Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought I was "debating" a Creationist / ID'er, whose purpose in life is to get "Creationism" by some other name taught in public science classes.
That is, after all, what this whole argument is about. Otherwise, NO ONE would even care what you believe about your religion or science. And you can certainly teach your kids whatever you like about it in your home school, or religious school or private school -- when it's a matter of personal choice, then believe whatever you want, for crying out loud.
And, I'm certainly NOT going to attempt arguing YOU out of your "Young Earth Creationism," (or whatever you call it). My ONLY point is: you cannot teach that in PUBLIC schools under the name of science. Yes, you could teach it in classes on philosophy, or religion, or history or even "cultural studies," etc. But it's not science, and you can't pretend it is.
Now, if it turns out that we agree on these points, then there really is no "debate" going on here, I'd say. And I'd also apologize for any misunderstanding. And we should also apologize to Free Republic for taking up so much of their computer file space with our ardent "agreement." ;-)
You don't give the date of this quote, but I've said before, such ideas are mistaken on several levels, and every thinking scientist (are there any "non-thinking" scientists?) should clearly understand that.
First of all, there's an endless list of possible ways that life COULD HAVE first arisen on earth. You don't even have to think hard to list a handful:
Second of all, your claim that: "Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others..." is an absolute falsehood IN THIS CONTEXT, which I have explained to you before, but you don't seem to understand, and keep claiming.
What Pasteur & other scientists conclusively demonstrated was that MODERN life forms cannot "spontaneously" self-generate in sterilized environments. Today we consider that a "no-brainer."
But NO hypothesis about the origin of life on earth assumes such a thing. Instead, the scientific assumption is that "life" began as: non-living atoms and molecules combined and formed over many many eons into more and more complex structures. Eventually, some of these non-living structures could be said to have some life-like functions. And, at that point, evolution takes over, with random mutations, combinations and natural selection promoting the ever-better adapted forms.
Now, I recognize your argument about the problem of organic complexities -- it's often claimed there's not enough time in the universe to allow all these combinations to form randomly. But I think that claim purposely "misunderstands" what was going on.
A much better understanding is that various useful features of living cells developed somewhat simultaneously amongst many different "forms," which then absorbed and combined with each other in ways that proved more and more successful.
So, instead of it taking billions of years for a single complex chemical combination to randomly happen, some portions of this could grow in billions of different "cell" types, later absorbing and combining over a much shorter period of time.
Finally, Professor's Wald's religious opinions should be irrelevant to a discussion of science. I've said before, I believe that God DID create the heavens, the earth and all it's creatures, and I think He did it through the processes described by scientific theories such as evolution.
So, imho, Professor Wald (whose name I've never before seen) sets up a false choice, which he really ought to be ashamed of, and should retract (yes, there's a lot of shameful argumentation seen on this subject!)
Please remember that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, and there IS NO other scientific theory, or even widely accepted hypotheses, about how life may have developed on earth. Creationism / ID-ism is not science, cannot become science, because there's no physical evidence for it.
All the examples I've seen for so-called "evidence" of ID-Creationism are nothing of the sort. To me they merely point to somewhat interesting scientific questions, that could keep workers busily investigating for many years.
Now, let us just suppose, for sake of argument, that someday is found, deep down in the geological column, the remains of the Jedi spaceship that crashed into a previously sterile earth, bringing along small life forms which eventually populated the planet. Then we would have at least some scientific evidence which might lead us off in a new direction.
But until some such event happens, evolution is the only real scientific game in town. Much as you might, for your own religious reasons, wish otherwise.
By the way, if you really wanted to think about how science operates, then consider Newton's laws of motion verses Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein did not "disprove" Newton, he merely showed that under certain circumstances, Newton's laws don't really apply. Think about it...
schaef21: I think he supports my point rather well. No it doesn’t matter if it makes sense, it’s the only road they are willing to travel."
I've now said many times: by definition, science ONLY deals with the natural, material physical realm. I've also said there are other realms in which much of TRUTH may exist. But these realms are not science, and should not be taught as science. Do we really disagree here?
schaef21: This is simply not true...I know there are a lot of text books that say that...but it’s not true. The fossil record shows stasis. It does not show gradual change.
schaef21: I know....I’m a liar. I guess I’ll have to back up what I say with a few more quotes from evolutionists."
My statement above is literally true, and so you are a liar, despite your quotes, for attempting to deny what is obviously the case.
The fact is, the geological column inerrantly shows life moving in only one direction: from primitive to more advanced. There are, for examples, no elephants mixed in with dinosaurs, and no dinosaurs found in Precambrian rocks. That's a simple fact which you cannot honestly deny. Indeed, if it were ever truly found to be false, then all of science (!) would be overturned. But to date it has never been.
