. Entertainment?.. maybe

[betty boop]

Would you consider it fair for me to say that you share the beliefs of Hitler simply because you both proclaimed yourselves Christian?

No, that wouldn't be fair at all. Hitler wasn't a Christian.

[tokenatheist]

I did not want this struggle. Since January, 1933, when Providence entrusted me with the leadership of the German Reich, I had an aim before my eyes which was essentially incorporated in the program of our National Socialist party. I have never been disloyal to this aim and have never abandoned my program....

Only when the entire German people become a single community of sacrifice can we expect and hope that Almighty God will help us. The Almighty has never helped a lazy man. He does not help the coward. He does not help a people that cannot help itself.

The principle applies here, help yourselves and Almighty God will not deny you his assistance.

-Adolf Hitler, in a broadcast from Berlin, 03 Oct.1941

[Fichori]

"Yes, there is new information. Yes, the inversion is beneficial."

That is, as you put it, an inversion of existing data, not new data.

big difference.


An inversion of data is indicative of a copy failure.
So while there is an apparent benefit from the inversion, a broken copy mechanism may be the price.

Do you know the odds of a copy failure being beneficial?
How many more sequences can be reversed before it destroys the line with the beneficial inversion?

It all sound very interesting.

[betty boop]

"Truth" is a word best avoided by science???

If that is so, then exactly what business is science involved in these days?

If truth doesn't cut it, then how can you keep falsehood out? And if science can't keep falsehood out, why should we trust it?

[tokenatheist]

Because science is self-correcting.

[metmom]

A word to the wise.....Comparing someone to Hitler is a good way for someone to get banned, especially when they’re a newb.

[metmom]

He is desperately trying to show those who are watching, but not posting, in threads like these that it is still possible to be a conservative without hating modern science.

So who says conservatives hate modern science that someone feels obligated to prove that they don't?

[metmom]

They either asked for the banning in words, or by ignoring the mods injunctions against behavior that violated the posting guidelines.

Much as you’d like to have it be true that *scientists* have been banned for promoting science, it simply isn’t so.

The other thing is, many of the EVOS have been banned for the above reasons. The mistake here is to automatically equate *scientists* with *evos*, implying that all the evos that have been banned were scientists. They weren’t.

[metmom]

Because science is self-correcting.

If there's no truth in science, then *correcting* to what?

In order to correct, there must be some standard to correct to? Right? Like calibrating instruments.

If there's no standard to correct to (IOW, truth) , how do you know it's being corrected?

[hosepipe]

LoL...

[Oztrich Boy]

And if science can't keep falsehood out, why should we trust it?

That's the point of science. It doesn't try to compare things to see how close they match some arbitary standard of "TRUTH".

Instead it determines and eliminates what is false. Working theories last as long as they past the test. It's like Natural Selection.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

The problem is persons committed to common ancestor theory will select direct evidence that fits the initial presupposition of the theory. Nothing that does not fit the prediction of the initial presupposition will be selected or qualified as valid direct evidence.

This was the point that r9etb was drilling down to, when he said:

The (B) statement that "mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data," is clearly at odds with the practice of science. "The Data" are very often collected in response to the predictions, rather than the other way around. That particular (B) ends up being preposterous!

Preposterous, and ultimately an example of circular reasoning.

Exactly. The presupposition becomes a "self-fulfilling prophesy."

These are inconvenient facts for orthodox Darwinists. And so they are generally ignored in that community.

Indeed. By starting with a presupposition into which the data must fit - and by dismissing evidence that doesn't fit - science is effectively "painting by number."

[Fichori]

I don’t like a Strawman ambush any more than you do.
(not to mention attacks on one’s character.)

[CottShop]

[[but I don’t know how you’d demonstrate it.]]

By showing that brain damage can cause repairs to crop up- if hte instructions weren’t there- they could never crop up in the first place