DARWIN DEBUNKED BY SHOCKING DISCOVERY

Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.

No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.

No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.

No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.

His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.

And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.

The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.

Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.

By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.

I don’t know about most, but yes, quite a few are Christian – and I’m glad to see you recognize that so many scientists are Christian. I was beginning to think that you didn’t think that hardly any scientists were Christian with the way you were equating Darwinism and evolution with being “godless”. Darwinism is a theory that describes what occurs via the laws of nature.

Yes, but as I pointed out, it's not the scientists that concern me, rather the NEA and ACLU and other godless liberal types that have hijacked the theory to their own ends. After all, how many godless libs do you know that support or embrace creationism? But yes, Darwinism describes what occurs in nature, but it doesn't do a good job of it, especially in explaining how or why all this occurs.

I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator.

Ok, so put your money where your mouth is and show me where evolution in public school textbooks supports an intelligent creator then. And for that matter, show me where "intelligent and design" are even used in a modern public school text PERIOD.

Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable.

So what? Neither are multiverse theory, string theory and probably other examples.

I have no idea what children think theories are, but one of the purposes of science class is to teach that there’s a difference between a belief and a scientific theory, and teaching them that some people believe “ID” and therefore it’s a theory doesn’t help. I have a lot of beliefs that don’t qualify as theories and have no place in science class.

Except that you overlook you have to have faith that we came from the same ancestor as apes, since there's absolutely no evidence that we did. Evolution is as much if not more so faith than ID/creationism.

My understanding of Darwinism/evolution comes from reading books, journals, and science magazines written by scientists spanning the time from Darwin to today. Where does your understanding of the subject come from? And why would someone ignore something just because it isn’t relevant to evolution? There’s more to life than what’s relevant to evolution (in fact, evolution is relatively unimportant).

All kinds of books have been written about lot's of things by many people...and for the contemporary scientific issues global warming comes immediately to mind. (As well as stem cell research and pharmaceutical trials and claims.) Book writing doesn't make it true. Thanks for making my point for me that there's more to life than evolution, which begs the question why does it need lawsuits to be propped up? Why can't it compete with the scientists via the science alone? Why must it rely on multiple lawsuits and lawyers and secular humanist liberals to merely survive? And btw, continual denial of this reality only re-enforces this very point further.

—Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?

Again, do bridge builders ignore the expanse they're bridging, as well as the make-up of the soil, etc., along with the purpose for building the bridge in the first place? And asking an unrelated question is no answer of this question. Of course I understand your desperate need to ignore the question. I really do.

—I mentioned nothing about origin of life, I only mentioned the origin of the laws of nature.

Silly semantic games...origin of species pertains to life, not "nature".

but yes, I would say the origin of life is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Well OK, suit yourself but it's very illogical to ignore the very subject that's indespensably being studied in the first place; but again, I really and truly do understand the desperation.

– I even hope it happens. What I care about is science. And that’s what most of the people (most of whom I believe are Christian) are fighting for when they fight against those trying to put Creationism and ID into science class – and that’s what all those Christian scientists fighting against the ID movement and Creationism are fighting for as well.

Uh-huh...OK. I'm sure there's someone you can sell some swamp land to, but it won't be me. If you care about the science then where are all your posts combating man-made global warming, string and multiverse theory? Or how about the tax-payer funded scientific studies over the effects of prayer, etc.?

Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution.

And the only way a person can make such an absurd statement is to conclude the results before ever hearing the arguments. In actuality, if one concludes that the origins of life is due to an intelligently designed creation, evolution, in it's current form as a vehicle to promote shameless dishonest liberal secular humanism simply dissolves for the most part. So again, I do understand the hand waving and desperation.

The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.

Then if this is true, evolution along with string theory, multiverse theory and so on should all be removed from science class. And again, the ignoring and hand-waving merely illustrate the various problems I'm addressing: the blatant hypocrisy, the double-standards, the disconnect of acknowledging a creator via ignoring Him, indoctrinating as opposed to educating children and so on.

Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless...

Where'd you get that from?

What’s not being tolerated is not the “dissent from evolution” – what’s being objected to is the corruption and twisting of what’s science. By throwing in some pet ideas people have, it distorts what science is – how can a teacher explain what the scientific method is, what a theory is, what the leading theories are, if stuff like Creationism or ID is included? It gives the message that whatever a group of people happen to believe - is science! I have a lot of beliefs that aren’t science. I believe most of what Dawkins says...

