Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[Liberal Classic]

Sir, I am beyond joking with you. I am in an interracial marriage, and I am also part Jewish. I take Sam Francis racist and anti-semitic crap seriously. Either you come clean, or I will consider you no better than David Duke.

[wyattearp]

What I want to know.. is where is all of the science? I keep getting accused of never addressing the science from the 'scientists'. But I never see any science, but they insist that its there.

You can start by doing a search on this thread for "Ichneumon", and stop on any post that is more than one screenful (and contains stuff that doesn't look very familiar to you). Click on the links. That should keep you busy for a while. If not, check Patrick Henry's List-o-links (there is a post linking that somewhere in here). Once you get through with that, try www.talkorigins.org. That one ought to keep you busy for about six months.

How's that? (If you need actual hyperlinks, I can do that, but I'm not very good at it and it takes a while).

[wyattearp]

I thought I had revitalized the thread. :)

I believe that the word that you are looking for is "fertilized". :-)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

That's a dictionary definition, and it does not say a thing about "outside of our ability to observe, test, and replicate." It may imply as much, but scince science is "agnostic," it cannot be ruled out. Maybe we can't observe it now. That doesn't mean we never can or will.

Intelligent design is not by definition "supernatural." Intelligent design is well within the grasp of science and in fact exemplifies what science is about. The first hypothesis could not be made without intelligent design. It is not unreasonable or unscientific to attribute predictable processes to the result of intelligent design.

You'll have the strain the meaning of science beyond usefulness or reject large portions of evolutionist thinking if you honestly think intelligent design is unworthy of scientific merit and subject to pure speculation about the "supernatural."

The evidence for intelligent design is largely, if not completely, circumstantial, inferential evidence. That does not make it "unscientific."

[2ndreconmarine]

2ndreconmarine said it best when he so proudly listed off Horse poop: 929 citations.

Given your level of English usage, you perhaps still do not understand the original point.

I will try to spell it out. The comparison to horse feces was that it was better than ID. The idea wasn't that horse feces was a particularly good study in science. Indeed, it was chosen for precisely the opposite effect. Only that the most silly and ridiculous items, horse feces, diaper rash, and Voodoo, still are better than ID.

If you want real science, then go back to the original thread, here,, and read the citations: natural selection” about 14,000 references, “Mutation” gets 40,000. “Speciation” gets 5,000. “Human origins” gets 22,000.

At least try to read something!!!!!

[RunningWolf]

Show us ONE post you have ever made that has addressed the science of evolution. Put up or shut up.

Ha, SHOW ME ONE POST WHERE YOU have ever made that has addressed the science of evolution. Oh thats right you can't.

Now I don't need any quotes dog did or did not make.

Oooohh... so thats it, Yus' guys are on a crusade!!

Well thanks, we all knew it but now you finally got it all out there in the open.

Getting that from the great minds cult of cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult of the flying spaghetti monster has been more work than whipping up a new transitional fossil.

Wolf

[Doctor Stochastic]

Probably because it's in his nature not to his advantage.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Staying on topic means "getting defensive." That's why an old objectionable quote from your home page means more, and is more demonstrative of the point at hand, than a cogent argument as to why evolutionism is the only point of view worthy of consideration by "true science."

[Virginia-American]

It wan't just the Pope:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. -- Martin Luther

Source

[Liberal Classic]

Now I don't need any quotes dog did or did not make.

Then you're being foolish. You see quotes from Sam Francis posted at sites like Stormfront. We don't need that kind of crap around here.

[wyattearp]

I have never posted it on the threads.

I don't recall you ever posting it on the threads either. However, when this whole thing started, I clicked on your screen name and saw it in your profile page. That was a while ago, and I honestly don't know why it is such a big deal now. I also do not know why you are denying it was on your profile page, when so many have seen it. Have you been taking lessons from the creationist witnesses in the Dover case?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's a dictionary definition, and it does not say a thing about "outside of our ability to observe, test, and replicate."

But all of those examples you gave ARE outside our ability to observe, test, and replicate. And what about the FIRST example you gave?

"Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. "

If something violates or goes beyond natural forces, there is no way to test it. It is by definition outside of science.

"Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous. "

If something is a miracle, it is by definition outside of natural processes and is therefore outside of the province of science.

"Intelligent design is not by definition "supernatural."

Yes it is, it postulates causes which have not and CAN not be observed. That's considered one of it's virtues by ID'ers.

"The evidence for intelligent design is largely, if not completely, circumstantial, inferential evidence. That does not make it "unscientific."

It is entirely nonexistent.

[RunningWolf]

I read it just fine.

I disagree with your conclusions!! Which are ridiculous on their own, and I will get back to you later.

Wolf

[Fester Chugabrew]

Ha. We can always define the supernatural down, can't we? Why, "supernatural" is everything we can't explain by natural causes. Well, science is always defining the supernatural. Once its defined by science, it's "natural." The term is more arbitrary than the word "species."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Ha, SHOW ME ONE POST WHERE YOU have ever made that has addressed the science of evolution. Oh thats right you can't."

Here:

""...since no one was around, it's all theories/speculation."

A scientific theory is not *speculation*. I am sure you have already been told this already. There is no hierarchy from theory to *law*. Theory is the last step.

"Credible science includes the scientific method---the ability for anybody to reproduce the "test" and have the same effect."

That assumes you are not talking about an historical science.
Evolution IS tested though, every time a fossil is exhumed and every time two genomes are compared. Natural selection is tested all the time in the lab, with repeatable results. Common descent is tested and affirmed with tests on ERV's in humans and other primates. You need to brush up on your science education."

I've showed one of mine, show yours Wolfie. Or shut up.

[Virginia-American]

The fact is that most PhDs assert that macro evolution is impossible and, therefore, according to these PhDs, the odds are against evolution.

Please give a citatoin for this.

[RunningWolf]

Who is he, and where's the quote?

And there is plenty of crap around here. This 'appeal to authority' on academic degrees is bogus too.

Also I don't need any quotes from anyone else. I will choose my own thank you.

Wolf