Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[Dimensio]

And yet not a single creationist has admonished Matchett-PI for his outright brazen dishonesty. He lied about a quote, then lied about the refutation of the quote, and how he's continuing his parade of lies here, and not a single creationist seems to think that there's anything wrong with it.

I'm not sure what's worse. That so many creationists are such brazen liars, or that even those that aren't rarely, if ever, take time to chastize those who are.

[balrog666]

And maybe the rest of his jokes in that post are just too clever for me.

You are so generous.

[Dimensio]

THANK YOU.

[crail]

And yet not a single creationist has admonished Matchett-PI for his outright brazen dishonesty.

Not so fast... we have one.

[Dimensio]

I want scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution to me

You'll be waiting awhile. Absolutely no theory in science can be "proven". That's now how science works.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, I'm about 45 degress from a real conservative; I am complex.

[RadioAstronomer]

You, PatrickHenry, DoctorStochastic, the whole bunch of you.

Sigh. Left out again.

[Dimensio]

So noted. I hadn't seen that when I began composing originally, and I have since replied accordingly.

I do try to be careful when speaking of creationist dishonesty to always frame it by stating that it's just the majority of what I see around here, not that it is all that I see around here and not (as mlc9852 falsely claims) that it is a trait of all creationists. People like chronic_loser are the reason for that.

[crail]

Are you still around? I thought you got the zot for impure evolutionary postings!

[RadioAstronomer]

I thought you got the zot for impure evolutionary postings!

Nope. Just demoted by giving out Darwin Central secrets! LOL

[Gumlegs]

Quit joking around. You can only justify things by forcing them out into public view. I want scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution to me. Plainly and with personal respect.

I'm very sorry. I thought you were joking around when you posted:

Now prove to me that the Theory of Evolution is not a government-sponsored religion.

I had simply assumed you knew it is impossible to prove a negative and were making a sly joke. I based that, in part, on the "government-sponsored religion," bit, which I thought was funny.

So, no joking around now.

You can only justify things by forcing them out into public view.

I don't know what you mean by this. What is to be justified and is not currently in public view?

I want scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution to me. Plainly and with personal respect.

I am no longer assuming sly wit, but rather ignorance. A scientific theory is never "proven," so you're going to come up empty-handed. If you want to read some of what evidence scientists have collected in support of the theory, visit PatrickHenry's page here at FR and follow the scientific links. They're below his collection of quotes; just scroll down. There, you will find a wealth of information, aimed at the general public, which does an admirable job of setting out the current state of knowledge.

[Liberal Classic]

Irreducibly so?

[Gumlegs]

Well, I'm about 45 degress from a real conservative; I am complex.

I thought you were compound-complex.

Just between us, some of the FReepers around here think you're acute.

[Liberal Classic]

Just between us, some of the FReepers around here think you're acute.

I'm sure others think he is just obtuse.

[rwfromkansas]

Just to Kansas bash.

It is becoming a favorite pasttime of the evolutionists on FR.

I actually am pretty open to evolution and think there is some strong evidence for it, but when they pull this crap, I am not near as willing to listen to them.

Such childish behavior doesn't win friends, nor arguments.

[js1138]

I know how you feel. I was left off the original enemies list.

[rwfromkansas]

People learn evolution in college. What the state does for schools below that doesn't matter.

[Gumlegs]

De gustibus ...

[exDemMom]

"how I'm going to show they have similar functions--because creation or ID (whatever you want to call it) doesn't even allow the questions to be asked."

Surely you know that isn't true. They want MORE questions asked, not fewer.

I think you completely missed my meaning. I wasn't talking about permission to ask the questions, I was talking about the ability. The assumptions that have to be made to support a creationist/ID hypothesis do not lead to the kinds of questions that I ask on a daily basis.

For instance, if I am studying the function and structure of an enzyme, the assumptions of ID or creationism do not allow for differences in the enzyme between different organisms. There is no logical reason for RNA polymerase II, for example, to be different in mouse, human, lizard, oyster, etc., since it has the exact same function in each of these animals. The questions I would ask become impossible. Yet the enzyme IS different--unaccountably and unpredictably so, under the assumptions of ID/creationism. OTOH, taking evolution into account, I can make predictions about the differences in structure between the RNA polymerases, design experiments, AND the experimental evidence will support my predictions.

[narby]

These theories need questioning.

All of science should be reaffirmed regularly.

But evolution is singled out disproportionally for extra scrutiny. Therefore, it has been particularly confirmed, and no doubt needs even less scrutiny in the future than other part of science.