All of this is simple projection about what's going on in public schools with "twisting" and "pet ideas", ignoring that no one appointed godless secular humanist liberals to have the keys to science, or the gate-keepers to what is or isn't "acceptable" science. It just didn't happen, NO ONE appointed them to a damn thing. And frankly science flourished before all the godless liberals hijacked science and stomped God out of the textbooks and the discussions with their multiple God hang-ups and various lawsuits, speaking of "twisting". And Christians for the most part are bitterly clinging to what's left of our society across the board now, not just in science class but pretty much the entire culture. We're not trying to inject or introduce anything, but rather preserve what little bit of rationality and sanity is left.

—Did I say something that makes you think I would want any teacher behaving like that?

Well, ignoring that it happens sure doesn't do you any favors!

Like I said, get the ACLU on him and get the bum out of there. (Oh wait, I just realized you’re probably talking about a university/college. That would be a bit harder).

Well DUH not to mention the ACLU is complicit! You sound a little like Ron Paul when people ask him what happens when maritime vessels are hi-jacked by pirates on the open seas and he just supposes someone merely picks up the phone and calls the "pirate police". Who this mytical pirate police is, is anyone's guess, but most likely the other end of the line is somewhere in Somalia! But the point is that in reality it's our own standing navy that polices the seas, the same navy that he wants to "mind our own business" and dismantled greatly!

And I can't count how many times I've seen right here on FR the ACLU is referred to as the Anti-Christian liberties union, but I'd be willing to bet you've somehow managed to either ignore this or miss this completely as well.

“Yes, but as I pointed out, it’s not the scientists that concern me, rather the NEA and ACLU and other godless liberal types that have hijacked the theory to their own ends.”

—The NEA is simply listening to the scientists as to what should be taught in science class. I’m not sure in what way you think the theory has been hijacked.

“After all, how many godless libs do you know that support or embrace creationism?”

—How many “godless libs” do you know that are geocentricts? I’ve been to hundreds of geocentric websites and have read literature by geocentric clubs, and they ALL have been pro-Creationists. Does that mean that heliocentricism is godless?
Evolutionists are made up of the vast majority of scientists of the past century-plus of all backgrounds, religions, political philosophies, etc, the world over. Creationism is largely an American phenomena, of a particular religion of a particular persuasion. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to which side is driven primarily by religious/political reasons rather than the science.

(me)”I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator.
“(you)”Ok, so put your money where your mouth is and show me where evolution in public school textbooks supports an intelligent creator then.”

—Where does atomic theory mention an intelligent creator? Or germ theory? Or gravitational theory? Or relativity, QM, heliocentricity, etc? You’re again singling out evolution and criticizing it for being like every other scientific theory.

(me)“Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable.”
(you)”So what? Neither are multiverse theory, string theory and probably other examples.”

—Last I checked, string theory isn’t taught in public schools (albeit that’s getting longer and longer ago – but I’d be very surprised if it’s taught in public school today). When I took physics in high school, it wasn’t even mentioned in passing – and the theory had been around for a couple decades. Even today it’s probably believed by a minority of scientists (although that may be a close call) despite how convincing the mathematics looks (or so I hear, it’s certainly beyond my ability to test that out). If the mathematics seems to work so well, why all the hesitation of scientists to accept it? Because of the problem of falsifiability. Many scientists refuse to call it a theory and instead call it a “mathematical model” or “framework”. Many scientists do say it’s falsifiable, but just really difficult to do so with current technology, and won’t think much of it until it passes some real tests (the LHC may possibly be able to test it, but that seems iffy). So you didn’t help your case.
(A multiverse is something proposed by a number of theories, such as string theory, and Smolin’s theory, and Everett’s theory, but isn’t really a theory in of itself.)

“Except that you overlook you have to have faith that we came from the same ancestor as apes, since there’s absolutely no evidence that we did. Evolution is as much if not more so faith than ID/creationism.”

—I can’t imagine a better series of fossils spanning from the very ape-like Australopithecines to modern man showing a gradual change in form of ape to man. And in chronological order no less. And thus I believe based on the thousands of fossils (and genetic evidence) that we have a common ancestor as apes. It’s not faith, just a belief – it could be wrong. I’d be quite surprised if it were wrong though.

