Posted on 06/04/2004 8:08:18 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
101 placemarker.
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
by "/~robroy/"
Such non-sequiturs is why I don’t play much anymore. If scientists would have approached the research from an ID perspective in the first place
True scientists CAN’T approach the research from an ID perspective without committing 2 serious fallacies:
1. the design is INTELLIGENT.
2. the DESIGN is intelligent.
Both are, a priori assumptions, prior to evidence, BY DEFINITION. Both are demonstrably false.
Since evolution is about long term survival of a given species, the real question would be:
Would the genetically altered rats be able to survive in a natural environment and transmit their altered genetic make up, 5000 years from now, or would the transmitted flaws eliminate them?
Finally, there is junk science and there is junk science, on both sides. The question is: What does the evidence lead one to conclude?
Suppose for a second, (a mere second) that both ID and Evolution are wrong. What then is the conclusion from the evidence? Something none of you have considered yet?
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
Why then is everyone trying to force a conclusion? We don’t know. You don’t know. The Pope doesn’t know. It is all fantasy. Come back in a couple thousand years, maybe.
Yes, the fugu is another demonsration of the same thing. It also proves that not all fish products are good for you.
Yes, there's evidence that he did. But when I read it, I didn't get what he got.
READING.ne.UNDERSTANDING
Are not Dennett and Dawkins Darwinian scientists?
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.
Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth,
--- which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
-Shapiro-
_____________________________________
--- Hmmmm, seems to me that Shapiro's concluding line, just above, is flawed by the reactions of the scientists as described in the article.
Can you agree, AndrewC?
88 tpaine
_____________________________________
For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely.
It is heartening to understand that they had recognized something quite profound.
But his "accusation" was aimed at those mentioned at the beginning of his article, Dennett and Dawkins.
91 andyC
_____________________________________
No, it was aimed at Darwinian scientists, as both you & he clearly wrote, just above.
100 tpaine
______________________________________
Are not Dennett and Dawkins Darwinian scientists?
107 andy
______________________________________
You make my point. Shapiros conclusion is flawed, -- a fact petty wordplay can't change.
No less flawed an "opinion" than Physicist concerning my "change". Your point is valid only in general application and Dr Shapiro's article was an opinion article in "Boston Review", not a paper in "Nature". Nevertheless, your prancing about in search of some demeaning vulnerability is a perfect example of "Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth".
Your point is valid only in general application
Yep. That was my point. Thanks again.
and Dr Shapiro's article was an opinion article in "Boston Review", not a paper in "Nature".
Immaterial. You're just objecting to save face.
Nevertheless, your prancing about in search of some demeaning vulnerability is a perfect example of "Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth."
Me? I'm "prancing"? -- Infantile comment my boyo.
You're ticked cause you got caught hyping the issue. Learn to control yourself.
You're a mind reader too? I'm not ticked at all. I'm practically laughing a body part off. Your prancing around your irrelevant point is a sight to behold. First, I merely cited Dr. Shapiro in answer to the assertion that "but the description you provided is essentially the same as evolution in its particulars.". I also noted quite plainly, that "This is what Dr. Shapiro, in part, had to say concerning Darwinians". Your "great" </sarcasm> discovery that opinion sometimes involves hyperbole seems to have you hallucinating. I answered you plainly, "For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely". Yes it was hyperbole.Go ahead and continue prancing about. You provide humorous relief. And provide ample evidence that " they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science".
Hey, I'm as amused as you are..
Well, I'm glad that you can laugh at yourself.
The Fairy Troll |
Bump for later reading by my homeschooled teenagers!
How derivative. [Yawn]
There is a "Far Side" cartoon or two in this thread......one of the ones with lab-coated scientists beating each other up.......
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.