Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
I'm curious; why do you consider the study of evolution a philosophy? You aren't taking Phillip Johnson seriously are you?
It might be advantageous for your understanding to separate abiogenesis, which is in its infancy and just starting to falsify hypotheses, from the ToE, which is at least 146 years old and built upon even older science and is a true theory with verified hypotheses, reams of concrete evidence, verified predictions and tens of thousands of scientists actively developing and testing hypotheses. It is also supported by a number of other scientific disciplines.
"***True enough. But the funding of scientific investigation of that history of life will greatly depend on the president and his policies.
But only in the US (and Canada, we do everything the US does). Other countries have their own funding and are getting ahead of the US in science. Many if not most new publications are from Europe with the number from Asia increasing. The US is loosing ground quickly.
Much more is being done abroad.
I don't think the TOE is bad, wrong nor should it be suppressed. I think the TOE is the POE, that it doesn't hold water as a true scientific theory and is more of a philosophy, well on its way to becoming a religion.
Let's get back to your original reply....
I can just picture an (evo) "teacher" nodding his/her head and saying "Absolutely" when a student asks, "Does that mean (one race is superior to another?" or "Does that mean Social Darwinism is true?")
And once again my response to this...."Disingenuous. Darwin made no such claim."
You're response to this....It doesn't matter that Darwin made no such claim, the evo teachers make the claim for him.
Please define "evo teacher".
Thanks for that post. It appears excellent.
All that we need for a bozo like me to come up to speed is 2 more websites: The creat authoritative website and a middle-ground website (which keeps in mind that 95% of us really don't have that much time to devote to this topic).
From the talkorigins web page: The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
Your wish is my command. This site is run by an "evolutionist", but it evenhandedly lists books from all points of view. It does so without being snide.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm
This site is so good it makes me weep with jealousy.
I'm curious; why do you consider the study of evolution a philosophy? You aren't taking Phillip Johnson seriously are you?
***I haven't read his book yet, but I do think I saw him on a relatively even-handed TV documentary. He said something about how every great empire/society had its own creation story. The more I hear of him, the higher his book gets on my list of priorities because I seem to have come to some of the same conclusions as him. I don't consider the STUDY of evo to be a philosophy, knock yourselves out. It's a fascinating scientific endeavor. It is the adherents to evo that use it as a philosophy, and in particular in the teaching professions where there is an attempt to indoctrinate. The moment an evo/abio/creat/ID point of view is ever pushed forth onto a classroom in any other class besides philosophy is an abuse of authority unless it's a private school (such as a Mormon University, you shouldn't be surprised if the teachers push Mormonism). I would grant that the study of evo/origins would be suitable for higher level bio classes, but students should not be judged according to their adherence to a philosophy.
It might be advantageous for your understanding to separate abiogenesis, which is in its infancy and just starting to falsify hypotheses, from the ToE, which is at least 146 years old and built upon even older science and is a true theory with verified hypotheses, reams of concrete evidence, verified predictions and tens of thousands of scientists actively developing and testing hypotheses.
***Yes, there does appear to be a lot of factual information behind the TOE/POE. ---SIGH-- I can imagine that if we had spent 146 years and corresponding effort into discovering the universe without having an overriding philosophy zapping the lesser adherents, we would probably know more about the universe than today. As an example, there's some creat guy who studied astronomy & found that the speed of light might not necessarily be a constant..." an international group of physicists reports. After analyzing light from distant quasars, the team has concluded that the fine-structure constant, which is related to the speed of light, has shifted over time”
http://smccd.net/accounts/brenner/lsci106/ballein.html
Why weren't the abio/evo guys looking for the same info, and why are his findings initially treated with scorn? Because of his philosophical bent. I think the priorities for science should be for practical discoveries first (what does all this evo stuff get us?) then after that some pure science pursuits. Wherever there is an intersection with engineering, medicine, daily life, those areas should get priority, instead of more angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin controversy. Imagine if we had chased down electrogravitics -- we'd have that theory of gravity as well as antigravity drives by now. /end rant
It is also supported by a number of other scientific disciplines.
***True, I see that. Here is where I see that evo/abiog becomes a philosophy. There are always going to be things that we don't know. Even in that abiog article, they say, "At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two .... For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown." At that point of the unknown, the way all of us connect the dots is an inner matter of faith. Some have faith that the probabilities/the missing link in the fossil record/ the great microparticle discovery that explains everything/whatever will be found by scientists because they are so clever and their fact-filled theory explains so much. At the point of the unknown, it is a philosophy. It belongs in a philosophy class, right next to some other fascinating philosophies.
Please define "evo teacher".
***I was plugging & chugging, substituting back into your statement. I suppose I should have been more accurate and said something like evo-biased teacher. Sorry about that. For purposes of policy discussion, let's just substitute PWTDFE there. Was there some kind of point you wanted to make?