(me)”Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?”
(you)”Again, do bridge builders ignore the expanse they’re bridging, as well as the make-up of the soil, etc., along with the purpose for building the bridge in the first place? And asking an unrelated question is no answer of this question. Of course I understand your desperate need to ignore the question. I really do.”

-Scientists with a theory go digging for the information that’s relevant to that theory, just as engineers go digging for information relevant to building the bridge. You seemed incredulous when I mentioned that how the laws of nature came about is not relevant to evolution, and then you brought up the engineering example, so my question was hardly unrelated. Why would the origination of the laws of nature be any more important to evolution than to bridge building?

“If you care about the science then where are all your posts combating man-made global warming, string and multiverse theory? Or how about the tax-payer funded scientific studies over the effects of prayer, etc.?”

—String theory hasn’t come up to often, but the few times I’ve mentioned it here I wasn’t too flattering of it. As I mentioned in another thread or two, I’m rooting against it and hoping for something simpler that doesn’t require me to get a phd in mathematics to understand . Other than that, it’s a bit too far over my head to really comment on. As for man-made global warming – most of the arguments I’ve seen against it are completely inane, but I’m still pretty far from being completely convinced of it. But I’ve argued against the bad arguments from both sides (I don’t think I have on FR though, IIRC. The couple of times I looked at threads on global warming, they didn’t seem very ummm...very conducive to a productive correspondence. :-) )

(me)“Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution.”
(you)”And the only way a person can make such an absurd statement is to conclude the results before ever hearing the arguments. In actuality, if one concludes that the origins of life is due to an intelligently designed creation, evolution, in it’s current form as a vehicle to promote shameless dishonest liberal secular humanism simply dissolves for the most part. So again, I do understand the hand waving and desperation.”

—If we discovered that life came about via intelligent design, no one would be happier than me. But that would have no affect on what I think of the theory of evolution which says that evolution occurs via the mechanisms of mutation, selection, etc. That’s what evolution is to me, and I got that from reading material from the leading scientists and journals of the past century and a half. As I said before, you may have gotten your info elsewhere than I have. I’m beginning to think you are confusing how some people are using evolution with what evolution actually says and is. I suppose secularism would take a hit if we found out that God created life, but finding out that God did anything would probably have the same effect.

(me)“The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.”
(you)”Then if this is true, evolution along with string theory, multiverse theory and so on should all be removed from science class. And again, the ignoring and hand-waving merely illustrate the various problems I’m addressing: the blatant hypocrisy, the double-standards, the disconnect of acknowledging a creator via ignoring Him, indoctrinating as opposed to educating children and so on.”

—I don’t think (I could be wrong) that string theory and multiverse theory are taught in science class (at least in public school). I have no idea what the rest of your comment was about.

(me)“Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless...”
(you)”Where’d you get that from?”

—When I said that Peltzer’s arguments against abiogenesis could equally be used to argue against snowflakes forming naturally, you actually agreed that they DO apply. How else should I have taken that than you believe that, like abiogenesis, snowflake formation can’t happen naturally? Peltzer was arguing that abiogenesis ISN’T like snowflake formation (presuming he believes that snowflakes form naturally), while you seemed to argue it WAS like snowflake formation (meaning either that you thought that abiogenesis was likewise a natural event, which I already knew wasn’t true, or that snowflakes can’t form naturally and require direct intervention from God for each snowflake).

Snowflakes form because of the laws of nature – it’s a natural chemical reaction. Peltzer’s argument is that abiogenesis, unlike snowflakes, can’t form naturally. Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated. And they are attempting to find out what those chemical reactions were and in what conditions – just as those studying snowflake formation are attempting to find out how snowflakes form. A lot of progress has been made in the area of abiogenesis, although there are still a lot of mysteries – but such is also the case with snowflakes. And neither the theories of snowflake formation or abiogenesis are atheistic for not mentioning an intelligent creator.

“All of this is simple projection about what’s going on in public schools with “twisting” and “pet ideas”, ignoring that no one appointed godless secular humanist liberals to have the keys to science, or the gate-keepers to what is or isn’t “acceptable” science.”

—How about if we listen to the scientists? You know, that group that many of which are Christian? If I was putting together material for a science class, that’s what I’d do. What would you do?

“And I can’t count how many times I’ve seen right here on FR the ACLU is referred to as the Anti-Christian liberties union, but I’d be willing to bet you’ve somehow managed to either ignore this or miss this completely as well.”

