Teaching Darwin

Weekly Standars ^ | March 21, 2005 | Paul McHugh

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the blessing! And may you have a blessed Easter as well!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the perfect Scripture for today and thank you for the kind encouragments! May you have a blessed Easter weekend, too!

[anguish]

[hosepipe]

[ (...and sofostry...) I assume you mean "sophistry." ]

No I meant sofostry.. Thats the effort one makes while sitting on the sofa(or some seat) mucking up a political forum with wild assed minutia about where wild asses(evolution) came from.. Sophistry is where sophomores sit on sofas(or some other seat) performing sofastry attempting to appear sophisticated..

Jeese, so many ignert so little time..

[AndrewC]

And manufacture quotes from personal correspondence, complete with omissions that cannot be verified.

You have his reply The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes.. You have his motivation at the venue which apparently prompted the letter arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). and you have his concern at some sort of record of his quotes. Finally you have this revealing comment, But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. What is your beef? What do you suppose he is skeptical of, creationism?

[bondserv]

Considering the things that we are seeing every day on the news, those are wise words. Evil abounds in this world. A little character-shock might shake a few from Satan's tree of indulgences.

[SCALEMAN]

Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Pick one.

[anguish]

But the question remains... Why do you post these out-of-context quotes? It hardly advances your case, unless of course you think tying it to dishonesty somehow makes, for your case, a point the rest of us are unable to see.

[GreenFreeper]

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it. The premise that we never lose 'good' features is clearly flawed.

Your missing the point. The premise of evolution is not that we never lose 'good' features. "Good features" is a subjective terms. Fur (hair) may provide an advantage in cooler climates while it may provide a disadvantage in warmer climates, or vice versa. With the advent of increased intelligence, fur production would likely decrease fitness as more energy efficient means of temperature regulation developed (e.g. fire, clothing, etc.). Evolution and natural selection is based on increasing fitness. OK, in your example (fur) 3 outcomes are possible.

1). Fur provides neither a selective advantage nor a disadvantage.

Outcome: any change in fur would be the result of random genetic drift.

2). Fur provides an advantage.

Outcome: Furry individuals would be selected for.

3). Fur provides a disadvantage

Outcome: Furry individuals would be selected against.

Whether or not a derived character is 'good' or not is dependent upon spatial and temporal scales. Temperature regulation and metabolic needs vary in different organisms. While hair on one species in a warm climate may be advantageous, it may be disadvantageous to other species (diurnal vs. nocturnal for example). That is how one species can retain fur in a hot climate while others may lose fur.

[b_sharp]

"Relative hairlessness appears to be the result of sexual selection over the past hundred thousand years or so"

It works for me.;->

[furball4paws]

"A planned economy is a natural philosophical extrapolation from a planned creation."

Well said and there are more similarities. Both Creationism and Statism appeal to authority figures, the only difference being who or what the figure is. Someone said earlier that we'd be better off with socialism, because then the source of the evil would be obvious and readily identified and attacked. Otherwise we risk becoming pawns of the ayatollahs (closed eyes, ears and minds breed ignornace, a perfect compost heap for the destruction of Man).

[metacognative]

"scepticism is a scientists duty"!....must not be a true believer darwinite.
I like Colin Patterson of the British Museum and I wish he were able to express himself with being pounced on by the 'No Questions' modern inquisition.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I have no idea what a "devolved" human is. The word really has no meaning.

Leftists.

[Liberal Classic]

modern inquisition

Oh, the irony.

[metacognative]

Well, you've made your choice. NEA,ACLU and cultural zoos

[Modernman]

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it.

There are few other animals that are better long-distance runners than humans. Our ability to keep cool due to our hairlessness is one of the reasons behind this ability.

[metacognative]

You're tellin' me! And Richard Sternberg.

[Liberal Classic]

cultural zoos

I read the full quote by the guy, and I don't see how you can legitimately claim he advocates rounding up "church people" and putting them into "cultural zoos." This would seem to me to be a gross mischaracterization, and I am suprised to find you continue to imply evolutionists want to put Christians into camps. Even though you have been corrected, you continue to make this point. Why?

[Liberal Classic]

I have no idea who Richard Sternberg is. My sense is that instead of eschewing obfuscation, you revel in it.

[furball4paws]

"Why?"

Because he doesn't care if it's a mischaracterization or not.