Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
... where you refused to concede
***And I still refuse to concede that point. I see a scientific controversy raging around global warming and one around the safe levels of radioactivity and another around how much milk we should drink and one around crevo. The milk guys don't expect you to know the finer points of endocrinology of lactose intolerance in order to engage in discussion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1470906/posts
True statement. It applies to all of science.
I'm sure you intended this to be English. Want to try again? At the point of unknown what?
There are philosophical elements to this evo/abio theory and they aren't going away.
Why do you combine evolution and abiogenesis? And please identify in what respect they are philosophical, in a way that other areas of science are not.
And yet, GWB seemed to overlook what his science advisor’s inputs when it came to that… how and why do you think that happened? Did his political instincts override his deductive scientific leaning? Probably.
That's too bad. I voted for him because I believed he wasn't merely a creature of political expediency
I see the haps side of evo/abio as a philosophy, and the teaching of evolution is the subject of social policy. I believe that a meaningful majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate.
If you want to communicate, please use standard English.
I missed the islamofascist reference. Yes, that is truly obnoxious.
I second that.
They ARE required to actually talk about the subjects they are dealing with and not just hand-wave the subjects aside.
***So a guy with a BS in Art History will need to know how much math in order to be qualified to discuss it on a school board? None. He doesn’t even need to have that Art History degree. He handwaves when the technical stuff comes along. If you want to set up a system where only people who have certain knowledge can enter the debate, by all means do so and get it posted. But I don’t see that on FR. I don’t see GWB getting a biochem degree overnight, but he was able to discuss policy decisions. You guys are trying to set up a priesthood.
If the school board is debating which Math text to use, don't you think they should debate the merits of the competing texts?
***What can I say other than ABSOLUTELY. And if enough parents want 2 sets of math books to be presented to their kids, for whatever goofy reason, it should be allowable as long as it doesn’t cause harm to society.
You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true.
***Show me where there is that requirement here on FR and I will follow it. This appears to be some unwritten rule that you guys have been following, and you’ve been ridiculing anyone who can’t stand up to some nebulous technical standard. You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.
A basic understanding of the subject and a willingness to discuss some of the details of that subject are a definite requirement. If school boards and other policy makers don't want to talk about the specifics of a theory they appose, then they have no leg to stand on.
***If a school board is made up of all art history majors, they’ll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff. That’s just human nature. That is analogous to the situation you have here. If this is a definite requirement for entering crevo threads, show me where it is written by the mods or JimRob and I will follow whatever is considered to be the correct norm. Until then, I’m gonna stick around.
"The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys."…They'll be a lot more if we lie to students and teach them that creationism is a scientific theory.
***There will be a lot fewer if we teach both sides congruently.
Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to.
***Oh, that’s a good, zippy one liner. Your callousness should not be the level we strive to when we teach our children. Sorry, I’m just not as crisp as you when it comes to one liners.
Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide.
***Ok. A garden left to itself will grow weeds. This area of concern, where kids will process the evo information in an unhealthy manner by default, is due to the fact that Science stops right at the point where the moral implications start to arise. The lack of a moral guide is like having the lack of a gardener, the default position is moral weeds.
A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse.
***I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children. But like the art history laden school board, the level of expertise has its limits.
"I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesn’t mean I suggest that others shouldn’t learn it."
Yes you did.
***Um, no I didn’t.
You said ""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ". Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean our kids have to be too.
***I’m not ignorant. I know enough about the theory to have gotten this far and close down a couple of crevo threads. I just don’t agree with you. Is your assumption that just because someone doesn’t agree with you, they’re ignorant? What do you think happened when the eggheads tried to get into the finer points of protein sequencing with GWB? He probably handwaved it, said he didn’t have the time, and said that as long as both sides are using science to bolster their points, it appears to be a scientific controversy. That works for me.
What affects? You refuse to discuss the theory, why should we take your word there are *negative spiritual effects*. Explain them, with reference to what the theory says.
***I did explain a few of them, from my own personal experience. I know they exist because I experienced them for myself. You’re right, you shouldn’t just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor. You might find that that 2/3 majority has a few things to say along these lines. I imagine that this is the area where I have a lot of work ahead of me.
Ok, you want science by polls.
***Again. BORING. Over & over. You keep telling me what I want and I know that it isn’t what I want, it is even posted. If I post three more times that it isn’t what I want, will that take care of the next 3 reiterations? Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow? I didn’t see that you wrote that, but hey, as long as you can tell me what I want then why can’t I tell you what you want?
By votes. You want people who don't wish to know anything about a theory decide whether that theory is sound or not.
***Once again, NO.
You pride yourself in not caring about the science.
***No. I wish I had the time. I actually like science. I don’t like scientism.
You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney.
***Time for a bran muffin and decaf. Geez, get ahold of yourself. You presume to tell me what I think?
"He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einstein’s fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes"….No, there isn't. You want to limit the teaching of the theory of relativity, you do it with your kids. Let the rest of the countries children know about it.
***Wow, you’ve really gone off the deep end here. Are you incapable of reasoning from an analogy, even one that you introduced?
Please tell us, what other theories that you have very little knowledge of do you deem too *dangerous* to be taught?
***Oh, ok, thanks for asking ;-) That Lyndon Larouche stuff seemed dangerous to me. Scientology. . Zero point energy. est. Islamofascism. That comet/spaceship thingie. Electrogravitics might be on the listAstrology. Satanism. That’ll do for starters.