—Sure I’ve seen the ACLU described as anti-Christian. They are on the list with PBS, the post office, democrats, republicans, the Roman Catholic Church, protestants, evolutionists, Creationists (yes, them too), Disney, Hollywood, the media, Europe, Canada, Wal-Mart, Darwin-Fish, Linux, etc.
The ACLU has actually been a major force defending religious rights (such as the right for students to pray and speak of their Christian beliefs when giving commencement speeches, and to give Christian quotes in yearbooks, and to have Christian symbols on private property, and to pray on public land, etc etc) but when they do so it’s usually ignored by Christians. (I always get a good laugh when I hear stories about the ACLJ racing to defend someone’s religious rights – only to find that the person is already a client of the ACLU.)

—The NEA is simply listening to the scientists as to what should be taught in science class. I’m not sure in what way you think the theory has been hijacked.

Riiiiiiight. Scientists were the ones that decided to be politically correct in virtually ALL courses from history to science to whatever. Who knew?

Evolutionists are made up of the vast majority of scientists of the past century-plus of all backgrounds, religions, political philosophies, etc, the world over. Creationism is largely an American phenomena, of a particular religion of a particular persuasion. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to which side is driven primarily by religious/political reasons rather than the science.

And once again, it's time for you to get that movie 'Expelled'. There's a good segment in there about the Polish scientist that explains it's a particularly American phenomenon to sue evo-dissenters into silence, and stomp God out of the discussion.

All of these were and are utilized in studying space flight and eventually making the entire enterprize possible:

The Earth reminded us of a Christmas tree ornament hanging in the blackness of space. As we got farther and farther away it diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful marble you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man, has to make a man appreciate the creation of God and the love of God. - James Irwin, USA

Obviously, he isn't alone:

Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth's orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis One: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As he later explained, "I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning."

It's quite obvious to these astronauts (a fine example of a scientist if there ever was one btw), who are more than capable of putting all of the above you mentioned together and understanding ALL of them mention a creator, in actuality.

(A multiverse is something proposed by a number of theories, such as string theory, and Smolin’s theory, and Everett’s theory, but isn’t really a theory in of itself.)

Really?

The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html

—I can’t imagine a better series of fossils spanning from the very ape-like Australopithecines to modern man showing a gradual change in form of ape to man.

Well that's just it, you did very much imagine it. That's the point! It shows no such thing!

Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated.

No, not more complicated, but with intelligent design from a creator. As with the astronauts this is quite obvious. For someone that says "no one would be happier if life came from intelligent design" as you put it, you sure have a peculiar way of showing it! Kind of like posting on FR all this tme but oblivious to the fact that the ACLU, NEA, etc. are what they are.

—How about if we listen to the scientists? You know, that group that many of which are Christian? If I was putting together material for a science class, that’s what I’d do. What would you do?

Well again, you're making my point for me!

www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

I've always been for hearing both sides and getting all the information.

“Riiiiiiight. Scientists were the ones that decided to be politically correct in virtually ALL courses from history to science to whatever. Who knew?”

—It is scientists who want evolution taught in science class. I don’t know what your comment is referring to.

“And once again, it’s time for you to get that movie ‘Expelled’. There’s a good segment in there about the Polish scientist that explains it’s a particularly American phenomenon to sue evo-dissenters into silence, and stomp God out of the discussion.”

—I’ve read a transcript of Maciej Giertych’s comments in the film before, and it had nothing to do with my comment.

“All of these were and are utilized in studying space flight and eventually making the entire enterprize possible:...”

—And all of that had what to do with my question?
I can send you 50 pages of similar such comments about evolution from Christians, but I doubt that would prove anything.

“Really?
The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes...”

—Yes, really. The description of multiverses described there is the Smolin theory I mentioned, where new universes are created via black holes. That conception of a “multiverse” is utterly different than string theory’s conception of a multiverse which has something to do with d-branes. And Everett’s conception of a multiverse, which uses QM, is utterly different than the other two which essentially has an infinite number of “parallel universes” forming each moment.

“Well that’s just it, you did very much imagine it. That’s the point! It shows no such thing!”

—No, I studied bones and casts myself and read the research, and as I said, I couldn’t imagine a better series of intermediate fossils showing human evolution. If you can come up with a hypothetical intermediate fossil better than what we have, I’d be curious to hear about it.

(me)”Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated.”
(you)”No, not more complicated, but with intelligent design from a creator. As with the astronauts this is quite obvious.”

