Posted on 01/09/2006 12:02:22 PM PST by WatchYourself
Not every evolutionist is ecstatic about the decision Judge John Jones made on December 20, 2005. In a startling article published January 5, 2006, Lloyd Eby, a philosophy professor from George Washington University, stated that the judge overstepped his bounds when he defined "science" in his 139 page ruling.
As a result of Jones' statements Eby wrote, "I predict that sometime in the future -- say a hundred years hence -- this case and Judge's Jones opinion in it will turn out to be seen as having been like the Catholic Church's case against Galileo. Except that this time the winning and losing sides will have switched; the proponents of evolution and scientific naturalism will by then have lost the war against religion and ID, even though they won the Dover battle." Possibly the prediction could come true much sooner than Eby thinks.
The overstepping slip by the judge amplifies one of the major arguments creationists have voiced against evolution from the beginning of this debate -- evolution is not science! While evolutionists prefer an obscure definition of science, Judge Jones has now put it into law. This is very exciting for critics of evolution because Jones has made "science" definitive. The ramifications in the future court cases could overturn evolution education in public schools, which is exactly what Eby has predicted and is exactly the opposite of what Jones intended.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
Count me as one of those "know-nothing" creationists! I agree with you that the Bible says a thousand years is as a single day, however, I'm not going to quibble on how long it took for God to create. In some way we don't understand, God is outside time.
It doesn't. It is not my concern to "refute evolution." How do you refute something that cannot be wholly falsified or proven? Besides, evolution is a fact of nature. Why should I attempt to refute that which comports with objective reality? Now, the manner and degree of evolution and what it means, those are things I would like to take up for discussion. Public schools run by grown ups would normally allow such things, but not if Judge Jones has his way.
Nah. That would involve work.
You sure seem to dislike scientists. Is this because they produce results which you believe contradicts the bible, or what?
I have never understood the antipathy some people have for scientists. Most scientists just hole up in their offices or labs and do research. I know that's what I prefer to do. 14-hour days are a pleasure if the phone doesn't ring more than a few times interrupting what I am doing.
My guess is that you don't like the results for personal and religious reasons. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Because it allows for direct observation and documentation of fossil records, and possibly even the process of fossil formations. (What's been uncovered at Mt. St. Helens?) There were no humans to discover and document fossils before there were humans. Whatever is extrapolated beyond that time when humans could directly observe and document phenomenon is more subject to errors of deduction.
But you do admit it's a deduction?
Yes indeed. And not at all unreasonable.
Not a scientific definition.
Perhaps not according to the context in which you view evolution. Perhaps for you it means change from one form to another, whether it be to a simpler or to a more complex state, i.e. "a continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another." I don't see why one definition should be considered "scientific" and the other one "unscientific." As long as the one who explains his position makes clear what is his working definition, I could accept either one.
You're committing a fallacy. All complex forms arose from simple forms.
I'd rather not be so extreme. I did not write the biology textbooks that show man progressively developing from an ape ancestor, or the fossil record that shows amoeba on the bottom and man on the top. If one is going to work inductively from the standpoint of non-intelligent non-design, it would be to his advantage to find examples where life forms were found to be historically out of order, if at all. From the standpoint of deduction, the historical, objective relationships between living organisms present a monstrous puzzle that only invites subjective interpretations of the evidence.
That's because we and not the amoebas or the apes wrote the textbooks. If crocodiles give rise to an intelligent descendant, we can expect to be on an unimportant sidebranch of a subclass of the Reptilia.
He does not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution.
No amount of reason, fact, or logic seems able to shake him from this position.
He described all of this in a post last summer, and I have seen no reason to doubt his word.
" I have never understood the antipathy some people have for scientists."
Because most of them have an agenda (and, no, truth is not the agenda). The agenda is usually tied to things like continued funding and anything which will help them get tenure.
The Myth of Objectivity is a very interesting subject on which to speculate.
Three French scientists were discussing the benefits of having either a mistress or a wife. The first pointed out that having a wife meant a stable home life with no outside expenses. The second claimed that having a mistress allowed one avoid divorce proceedings and a mistress is easier to change than a wife. The third pointed out that if one has a mistress and a wife, the wife would think he was visiting the mistress; the mistress would think he was at home with the wife, and he could actually go to the lab and do some research.