I wish I had a $billion. Let's all hope that's not the last we see of you ;-)
Thanks for the link. It's bookmarked.
Was there some kind of point you wanted to make?
Yes. Are you condemning evolution because there are "People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution" (that is charlatans) who advocate bad things?
I'm going to break this up to keep the segments short.
First: re PatrickHenry's Lost o' Links.
It may seem overwhelming but that harks back to the complexity of the subject matter. He does have good subtopic headings so you can paick and choose.
Then there is Ichneumon's resource article explaining the basics in one fell swoop.
I'd suggest printing that one out and perusing it at your convenience. It's quite clear if taken in small bites.
"...The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
***And hereby you reinforce a point that I made earlier. Origins belongs in a 2nd year bio regimen due to its advanced nature (of course I think it should be a philosophy class, but that's just wandering off on a tangent)..."
Complex aspects do come later but the basic idea helps to explain so much, as in the dinosaurs kids are so interested in, that some mention needs to be made early.
This one is a biggie in terms to the notion of putting Creation into biology classes.
"My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
***This is kind of interesting. My impression was that one was there to learn facts first, and what scientists think might come later. I don't mind a philosophy professor telling me his philosophy, nor a poly sci professor telling me his political views. But I do mind a bio prof telling me his religious/philosophy views, and the bleedover that has been resulting where other profs take their cues and proceed from evo to lay in their pet philosophies. "
When I say "what scientists think" I am referring to the current state of the field. You might term it "facts" but I, as a teacher in the field, prefer "data" and "current scientific interpretations."
Without that, of with diluting that, the student has no basis to go further.
Hasn't Maxwell's demon been sorta changed?
And "question an evo in anthropology" doesn't mean much. Perhaps you meant paleontology.
Your funding dries up if your research proposals don't look good. It's got to be based on soomething. DI's got lots of money so if there are good research proposals out there that are being ignored, they can fund it
Are you condemning evolution because there are "People Whose Theories Derive From Evolution" (that is charlatans) who advocate bad things?
***When I was more snide in the past, I would simply have answered, "no." I would have been suspicious that you're trying to trap me and that there is some issue with condemning a belief system because of its followers... Then we'd have to go back & forth and you'd finally figure out that my problem is with your use of the word "condemn", it's just a little bit stronger than how I view it; I suppose I would call it an annoyed tollerance of that belief system. So, in the interest of moving the conversation forward, I'll go ahead and tell you what I do think.
I don't condemn followers of a belief system unless they do something wrong. However, for purposes of social policy discussion, there is a point of critical mass where some or most or many followers of certain idealogies cause too much trouble. That may be fallacious thinking, but it doesn't matter for purposes of social policy. An example is Islam... the current political environment seems to be realizing that there is something within the Islamic belief system that lends itself to violence (look even at its founder). Another example is Nazism -- at what point do we "condemn" Nazism due to its negative influence on society and how it lends itself to evil?
My viewpoint towards evo/abiog arises from my contact with its adherents as well as what I perceive from its soulless conclusions. My perceptions might be right, they might be wrong, and so might yours. As a social policy discussion, the terms tend to move towards what is the ultimate good for society, whether most people have perceived that as worthwhile, that kind of thing.
I like to think that the difference between a charlatan and a crackpot is that one believes his pet theory and the other doesn't. I would think that much of what I have seen resulting from evo isn't from charlatans, but from crackpots. They're sincere in their belief system. It's possible to be sincere, and be sincerely wrong.
PatrickHenry's Lost o' Links... may seem overwhelming but that harks back to the complexity of the subject matter.
***That's one place to hang one's hat. The subject matter is so complex that a guy with a BSEE and another important political figure with a Harvard MBA might not be able to comprehend it fully. It is therefore not suitable to be teaching to children. Teach Biology in Biology class. Teach evo/abiog/creat in a philosophy class, and perhaps in a 2nd year bio class. For all the rest of those english/women's studies/fill-in-the-blank teachers, Shut Up and Teach your Own Subjects.
He does have good subtopic headings so you can paick and choose.
***It is excellent. And overwhelming, yes.
Hasn't Maxwell's demon been sorta changed?
***I dunno. Not aware of that thingie.
And "question an evo in anthropology" doesn't mean much. Perhaps you meant paleontology.
***I'm afraid I don't understand what you wrote.
DI's got lots of money so if there are good research proposals out there that are being ignored, they can fund it.
***Really? I had no idea that was the case. I find myself rooting for the ID side as long as they stay honest.
Complex aspects do come later but the basic idea helps to explain so much, as in the dinosaurs kids are so interested in, that some mention needs to be made early.
***And yet the basic idea explains so little in comparison to the creat/ID side, so by that measurement the ID side wins the argument. I gotta go, maybe we can explore this one later.
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.