—Are you saying that those that believe abiogenesis occurred believe that life formed from intelligent design and are no more complicated than snowflakes? (I have a feeling I’m wrong again, but again, I don’t know how else to read that).

“For someone that says “no one would be happier if life came from intelligent design” as you put it, you sure have a peculiar way of showing it! Kind of like posting on FR all this tme but oblivious to the fact that the ACLU, NEA, etc. are what they are.”

—I guess I just don’t necessarily think there’s a link between what would make me happy and what is reality - perhaps that does make me peculiar.
As for the NEA and ACLU, sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don’t. (shrug)
Nice discussion, although there are times I wonder who’s post you are reading when responding to me. :-)

“So why doesn’t the link merely call it that, as opposed to multiverse theory then?”

—Good question; it’s poorly written for a number of reasons. Someone reading that would think that Lee Smolin’s theory is essentially *the* theory of multiverses and is mainstream. Actually, it’s a late comer compared to most of the other theories that describe a “multiverse” (string theory and Everett’s theory are decades older), and is one of the least popular. Lee Smolin’s theory is called the “fecund universes theory”. Ever hear of that? Neither have most people. It doesn’t even have an entry in wikipedia – the discussion about it is relegated to a section within Lee Smolin’s page, and his theory isn’t mentioned in the introduction for Smolin, it instead mentions his backing of a different theory called loop quantum theory (sort of a competitor to string theory). (Actually, it looks like someone just created one about a month ago by copying the stuff from Smolin’s page to a new page, but didn’t bother to create a link to it.)
I just did some google searches on it to see what people were saying about it. I could find some discussions about it – as a fascinating idea – but it’s hard to find any scientists actually *backing* the idea.

“I’m sorry but it clearly says multiverse theory and this site isn’t alone and let’s not lose site of my point...it’s hardly falsifiable, measurable and so on, no matter what you’d prefer to call it.”

— I agree with you that the multiverse “theory” is probably unfalsifiable. The theories that proclaim a multiverse are falsifiable (although with string theory even that’s somewhat debatable), but the “multiverse” idea itself likely is not. Let’s say Lee Smolin’s theory was disproven (e.g. we learn that black holes do not create new universes), that wouldn’t disprove the idea that there are multiple universe because it’s one theory of many that claims there are multiple universes. Even if tonight every theory that described “multiple universes” were disproven, tomorrow there could be 50 more, maybe one where we all have goatees.
Also, the various theories that proclaim “multiple universes” don’t even have a consistent definition of “universe” – in fact the 3 theories I gave that have “multiple universe” have 3 completely different definitions of a “universe”. So despite the fact that there are some sources that mention “multiverse theory”, there really is no “multiverse theory”, just theories that say, among other things, that there are other universes – thus one can’t even really talk about the “multiverse theory” without discussing it in the context of another theory (such as the site you gave that uses Smolin’s theory – without ever actually mentioning him or the theory by name.)

But back to string theory. It’s been around for nearly half a century and has a lot going for it – mathematicians generally love it – for them it’s everything we’ve been looking for in a ToE – it neatly (so I hear) ties together all of physicists into a single mathematical model. So it should be sweeping the science world, right? Well, after nearly 50 years from what I see it look like it’s probably still believed by a minority of scientists. The mathematicians seem to love it, but the scientists have been saying where’s the beef. What’s the issue? For the most part – falsifiability. String theory is an excellent example of how seriously scientists take falsifiability. So trying to use string theory as an example of how falsification isn’t necessarily an issue is a bit odd when it’s the bugbear that’s been haunting string theory from the beginning. (So just a warning, don’t go up to a string theorist and ask why the theory is getting a “free pass” despite its falsification issue – you’ll probably get punched.) And that’s all despite the fact that it seems that it really IS testable – it’s just rather difficult to do so. And anyway, AFAIK the theory isn’t taught in public school (which was the original topic IIRC).

“Well, I suppose this makes up for my being so flabbergasted that you’ve been on FR as long as you have been and you are so oblivious and clueless about the NEA, ACLU...etc. ;)”
—From some of the reactions I’ve received I think I’ll make a note to myself: “Don’t say the ACLU did something good for religious freedom, even when they do.” :-)

That’s simply not an excuse to say “it’s poorly written”, when again dozens and dozens of other sites call it multiverse theory. No, I never heard of “fecund universe theory”, and it’s pretty irrelvant to the point I made too.