Your quotes from Eldridge and Scientific American (1975!) deal with the question in evolution about the rates of change in species over time. Darwin assumed that species changes were slow, gradual and continuous.
More recent research has shown this not to be the usual case, that where a species is well adapted to its environment, and the environment doesn't change much, then neither will the species -- sometimes for hundreds of millions of years.
Possibly the best known example of that is crocodiles, which are pretty much the same today as the fossils found of them in geological strata long BEFORE the dinosaurs!
But, where the environment changes rapidly, it can force many extinctions, AND relatively rapid evolution on the survivors.
This is what the fossil record obviously shows, and to deny it is to deny what's obviously true, and does not speak well of your character.
schaef21: You know what BroJoe...I wish that were true....they keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It would be ok with me if they said something like “well, the most promising line of inquiry that we have right now is xyz but we currently have no explanation.” They really don’t ever do that.
BroJoeK: ****Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER “SCIENCE,” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.****
schaef21: I don’t."
Look, I only know what I read, and I read Scientific American regularly, have now mostly finished Eugenie Scott's book "Evolution vs. Creationism." None of these talk the way you characterize them. In fact, when a careful scientist like Scott talks about science, she takes pains to point out just what science does & doesn't do, or what science can or cannot say.
She also carefully points out the differences among:
Now, if you want my humble opinion (?), I'll tell you just where I think your problem begins: you MISTAKE the word "science" for capitalized "TRUTH." It's not, not by a long shot. Science deals ONLY with one branch of "truth," and that's the branch of the the natural, material physical realm. Outside this area are whole realms of TRUTH which science can't touch. And I think if you understood even that much, you'd have less of a problem with this subject.
schaef21: I hope you can see by now that if I say something, I’ll only say it if I can back it up.
schaef21: If it is an opinion that I give you, then by definition it can not be a lie....it can only be opinion.
schaef21: In short....if you insist on calling me a liar, then you are a liar."
It appears obvious to me that someone is lying here, and I can't conceive that it's science. But when I read the arguments of ID-Creationists, I get a sense of slimy, creepy & really disgusting attempts to pervert the truth for strictly religious reasons. I'll say again, I think it's a Big Lie, and it's a shame if some truly decent people are caught up in it!
Consider me for just a minute: I am your average citizen, not a scientist. I have opinions about science, but those opinions only reflect what I've read from actual scientists who've done work and published articles in their fields of specialty. So, my opinions would have no authority beyond what I can accurately report about their work.
Well, your "scientists," as far as I know, fall into that same category. They are all 100% entitled to have opinions about a field of study in which they DO NOT work, and have NOT published articles, but their opinions are of no more authority than mine.
Indeed, their opinions may be less valuable than mine, if they conclude that science itself is bunk, and only religion can provide the correct scientific answers!
Of course, if the day ever comes, when some Einstein of biology can definitely "disprove" evolution and also "prove" a version of ID-Creationism, well, then, that will be an interesting day indeed. But I certainly would not hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
schaef21: I must have missed that part....where is it?"
Many times now you've complained that people wanting to do work on "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" are not permitted to do so by the scientific world.
That's because, I'll say again, by definition "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" are not science.
And, I've said before, this whole discussion is about nothing at all if it's not about teaching some version of "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" in public science classes.
Otherwise, no one would care about your opinions, or those of the "scientists" who signed your statement. An adult citizen is entitled to believe whatever he wants to believe on this subject.
When an actual scientist publishes peer-reviewed articles in recognized scientific journals that bear importantly on our understanding of the processes (or limitations) of biological evolution, THEN AND ONLY THEN will I be interested in learning their results.
shaef21:This statement, BroJoe, is a statement of faith. Congratulations, we are both coming at this from a faith perspective."
Don't be absurd. I said, "my guess is..." I didn't say, "I have religious faith that..." Surely even you would understand the difference between a simple "guess" and a religious "faith"?
I'll say again: if a serious scientist publishes serious evidence demonstrating serious flaws in evolutionary ideas, and somehow "proving" that the only viable alternative is "intelligent design," then I might take notice. But until something like that happens, I think evolution is the only real scientific explanation we have.
Do you disagree?
I’ll say again: if a serious scientist publishes serious evidence demonstrating serious flaws in evolutionary ideas, and somehow “proving” that the only viable alternative is “intelligent design,” then I might take notice. But until something like that happens, I think evolution is the only real scientific explanation we have.
Do you disagree?
I would ssy most people disagree because this is already happening, but the fact of the matter is they’re shut out, shouted down and sued.
I'd agree with that within the current philosophical framework that science has been held hostage in.
Science has been held hostage by the marxist, materialistic naturalism philosophy for some time now. For someone who is looking for a no God, no intelligence allowed explanation of how life arose on the earth, then yes, within this restrictive boundary that has been set on science, the ToE probably is the best that a naturalistic, no intelligence allowed science can come up with.
