Teaching Darwin

Weekly Standars ^ | March 21, 2005 | Paul McHugh

[Oztrich Boy]

I am not a Creationist!

[b_sharp]

"I usually just lurk on these threads, but I'm quite curious about a detail of your beliefs -- do I understand correctly that you feel that a quote from the Bible is factual evidence on the order of "a body in motion" etc?"

That's pretty much the impression I got too.

[b_sharp]

Eric Lerner's hypothesis just suffered a blow.

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2814

Halton Arp's ideas do not reflect the math that not only predicts the existence of singularities but predicts what should be seen and in fact is what we see. Without the math, his ideas are incomplete.

[b_sharp]

Is there some quota for logical fallacies you have to meet each thread?

[b_sharp]

What are you trying to say by quoting this?

[jennyp]

ImpersonateLoggedOnUser PLACEMARKER.

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

The of evidence for evolution may grow (I will not make that broad arrogant assumption that I know the running total on that score) but a great many things once thought to be key evidence have been refuted. That is a fact.

I'm not aware of anything that was key to Darwin's theory or any modern version of the theory that has been refuted. Haeckel's embryo drawings were dry-labbed, but he was basically correct.

What examples do you have of any evidence refuting evolution?

[Dataman]

I have no idea who Richard Sternberg is.

Telling.

[dread78645]

"cognitive abyss" placemarker

[Liberal Classic]

I had no idea who Daniel Dennett was either, until I was broadsided with the suggestion I want to round Christians up and put them into concentration camps.

[Liberal Classic]

I had to look it up. Are we talking about someone named Richard von Sternberg? If he's the editor who gave the green light to publish Stephen C. Meyer's paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, then I think he is taking flack due to his religious beliefs but because he didn't do his job.

[bondserv]

[J. D., Barrow, New Scientist 24 July (1999), p. 28]. It read: "Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule," says John D. Barrow "the rule that says the speed of light never varies."

Here is more on this topic.

And here

[muir_redwoods]

"Creation Science" and it's bastard offspring, Intelligent Design are not scientific theories because the adherents of these belief systems would accept nothing to disprove their beliefs. Phlogiston and Phrenology once had scientific support but were disproven. That's how science works. Creationism and ID have not a single scientific fact to support them and no testable theories or bodies of observation to support them. If you think Creationism or ID are scientific answer this one question. What scientific proof would you accept that would prove them wrong?

[hosepipe]

[ You know, the reason I'm nit picking is because it is my contention that sloppy writing bespeaks sloppy thinking. That you couldn't be bothered to look up the spelling of a word (or to even use a handy spellchecker) or to learn how to use a punctuation mark correctly means, to me, that you can't be bothered to double check any claims you make or to research any particular point. ]

You overlooked the obvious....
Are you a democrat.?.
It was on purpos..

[Right Wing Professor]

From: (RWP)
Date: March 22, 2005 9:29:15 PM CST
To: editor@weeklystandard.com
Subject: Piltdown schmiltdown

Selecting at random just one of the warmed-over creationist myths and half-truths in Professor McHugh's unfortunate opinion piece of 3/21, McHugh claims that "evolutionary biologists tried to improve on the record by manufacturing the counterfeit fossil Piltdown Man." The trouble is, to this day, nobody knows who manufactured Piltdown Man. Suspicions have ranged from Charles Dawson, the palaeontologist, to a workman at the site who'd cleverly figured out what his employers wanted, and even as far as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who knew most of the principals, and allegedly wanted to discredit the scientific enterprise. McHugh, a psychiatrist of some distinction, has surely surpassed himself, in determining the motivation of a person or persons unknown!

[AndrewC]

I am not a Creationist!

But you are a liar.

[Treader]

Nearly all evidence of prior species has been geologically erased- time and time again. Darwinism is a partially evolved theory- nothing more and nothing less. If evolution science has a line of well deduced hindsight- where is the line of predictable outcome- where, when and what is it?

[SCALEMAN]

"It's not an attack. You claim to teach science, yet you didn't know how scientists use the term "theory" and equated the theory of evolution with the (barely a) hypothesis that is creationism. That you passed this ignorance on to your students is worrisome to say the least"

It most certainly is an attack, as is your later post. There is a huge difference between the term 'scientific theory' and the word theory. Now go back and read my post and tell me where I used the term 'scientific theory'.

To assume that I don't know the difference, and 'passed this ignorance' on to my students is rather shallow on your part with no facts to work on.

Oh and by the way, I don't 'claim to teach science', I stated that I taught BIOLOGY for 7 years, so once again I ask you to read the post prior to attacking me.

[PatrickHenry]

[Dimensio]

I notice that you've offered no actual arguments. You just rant and rave because you cannot possibly justify using the Bible as a science text.