Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[VadeRetro]

No global flood. Not even close.

[Physicist]

Time for my shift in the Situation Room at Darwin Central. We've got big problems ... someone's figured out that asking "Were you there?" throws us all into a tizzy.

Ooh...I guess, in that case, now would be a bad time not to be there.

[PatrickHenry]

I've been lurking, to see what you guys say behind my back. Please understand that anyone who tries to bring an accordion into the august halls of Darwin Central will end up as tortoise food.

[furball4paws]

It's OK the 6502 won't know any different.

[aNYCguy]

We are trying to explain the laws and intricacies of a reality while attempting to ignore or deny the mechanism that created that reality. Seems a little silly doncha think?

Not really. At any rate, is this rhetorical question supposed to support your statement that not mentioning God in public school science classes is equivalent to teaching that God does not exist?

Or do you not believe that anymore?

[VadeRetro]

Better also mention "common descent," not "separate creation." Once again, not even close.

[furball4paws]

You think one of those guys could catch Longshadow?

Ever hear of Survival of the Fittest?

[Doctor Stochastic]

No bandoneon, no tango. Don't cry for Darwin, Argentina.

[Rudder]

Pah! I spit on your trouble. Ain't no Crevo thread gonna give me no trouble.

Yeah, well it's crackers to slip a dropsy in snide.

No disrespect intended with my first reply to you...you've actually been quite busy.

[tallhappy]

You won;t see the term "fact" in quotes or not in quotes in many articles. You present its use as jargon.

The author of this article and other proselytizers for a certain view of evolution wherein in is in contradiction with any sort of religious or spiritual belief will use this jargony term as essentially a disingenuous and distortive means to present a false impression to the genral public.

This is exactly what he has done here. It is cheap.

I don't like the superficiality of it.

[furball4paws]

Never thought about disrespect. Your comment about evo comments and the statements in the article was spot on. I guess there's only so many ways one can say things.

[furball4paws]

Well it's Z time.

Don't have too much fun while I toss and turn.

[longshadow]

Don't cry for Darwin, Argentina.

Hey, isn't that from the song the play in the Kraft™ Music Hour Musical: "Velveeta!?

[tallhappy]

Can you think of a scientific fact for which that statement would be clearly false?

It's meaningless, it's an ad hoc definition that is subjective.

The way what's his name stated it it is synonymous with "widely accepted". Fine, if it is to be used as jargon like that, but to use it outside of the context of discussion within a field is to be dishonest. This author did at least attempt to provide the ad hoc definition.

It's rather a depends on what the meaning of is is.

[tallhappy]

For people like you. Now, what are the canards in the article?

Talk about evasion!! Guitarman, tune thyself.

Here is one that has two major problems:

Biologists have not observed one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one. If they did, it would be evidence against evolution.

First, "one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one" would in no way be evidence against evolution.

Two, let's assume it was evidence against, not seeing it ("one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one") is not supportive of evolution nor evidence for it.

So two major problems, first it is just wrong biologically. Second the logic is flawed even if it were not biologically wrong.

[longshadow]

Mark Twain describes his adventures of learning to play the accordion, and the damage he inflicted thereby:

http://www.cotatifest.com/AccTwain.html

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Talk about evasion!! Guitarman, tune thyself."

I won't do your work for you. Put up or shut up.

"First, "one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one" would in no way be evidence against evolution."

It would be against the TOE. The theory is a gradual one (even PE is gradual).

"Two, let's assume it was evidence against, not seeing it ("one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one") is not supportive of evolution nor evidence for it."

And the article didn't claim it was.

[Physicist]

I see. You're objecting to the use of the word "fact" (there go the scare quotes, again) to mean "something we're awfully sure about", rather than to mean "something that really, really, really, really happened, so there", which is what most non-scientists mean. And since the statement "evolution is a fact" uses the former, and not the latter definition, its phrasing is likely to offend the sensibilities of people whose particular religion tells them otherwise, and to whom "fact" means something they're not entitled to doubt in the least.

But in science, the word "fact" can only ever mean the former, and never the latter, because even the most well-established observations and experimental results run the risk of being overturned. So your quarrel is not with this essayist, who is using the word "fact" in a sense roughly congruent to what scientists mean, but to the use of the word "fact" in scientific discourse at all. (Indeed, the essayist is beyond reproach on this score, as he quite carefully spelled out which definition he meant.)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I thought the Universe fell out of the cargo hatch of a C-47 (well, according to the First Church [Reformed] Of the Cargo Cult on Tulagi in the Solomon Islands).

[Physicist]

It would be against the TOE. The theory is a gradual one (even PE is gradual).

Tut, tut! It might be against the theory of evolution, specifically Darwinism, but it wouldn't be against the "fact" of evolution, which demands only change of some sort over time.

>snicker<