Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[steve-b]

Literally hundreds of geneticists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, mathematicians and other scientists

You can get "hundreds" of (people capable of passing themselves off as) scientists to assert that space aliens are visiting Earth for the purpose of abducting people and sticking probes up their nethers.

[Dimensio]

I'm quite confident in saying that evolution predicts an ape in the ancestry of humans.

Eh, it's semantics. Many creationists believe that evolution states that humans came from contemporary apes, rather than a no longer existing ape ancestor species. This is because they haven't actually bothered to study anything about the species, so they have the impression of evolution as some sort of linear progression, begging the question of "why are there still apes".

[Dustbunny]

OK.... Darwin's Theory is taught as fact and it is not a fact.

[steve-b]

Interestingly, Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, informed this writer that he set aside three days of hearings for pro-evolutionist experts, and three days for the skeptics, with each side allowed to cross-examine the other. The pro-evolutionist experts refused to testify and be questioned. The skeptics testified and faced cross-examination.

By this "logic", if Bush and Cheney decline to appear before the assembly of moonbats who plan to put them on "trial", that proves that Bush and Cheney are guilty.

[Dimensio]

Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact.

1) It's "Theory of Evolution". Darwin was of great import to the theory, but a lot of work has gone into refining the theory by many, many other people.

2) You say "always been a theory" as though it could be something else. What else could an explanation behind the events leading to current observations be?

[Dimensio]

They're saying it shouldn't be taught in a science class, especially biology class.

Or in a "religious belief and scientific misrepresentation taught as established truth" mislabelled as a "philosophy" class.

[steve-b]

YOU PEOPLE WORSHIP A SPACE ALIEN!

Bow before Apophis!

[Dustbunny]

) You say "always been a theory" as though it could be something else. What else could an explanation behind the events leading to current observations be?

The theory that GOD created it all.

[Dimensio]

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia

And every professional scientist I've asked, including devout Christians.

instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster

Which has a definition of "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". It's a bit vague, but it is a good summary and a good starting point for expanding further on explaining what makes an explanation qualify as a theory. Unfortunately, creationists either want to insist that a one-sentence definition from a dictionary is sufficient to fully and completely explain a scientific term when it is not or, more commonly, they wish to use one of the five other definitions of the word from the same dictionary and insist that they are allowed to pick and choose which definition of the word "theory" scientists really mean to use when they use the word "theory", regardless of what the scientists who use the word say.

In other words: one of the strongest arguments creationists have is dishonest semantic games whereby they redefine the word "theory" to make it sound less certain than it really is.

[Dimensio]

The theory that GOD created it all.

Not only is that a misinterpretation of my question, but it's also completely wrong. The statement "GOD created it all" does not qualify as a "theory", for multiple reasons.

[editor-surveyor]

Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

Opinion is not evidence, and all you ever post is highly subjective opinion, and out and out falsehood. Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist is all we need to judge the credibility of the tripe you constantly post to disrupt these threads.

[steve-b]

The entire crust of the earth collapsed inward, blew apart, and shifted.

And it was Bush's fault!

[wallcrawlr]

Anyone that believes the theory of evolution claims that man came from apes doesn't know the theory enough to criticize it. You're obviously ignorant.

here let me fix that for you.

Anyone that believes God is a space alien doesn't know the theory enough to criticize it. You're obviously ignorant.

see how fun it is to play the namecalling game.
not really.

[ShadowAce]

Thanks for your definitions. Let's appply some of them to the TOE:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

The TOE is a theory based on the above definition. I have no quarrel with that. Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence? Don't limit this to the TOE, but answer in terms of generality about theories.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

The TOE does have a hypothesis, and it has not yet been verified.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God. Given this faulty assumption, the TOE also assumes that science is the only begetter of Truth. This is also faulty, as science cannot explain beauty, aesthetics, faith, or quite a few other things.

[Dimensio]

Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

It's far easier for creationists to dismiss Ichnuemon's massive evidence-filled posts as "worthless spam" than it is to actually address the content -- even some of the content. Addressing the content would require the creationists to actually understand the evidence for evolution, and they can't allow themselves to do that.

Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist

Instead, all they have to offer are lies.

[editor-surveyor]

"How many more thousands of papers would you like to see covering the overwhelming evidence for the human/ape common ancestry?"

We don't want to see any propaganda papers; we want evidence and that is non-existant, so you continue to post opinion papers ad nauseum. We already know your opinion.

[Dimensio]

Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence?

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

No, it does not. Any conclusions that you derive from this faulty premise will also be faulty, so there is no need to comment further.

[RadioAstronomer]

That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster; which BTW was the definition that I was taught when I got my degree and public state university. None of this "special definiton used only by scientists" stuff just so they can tell the unenlightened that they don't know what they're talking about and that they need to go back to college and get a *real* education.

What a bunch of flapdoodle. The definition of a theory in science is well known by just about every scientist anywhere.

[Dimensio]

we want evidence and that is non-existant,

You are a liar. When evidence is provided, you dismiss it as "propaganda", refuse to even look at it and insist that no evidence has been provided.

[whattajoke]

If I printed out #15, not only would it be taller than I am, it would need an elevator and an area code.

Do you goofballs recognize the absurd irony of you complaints re Ichneumon's posts? You constantly appear on these threads (Hoplite, I don't recognize you so I'm using the perjorative "you") and whine about how there's "no evidence."

So Ichneumon performs a valuable service to folks like you, sparing you the trouble of opening a textbook or seeking out knowledge on your own. And then you complain; "Ahhh, it's too much! Too much evidence! Aaaahhh." (Despite the fact that his posts represent less than a thousandth of a percent of the known evolutionary evidence, give or take.)

And then you'll pop up on another thread to whine about how there's no evidence again. Can you feel my frustration through the internet. Can you visualize me shaking my head at you people? Do you EVER stop to wonder why we call creationists head-in-the-sand liars?