Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings. But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony. Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory. But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex. The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
Given that various religious denominations, even among "Christians", have widely varying dogmas. You'd think that believers would have enough respect for the beliefs of other denominations to have an open mind about their particular Biblical interpretations. But they don't.
After all, either they are wrong about a particular aspect of Christianity, or the other denomination is wrong. Logic dictates that there can't be any single denomination that's "perfect" in their interpretations, so all of them must believe some falacy or another.
I fully agree that nothing in science should achieve the status of dogma. But "dogma" is the very definition of religious belief, and unfortunately many religious believers practice it to it's fully closed minded state.
Probably few other places demonstrate that to the extent of these crevo threads.
Science is always open to refutation. Just provide a theory that explains the existing evidence better than evolution, and you'll instantly win the Nobel prize.
The ID argument that "someone did it", just isn't enough detail. If "someone did it", then who are they, where are they, and if they're still here why don't we have any evidence of them?
This was not made in any context that would imply sarcasm or joking. It is a flat-out, inexcusable lie. It is totally unacceptable for anyone to do this in a debate, and it is unacceptable for people supporting the same side to thank the person doing this.
Now, lest lurkers be confused about the context of this, let me explain that we are talking abot fake fossils and other scientific frauds.
Hosepipe seems to be asserting three things: that fraud is typical of science, that creationists are typically the ones that expose the frauds, and mainstream biologists admit the fraud only when backed into a corner. (see post #88 for context).
This kind of assertion is very common on these threads, and it is maddening to see otherwise honorable and intelligent FReepers ignore the dishonesty involved.
First of all, the fake fossils cannot be exposed by non-evolutionists, because the reason we know they are frauds is that they don't fit biological theory. Creationists and ID proponents have no theoretical framework for determining that they are frauds.
There are some other "Icons" that I will be happy to discuss if anyone cares about them. Haeckel's drawings? Peppered moths?
You've nailed it as to why creationists are so infuriating. Yes, there are lots of them that will see their first crevo thread and throw out a post of "it's only a theory". But then they go away.
The creationists who hang around are the one's that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that they've been beaten. When demonstrating that one of their creationist icons is bogus, they ignore it, change the subject, or otherwise act in a dishonorable way for an intelligent discussion.
It is very frustrating. I only hope that somehow these threads are enlightening to certain lurkers. Particularly lurkers with clout, such as in the Republican party or talk radio, who have the ability to stop this crevo war before it breaks out into the open and does real damage.
My point in the sidebar is simple: if a Freeper is making personal comments about another Freeper (for good or ill) it is customary to ping the other Freeper so that he/she can respond if he/she wants to do so.
I will, however, dispute one remark in your previous post:
But frankly, it is a waste of time to engage Young Earth Creationists in any discussion other than on theological grounds. To a believer, Truth always trumps facts - and there is no scientific argument to defeat the claim that “all that there is” was created last Thursday.
The YEC doctrine is based on an interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48 which says that Adam was the first mortal man. This is accepted as Truth in that doctrine. No facts can defeat a Truth.
Other doctrines, such as in the Catholic church, say that Adam was the first ensouled man. These doctrines do not have a problem with either the age of the universe or evolution as long as one does not try to say that the soul is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain (Pinker et al).
Personally, I eschew all doctrine and tradition of men. OTOH, I value the revelation of God above all other types of knowledge.
Concerning evolution, I believe the theory is incomplete and the randomness presumption will be discarded. Notwithstanding any progress made by Intelligent Design, I look to mathematics and physics to overturn that part of the theory due to the ongoing research in information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence.
Concerning the age of the universe, I agree with Gerald Schroeder’s position in viewing the difference between space/time at our coordinates v inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). IOW, 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates is equal to 6 days at the inception space/time coordinates plus 6000 years at our space/time coordinates.
This is how I see Genesis reconciling with science. God is the only observer of creation week and speaks to both the creation of heaven and earth, spiritual and physical. Thus I see Eden/paradise as being in the spiritual realm (Genesis 2 v Rev 2, tree of life). And when Adam is banished to mortality - the physical realm (space/time) - the 6000 year clock begins and the aspect of Scriptures changes from inception to our earthy space/time coordinates.
Right and wrong is a matter of how one personally views types of knowledge and values it. For a discussion of that very subject: Freeper investigation
Therefore, if your correspondent values revelations from God (Scripture or Spirit) above all else - and is a Young Earth Creationist - and if you cannot discuss the theology involved – it is best to ignore the post altogether.
Those of us who value revelations from God above all else and are not YEC might make good "mediators" in such discussions.
Those who don't stand corrected tend to spend the rest of their lives lying.
I am often wrong, but I wasn't aware that Kelvin and Pasteur had anything negative to say about evolution. Perhaps you could provide some of their commentary on the subject to clarify your point.
And Morse? Would that be Robert Morse, the physicist and underwater acoustics specialist? Or maybe Samuel Finley Breese Morse, the former portrait painter who became a principal contributor to the invention of the electric telegraph.
Again, I wasn't aware that either of these gentlemen had any expertise with the theory of evolution or anything negative to say about it. Some of their negative commentary (which you seem to suggest exists) would be helpful and educational.
I should have pinged you to my post 548 above...
IMHO, most people - including scientists and mathematicians - get all tongue-tied when they try to talk about elapsed time.
Even though the scientists/mathematicians know that space and time transform (Lorentz), that a week on the edge of a black hole could be equal to half a century on earth, the equivalence principle, the inflationary universe - that time is relative - yet they cannot apply relativity in conversations about the age of the universe.