What spiritually dangerous teaching? E=mc^2?
***The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we can’t control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. There’s more, but I’m running out of time.
"
You refuse to expand on the *scientific* controversy, after repeated pressing.
***And I will probably never expand on the scientific controversy surrounding global warming because the subject is too vast to tackle for me at this point in time. That doesn’t stop people from engaging in discussions about SUVs and pollutants. Same goes for certain areas of the evo controversy.
Put up or shut up. That's the scientific method. BTW, Bush's science adviser has come out against teaching ID.
***I know Bush’s science advisor came out against teaching ID. That’s why it caught me by surprise when GWB came out with his position. Apparently there was not enough evidence to sway George from his confirmatory bias. I find that very intriguing. Do you think it’s because the science advisor didn’t give him enough information on protein sequencing? Or maybe it was that fine structure constant thingie, maybe he wasn’t up to speed on that? I guess it’s possible that even top-level PhD science advisors might not know enough to sway some VIP’s opinion, so I figure I’m in the clear for awhile. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
And you saying there are *spiritual problems* without addressing how specifically the theory produces them is just smoke blowing from your butt.
***I imagine I’ll get around to those spiritual issues when it seems like the right time.
The average kid is a lot smarter then you.
***I’ll keep that in mind.
Don't use your admitted ignorance as a yardstick for what other's can do.
***Pretty good one liner. That’s others, no apostrophe.
"Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. "…Do you know how ironic your above statement is?
***Glad you caught that. But when did I question your character?
"I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole."…Yet you just happened to bring them in to the conversation. Riiiight.
***I guess I don’t see your point here. I saw an analogous parallel and went with it. You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo aren’t as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.
Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy.
***And yet you do not address the points brought up in the analogy, even though you’ve been shown to be wrong that I wasn’t using Association. But your colorful language is enjoyable, keep up the good work.
Nonsense. I appealed to no authority.
***Sure you do. The authority of knowledge in the subject matter, that someone who doesn’t know as much as [whatever yardstick, note that this isn’t written down anywhere I can find] should not be engaging in these social policy debates.
You HAVEN'T engaged in discourse on this subject, you have evaded the core of the debate, which is the scientific merits of evolution and ID. Utterly pathetic.
***The core of the debate is what should we teach our children, and I have engaged. The core is not how much I know about evolution, thus I choose not to engage there for the most part. If you want to engage others on what you consider to be the core, go ahead.
"I missed the islamofascist reference. "
Here it is.
"***Yeah, I've heard that one before, in the islamofascist community. Here's how it goes... "Now, kids, whatever you do, never [wink wink] ever [wink wink] point one of these rocket propelled grenades at a SLIMY, Baby-eating, pig-worshipping [note no winking here] american convoy [wink wink] or Allah will be very [wink wink] displeased." And to both of them I say, bull cookies. There are obvious moral implications to this theory that need to be dealt with if you guys want it to be taught to impressionable kids."
You guys are trying to set up a priesthood.
You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.
I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children.
You’re right, you shouldn’t just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor.
Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?
The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we can’t control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. There’s more, but I’m running out of time.
I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo aren’t as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.
Guess where this guy stands on the TOE?
I wrote it better on a different thread, please forgive the obnoxiousness:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468059/posts?q=1&&page=350
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.
See #150. I meant to ping you too.
You are irrational or disingenuous or both
***Probably more irrational, but thanks for the false dilemma. The subject isn't TOE it is the social policy of teaching TOE.
Guess where this guy stands on the TOE?
***It can't be that hard to guess.
And you've repeatedly said you weren't religious or or interested in religion.
While I must agree in principle I can't agree in application. If one knows the initial conditions, one can calculate the result. That to me me is real science. You want to go to the moon, I can calculate the force vectors required to get you there. But if you want to change a fruit fly into a butterfly you will have to talk to the alchemists of today - perhaps they will find success. Evolution seems to me to be a procees that no one can define the conditions, the means or the outcome, but swear it to be fact.
I'm sure you intended this to be English. Want to try again? At the point of unknown what?
***Here's some better writing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468059/posts?q=1&&page=251
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.
Why do you combine evolution and abiogenesis?
***I oppose accidentalism, in both theories. That's what I call the haps side because it's easier to write.
And please identify in what respect they are philosophical, in a way that other areas of science are not.
***Basically, the facts that a theory proceeds from are usually reasonably established. What I look for are the facts that both sides of a debate will acknowledge. That has proven to be difficult in this case. But proceeding from those facts, filling in the dots, that's where it becomes a philosophy.
That's too bad. I voted for him because I believed he wasn't merely a creature of political expediency
***I'm not sure this was an expediency thing. GWB was on vacation, he isn't running for office, he's thinking about his legacy.
I see the [accidentalist] side of evo/abio as a philosophy. I also see the teaching of evolution as [a matter of] social policy. I believe that a majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate. Hopefully that's better grammar.
And you've repeatedly said you weren't religious or or interested in religion.
***"Religion" is a code word. People who study christianity realise that Jesus didn't like religion, He wanted a relationship, which is different. Religion is more like trying to make yourself good enough for God to accept them into heaven, which is as impossible as swimming to Hawaii. I can't do it unless God helps me. And he accepts believers into heaven by Grace, not how good they were. At any rate, I'm not so good at that stuff and will just confuse you more. I seem to have caused enough confusion round here.
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.