But don't forget, that science as we know it today deals with only a fraction of reality. According to it's practitioners, it is not equipped to nor capable of dealing with anything outside of that framework. So the other explanations of how life arose, creationism in particular, are not subject to science's scrutiny.
Since science is only dealing with part of reality, it is in no position to judge on what it doesn't deal with. It can make judgments about what fits within its own framework and HOPE that it's right, but can't be sure. It absolutely cannot make any determination on matters outside that physical world that it deals with.
Just because something is outside the physical, material world, doesn't mean that it's not real or not true. Just because the ToE is the best that current science has to offer does not mean that it's true, that it's correct, or that we have to accept it by default because it's all SCIENCE has to offer. Nor does it mean that by default any non-scientific explanation is wrong.
Nobody is under any obligation to accept as true something that scientists can't demonstrate as true themselves.
That also means that those who do not accept the hardline ToE as fact, do not need to put up with the nonsense of derision and ridicule and mockery that is regularly hurled our way simply because we don't toe the party line.
Not every challenge to the ToE is a religious argument. That's an intellectually dishonest attempt to shut down debate by disqualifying the arguments before they're even given consideration.
Which means that all the dictates you make about what is and is not science has no validity. You can't go on about how any challenge to the ToE is not real science, because by your own admission, you don't know what *real* science is, and even if you did, it would only be your opinion anyway.
Appeal to authority is generally scorned by evos when used by creationists, although, as usual, they manage to exempt themselves from the conditions they set on others. Kind of like liberals and congressmen.
So true. And some scientists want to be the shamans of the new world.
Exactly. They’ve essentially set themselves up as the high priests; repositories of all knowledge and truth for the unwashed masses; the new ruling class; the self-appointed elite.
just..... wow.......
Not all of them of course, but yes some have those things as their goals, and that is why they glom onto such ideologies.
Their tools are ideas, their methods without ethics or morality, decency.
I hear your complaint. But my experience is, there's a language, tone and type of content in real science. Some of this language is not comprehensible by ordinary people (such as us), but every real scientist can also write in ordinary language, and when they do, a good part of their scientific attitude bleeds through. And a normal person can easily detect that.
Creationists, by contrast, are not writing in scientific language, or even in science-translated-into-ordinary language. Instead they use a pseudo-scientific argumentation, which combines half-digested scientific ideas with outdated criticisms, which abruptly shift to: therefore God must have done it.
In my view, there's nothing scientific about those types of argument.
Let me remind you, that before he was a scientist, Charles Darwin was a trained theologian, and that he sat on his Big Idea, unpublished for over 20 years, because he was afraid of the consequences. Indeed, he only eventually published when another scientists threatened to publish his own version of the theory of evolution.
But when Darwin did finally publish, his theory was well enough thought out to gain rapid widespread acceptance, and all of his first run editions quickly sold out.
Now, I would argue, the 20 years Darwin spent "incubating" his idea was probably the best thing which could have happened to it. Had he published a half-baked version 20 years earlier, it might have been quickly discredited and batted down.
But when Darwin was finally ready to publish, there were by then many people eager to learn and accept his new ideas. And ever since, the number of "Darwinist" scientists outnumbers the "anti-Darwinists" by at least 100 to one.
Today, when anyone can publish whenever they want, if a real scientist were to publish a truly scientific critique of evolution, and seriously propose an alternate hypothesis / theory, it would be a matter at least as newsworthy as Darwin's original publication.
But I've seen nothing remotely resembling such, have you?
I think you are coming close to understanding the point I've endlessly tried to make here.
In the time of our Founding Fathers -- the Age of Enlightenment -- metaphysical philosophy including theology, was considered to be the highest form of learning. Below metaphysics was mundane physics, and within the study of physics, science was simply a highly disciplined MEATHODOLY for learning about the natural world.
That's all science was (or should be). It was not a substitute religion, much less another form of metaphysics. And in the intellectual hierarchy of that time, it was considered BELOW metaphysics & theology.
And I argue, that's what science should be today -- simply an explanation for the NATURAL world. So, I say, let science be science -- but never confuse it with the higher forms of metaphysics, theology or your religion.
Oh, for crying out loud. Here I thought I was hearing just a bit of the language of truth from you, but now right away you have to go careening off into blathering nonsense.
The definition of science is not my "opinion," it is THE definition used by philosophers since ancient times. You METMOM have NO POWER, I repeat NO POWER, TO CHANGE THAT DEFINITION.
You have only ONE power: you can CHOSE to accept it, or to lie about it.
Accept the definition, as it is, or lie about it, METMOM. You chose -- which is it to be?
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.