If they would, there would be much less to argue about...
It's hard. I've been proved wrong. A while back (I don't remember when, years?) there was a discussion about Ben Franklin in which I made some statements about the absence at the time of federal republicanism from the european continent which turned out to be wrong on my part. I had just finished the Issacson biography and thought I knew it all. I learned something new, but I don't believe I ever adequately answered the other persons objections to my post. It's much easier to just ignore it and hope it goes away. That having been said, I haven't made the same assertions since.
... and has almost nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution.
I never argue with people who hates creationism: if they believe in it, that's their own choice, it doesn't affect others in any way. That's why I say it doesn't matter.
I don't think many people hate creationism. Mainstream science just thinks it is wrong; but I do sometimes get the impression that some creationists hate science and mistake it for a rival religion because its results challenge their religious dogma.
All this does matter if people try to get stuff that isn't science taught in science class.
But I don't think it's appropriate to asert that evolution is the only valid theory.
Then present another rival theory that (a) explains the observed facts (b) makes successful predictions and (c) there are possible observations that would falsify it. Do those things with a simpler theory than the theory of evolution and your new theory will replace the theory of evolution. But it will be tough. The theory of evolution has 150 years of successful predictions and observations already under its belt.
believing in evolution created every lifeform is like believing blowing wind to assemble a 747.
This is a common canard of evolution rejectors. No biologist thinks that anything like "blowing wind to create a 747" is responsible for any biological life that we see today.
By the way, what is IYOH?
A mistype, I meant IYHO, In Your Honest Opinion.
I certainly don't. I'm making a distinction here which others have made on these threads, between "creationism by faith," and "creation science." The former is fine, the latter is a thoroughly corrupt enterprise.
Those who adhere to creationism by faith are, in my opinion, rather like the Amish (or old order Amish, I think). They maintain their faith, they reject modernity, and they mind their own business. Nothing wrong with that.
BULL. Here we go again. Read it and weep:
Dimensio: ""So this justifies him lying about a quote from Charles Darwin?" , to wit:
Matchett-PI: " '... With me... the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' " ~ Charles Darwin
Dimensio: "Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote,...In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to evolution. ..."
As you know - and are trying to get the easily led clueless to overlook - ALL quotes are "taken out of context". The bottom-line question is whether the "out-of-context quote" is an accurate portrayal of what the quoted person believes about the subject under discussion. So when noted evolutionist J. W. Burrow wrote in his introduction to Darwin's book, The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance", he was accurately protraying Darwin's evolutionary view.
HERE. Stomping around pointing your finger at everyone yelling "out-of-context quote" or "liar", "liar" when Darwin's "beliefs" are being accurately portrayed only makes you look foolish
Dimensio: "This justifies him fabricating a quote from Wayne Carley?"
[1] I couldn't have "fabricated" anything --- I wasn't even ON the thread, ace. Hahahaha
[3] None of you who were on the thread at the time challenged the quote. It must have sounded right to you since it comports with the tacit admission Carley had made (as referenced here):
AND because of these admissions - which also comport with what Carley said - which were made by leading Darwinist philosopher Michael "I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science." Ruse, and NCSE'S Executive Director, and award-winning humanist who says she subscribes to the philosophy of materialism, Eugenie C. "NABT was making a philosophical statement outside of what science can tell us" Scott, both of whom are referenced here.
Two recurring tactics of the Darwinian Religious Left is to [1] deliberately restate creationist arguments incorrectly so as to create a "strawman", ie: "quoting-out-of-context" - as Patrick does here - and [2] silencing expert opinion when it reveals fraudulent macroevolutionist logic.
Riding in the boats of one-armed Darwinist boat-rowers ---who think that by screaming "out of context quote" or "liar, liar" at everyone who points out that so-called "science" has been busily teaching little school children the "philosophical beliefs" of Darwin as if they are the foundation of true science/biology --- gets REAL old after a while.
So if you insist on defending your Darwinian philosophy by parroting the same misleading rhetoric which merely takes people in circles, or down a rabbit trail you want to divert them to, then from now on, I'll just re-post what I posted above, or a variation of it.
ummmm...Intelligent Design? Isn't that the point? Isn't that what I was saying? Isn't that what we were talking about?
Que? It's a poor crevo thread that doesn'r hit triple 6.
Thats about the wisest most cogent piece of logic contained in this entire thread.. and the thread is not worthy of it.. IMO..
That Gen Ch.I and probably chaps II and III too could be metaphorical in content not to speak of many other places in Hebrew scripture (in my observations) is deep insight I didn't expect and awesome in the way you segued that notion into the conversation..
At a time in history when modern "science" and "scientific principle" was not even a gleam in some smart guys or girls mind.. Creative metaphor would be a pretty good way to answer some of the deepest questions ever asked by "people".. any people.. Myth based in some truth is what I perceive Evolution to be anyway.. its just that all the theorys of evolution I personally know of.. adjust the myth to disclude God (whatever it is) as a player.. The THIRD human on earth had to come from somewhere, where?.. Apes?.. Genesis provided an answer that could be believed.. or even acquiesced too..
Although myth can be metaphorical, metaphors are not always myth.. Even if there were no God, having a God would be still useful.. i.e. where do OUR rights originate from in the American Constitution.. big difference between "rights" and government granted privileges.. who makes the rights inalienable.. No God? and the rights immediately morph into privileges.. Which could actually BE the intent of some politically motivated Evos, here, on a mostly political website.. Especially since some that post to Evo threads almost never post to political threads..
Quite good, this post, I would say..
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.