Alot of people assert the democratic party is a viable party that is the party that looks out for the little guy, while asserting the Republican party does not. But that’s just not true either.

“The mathematicians seem to love it, but the scientists have been saying where’s the beef. What’s the issue? For the most part – falsifiability. String theory is an excellent example of how seriously scientists take falsifiability. So trying to use string theory as an example of how falsification isn’t necessarily an issue is a bit odd when it’s the bugbear that’s been haunting string theory from the beginning. (So just a warning, don’t go up to a string theorist and ask why the theory is getting a “free pass” despite its falsification issue – you’ll probably get punched.) And that’s all despite the fact that it seems that it really IS testable – it’s just rather difficult to do so. And anyway, AFAIK the theory isn’t taught in public school (which was the original topic IIRC)”.

Soooo, why is it called string theory by people then, especially people on this threead and many others, bleating ID is NOT a theory then? You simply don’t get to have it both ways.

And where are the lawsuits? Because this is exactly the kind of hypocrisy I point out each and every time I hear people say ID isn’t falsifiable, testable, verifiable, etc. and therefore can’t BE a theory and therefore isn’t “science”.

And how do you know it’s not “taught” in public school? You don’t have any possible way of verifying what is or isn’t taught in every single public school, and nevertheless, what’s taught in public school wasn’t the issue rather what’s “science”.

You and your ilk’s argument is that ID isn’t verifiable or falsifiable and therefore isn’t “science”...btw, evolution fits that bill too. Because you “imagine” a bunch of bones that have similarities doesn’t mean they’re related or ancestors in any way shape or form, it’s all sheer conjecture.

Sure the ACLU has “fought for religious freedoms”. It also is on record for being antagonistic to one religion in particular. Occasionally it’ll even stand up for Christianity, but for the most part schizophrenically attacks it. I would also say most FReepers understand this.

“That’s simply not an excuse to say “it’s poorly written”, when again dozens and dozens of other sites call it multiverse theory. No, I never heard of “fecund universe theory”, and it’s pretty irrelvant to the point I made too.”

—There isn’t really an “it” to call multiverse theory; except perhaps “the idea that there are multiple universes” - and with the multitude of definitions out there for “universe”, even that description is pretty meaningless. The site you found isn’t really talking about “multiverse theory”, it was a description of the fecund universe theory, which happens to include an idea of multiple universes.
It would be like googling “God theory” and finding a page with the headline of “God theory” but all it is is a few paragraphs talking about the Bahai religion, without ever mentioning the Bahai religion by name, and describing it as essentially *the* idea of God. If not poorly written - it would certainly be misleading.

“Soooo, why is it called string theory by people then, especially people on this threead and many others, bleating ID is NOT a theory then? You simply don’t get to have it both ways”

—It’s called a theory by a lot of people because they believe it’s a theory and that it’s falsifiable. Many others don’t view it as a legitimate scientific theory and instead view it as merely as a mathematical model or framework. That’s not having it both ways - that’s simply called a controversy.

“And how do you know it’s not “taught” in public school? You don’t have any possible way of verifying what is or isn’t taught in every single public school, and nevertheless, what’s taught in public school wasn’t the issue rather what’s “science”.

—I think I made it pretty clear that I didn’t know, although I’d be pretty surprised to find string theory in a high school science book. And the reason I’d be surprised to find it in textbooks is because of the controversy surrounding it (not to mention it would be a rather difficult subject for high schoolers!). As for what the teachers are doing, who knows, there could be teachers out there telling students it’s turtles all the way down.

“And where are the lawsuits?”

—Lawsuits to do what?

“You and your ilk’s argument is that ID isn’t verifiable or falsifiable and therefore isn’t “science”...btw, evolution fits that bill too. Because you “imagine” a bunch of bones that have similarities doesn’t mean they’re related or ancestors in any way shape or form, it’s all sheer conjecture.”

—I prefer “inference”. :-) We don’t just see similarities between life forms and bones - we see the similarities fit a specific pattern. If life forms merely had similarities, it would be a big “taxonomic mesh”, instead its a taxonomic tree. Why? Taxonomy alone smacks of evolution, and as if that weren’t enough the fossil record matches the taxonomic tree - chronologically we have lemurs, than monkeys, then apes, then humans. And we see this same pattern again and again in biogeography, embryology, genetics, etc. All this leaves plenty of room for falsification, and makes common descent an inescapable inference.

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.