Because most of them have an agenda (and, no, truth is not the agenda). The agenda is usually tied to things like continued funding and anything which will help them get tenure.
The Myth of Objectivity is a very interesting subject on which to speculate.
You are so far off I don't know where to begin.
Most scientists are lab rats and don't even know you exist. There is no agenda. They want only to see what is around the next bend in the trail (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor).
In my graduate training (half of which was evolution and related subjects) there was no agenda. There was only "figure out what happened." "How did we get from there to here?"
On these threads I have found those with the agenda are coming from creationism and are determined to shout down scientists who may come up with facts and theories that they do not approve of--for religious reasons.
Where is the "Objectivity" now?
ROTFL! Believe it or not, some of the evolutionists around here think Jones is Supreme Court timber.
In a diagram of evolution as typically found in a biology textbook, is a sidebranch of a subclass objectively any more or less complex than what is depicted at the top? Or is science to deduce that amoeba, crocodile, and humankind are objectively of the same complexity? If indeed it is the author of the diagram who gets to create the relationships, then I dare say those diagrams are essentially worthless from a scientific standpoint, for it could hardly be more subjective.
"Most scientists are lab rats and don't even know you exist. There is no agenda. They want only to see what is around the next bend in the trail (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor)."
As I said, the agenda has to do with funding and tenure. For example, ever heard of global warming? That's an idea in search of funding if ever there were one. I have no idea whether you personally have an agenda or not, but there are many high-profile scientists who do. That should help answer your question about antipathy toward scientists.
"You are so far off I don't know where to begin."
Allow me to explain further. Human beings don't really possess the ability to be objective when they have a vested interest in an outcome. That's why people get counsel (i.e., financial counsel) from people who can remain detached and objective.
Global warming (the most recent time) started about 11,000-12,000 years ago.
Nothing to do with evolution. Your general antipathy to scientists is still apparent.
ps. I don't do "funding and tenure."
This wording does not accurately reflect my position, and if these are my exact words then they ought to be revised, explained, or both. The above mentioned disciplines have a place in science, and they may even lead the observer to deduce an old earth. It would be better to say I question the veracity of deductions based on these methods, and will continue to do so until I am convinced these methods are scientifically accurate. I don't have to take anyone's word for it. Not even Judge Jones's.
And it remains a viable proposition that the presence of organized matter is best explained by intelligent design.
Oh, I disagree. If you're teaching evolution to schoolkids, you focus on creatures they know. While the evolutionary relationships among the annelid worms might be as or more scientifically interesting than the relationships among the mammals, pedagogically you're going to focus on whales and hippos and bears and cats and people, not on South American ragworms. It's completely different in a technical paper.
" Global warming (the most recent time) started about 11,000-12,000 years ago.
Nothing to do with evolution."
I thought you were more familiar with analogies. My point is that scientists studying GW have an agenda and that's why it's a political issue as much as a scientific one.
"Your general antipathy to scientists is still apparent."
It's nothing personal. We have just seen the junk that passes for science these days when it is really just political ambition.
" ps. I don't do "funding and tenure."
Really? I just assumed that you were a college professor. Every professor I've ever known (yes, I've known quite a few) "did" funding and tenure.
People who have a vested interest can't be objective. I'm sure you've seen that to be true in other people. And, yes, I agree with you that the Creationists on this thread are not objective, because they have alot at stake. But then, neither are the evolutionists, either.
This wording does not accurately reflect my position, and if these are my exact words then they ought to be revised, explained, or both. The above mentioned disciplines have a place in science, and they may even lead the observer to deduce an old earth. It would be better to say I question the veracity of deductions based on these methods, and will continue to do so until I am convinced these methods are scientifically accurate. I don't have to take anyone's word for it. Not even Judge Jones's.
Fair enough. The passage I am quoting was from last summer (August), so there is certainly the possibility that you have changed your mind, in some part, since then.
This is what you posted at that time:
I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts. Source.
If you choose to revise or amend this quote, I certainly will not use it again. As a scientist, I strive for accuracy.
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.