Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. - S.J.Gould
This is my position as well. If you or the author feels otherwise, please by all means show me where the contreversy exists.
That much is obvious.
You assume a lot. This is the first I have heard of this issue. Like you said, stop being obtuse.
Good term...Bertrand hisself would be proud.
As I said, no one can presume to know about "abiogenesis," and no one of intellectual repute even makes the attempt. I am of one of those catagories---I don't know if or how life started from non-life, yet, as a professional life scientist (biology/physiology) I am enthralled daily by the abundance of data which illustrate our evolution and hence the commonalities among all the species of both flora and fauna.
Is not evolution, i.e., learning from experience and changing one's ways, God's way?
This thread is about an article - I am responding to that. If this thread was about a lesson plan, then I would respond to it. I have not studied the fine art of Reading Between the Lines so I do not see things that are not there.
Don't try to be coy, you're not very good at it, and I don't see any signs that anyone on this thread has fallen for it.
RWN: Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution.
And what the quote says:
Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened.
What the heck to you think he means by turmoil? All this says is the debate has not lead to doubt - you claim the debate does not even take place.
BTW: the first sentence contradicts your claim that Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution:
Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement.
CLUE: validity is one of the fundamental issues of theory so claiming Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution contradicts Gould's statement.
What the HECK are you talking about?
Yes, you have been proven wrong - the article clearly states they will not be teaching ID. Just to help you out I will provide that quote from the article: "The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design"
The disingenuousness of that line has already been addressed, multiple times, including by myself.
Again, I must suggest that you bother to actually read the thread before you jump in. Either that, or work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop playing these rhetorical games you seem to enjoy so much. You're not fooling anyone, and your attempts at being "clever" are more annoying than amusing.
Global warming as a theory is ten or twenty years old. Evolution is more than two hundred years old, 165 if you limit it to Darwin's initial speculations. As global warming faces a hundred years of predictions and evidence gathering, it will stand or fall. Evolution has already passed that test.
So presenting the facts is disingenuousness - you are doing a lot of tap-dancing but you are not getting anywhere.
You made a false statement and I provided evidence that your statement was false. Tap-dance all you want - insult me all you want - the fact is you make an incorrect statement and got called on it.
So in your model we are all forced to learn some professors spin.
Sigh. In one post LVD coyly claims, "I have not studied the fine art of Reading Between the Lines so I do not see things that are not there" when he wants to disingenuously read something only at face value -- and then in this post (and others) he flip-flops and engages in exactly "the fine art of Reading Between the Lines" and seeing things that aren't there.
LVD, you need to try some new sophistry, your old material just looks foolish.
Nice try. My statement was a question - not a position. Please explain how one can flip-flop merely by asking a question.
You are just pissed I exposed your incorrect statement (with supporting evidence) and you are desparately trying to find a "gotcha" you can get me with. Keep trying.
Straw man -- no one here has made such a claim. You're just making a fool of yourself.
and when evidence of a scientist is provided that does not think evolution is fact - you merely claim that is not a “real” scientist.
No one has made that claim either. Lie much?
Propaganda at its best, bravo!
No, I'm afraid your propaganda isn't as good as you think it is.
True mark of a troll: "I must be brilliant/right/superior if I can behave obnoxiously enough to p*** people off this much."
Most people outgrow that view in early childhood.
Ichneumon: Straw man -- no one here has made such a claim. You're just making a fool of yourself.
Speaking of making a fool out of yourself - this is a quote from one of YOUR messages to me(#152):
Ichneumon: "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory"...
Care to retract your statement or are you planning on digging a very deep hole?
Ichneumon: No one has made that claim either. Lie much?
Speaking of making a fool out of yourself
RWP(#53): Behe hasn't published in the biochemical literature (as far as I can tell) since 1997; Johnson is a lawyer, and his opinion of evolution is probably as valuable as my opinion of tort law; I can't find a single paper in the scientific (as opposed to mathematical) literature by Dembski; and who's the fourth guy?
Ichneumon, make a fool out of yourself much?
Those are not examples of "irreducible complexity", as you claim they are. But you're invited to provide your proofs that they are, if you think you can. Be sure to show your work.
Note: You'd be wise not to rely on previous creationist sources for information on the bombadier beetle, they're flat wrong on several issues, and Behe's discussion of the flagella overlooks several fundamental things which render his argument invalid.
Take a stab at it yourself, if you like.
I assume you are going to pretend they don't exist.
I see that you often make incorrect assumptions.
My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.
You have failed at your goal.
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.