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.

[darbymcgill]

Criminitly... I don't know if I can address all the contradictions in one post, but I'll give it a shot.

First I'm told I shouldn't read anything into a post from I'mon that isn't there, then Stultis tells me When Ichneumon said "we" I think it's obvious he meant freevolutionists, whether specifically including himself or not.

I specifically didn't name names or say who was involved in a conspiracy. I only said he was conspired against. I based that statement on this post by js1138. Are you guys calling him a liar?

"We" being Freepers. As I already documented, and you've failed to acknowledge,

You mean in this post?

As for your assertion that Gore3000 was "conspired against and banned", you are again hallucinating. We didn't get Gore3000 banned, with or without a conspiracy. He was banned for being insane enough to personally attack Jim Robinson, repeatedly. My favorite bit of craziness was when Gore3000 accused JimRob of having an "anti-Christian agenda", among other things, and chided him for "not being God". Read this and the thread it links to get a clue. We didn't "conspire against" Gore3000, he self-destructed when his stupidity and emotional problems peaked at the same time.

Am I supposed to "acknowledge" the second "we" or the first "we" as freepers? Was I supposed to infer we = freepers from some other post you made to me or did you hide it in one of your soliloquies to someone else that I was supposed to acknowledge?

Whatever your emotional issues are which cause you to be able to "read" all sorts of things into the simple posting of a quote that had been mentioned, please work them out before you reply again.

Can I post again now sir? I think I have a grip on my emotions now but I'm still a bit dizzy from all the circular logic the backtracking going on here.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"{I said} It may shock you to learn that, if you have been out of school for several years, several of the scientific theories you were taught have since been falsified. If not outright falsified, then modified significantly. It happens all the time -- it's what we call progress."

(You said) "Oh, what theories are those?"

Contraction theory (to explain mountains) for one. Since replaced by the Theory of Plate Tectonics.

The Kelvin Helmholtz's Contraction Theory to expain the sun's energy for two -- since replaced by the theory of nuclear fusion.
(Well, O.K. -- maybe I'm not quite old enough for that one -- although some FReepers could be -- I just liked the fact that two different "contraction theories" have been falsified.)

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The freezing point of water is indeed 32 degrees F.

Except where it has been supercooled. In laboratory conditions, water has remained in the liquid state while cooled to as low as -28 degrees F. Of course, supercooled water is very unstable. Drop in a seed, and the water will freeze instantly.

(Please note that I am not defending the arguments of the "Religious activists" in the cartoon. These are clearly nonsensical -- a straw man argument at best. I'm just pointing out that science is more complex than this cartoon makes it out to be.)

[Creationist]

Amen

[mudblood]

Much like politics, however much evidence you provide, the opposing side will say, "its not enough". This whole debate is fuled by the stuff of relgion and politics, and not science at all. Whenever it gets shrill, its gotten personal.

[spunkets]

Re:""At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down.""

" Please refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an opposing viewpoint."

Kuhn's book is philosophy and social science. It is not a science book. Once DNA was established as the fundamental mechanism for genetics, the theory of evolution was established as bedrock. The theory went from one with weak evidence at the time of Darwin to strong evidence before Watson and Crick. Once you have such a complete theory, it stays.

" Please refer to my post #483; wherein I said:
"Newton's law obviously ... was, however, disproven.

You are mistaken. As I said, Newton's law applies to any region of space were the energy density is sufficiently low. That means when you attempt calculations in GR and the local energy density is low enough, one can drop negligable terms. The same applies to QM in the classical limit.

"Actually, many argue that it is still valid as a special case -- it is still useful for ordinary purposes here on earth."

Not many, any scientist that understands GR does this, because Newton's law is the limit of GR at low energy density, just as Euclidian space is the limit of the hyperbolic space of SR at low velocity.

"it seems that newer theories of gravitation are emerging. "

Thanks for the link. I scanned it. All objects and interactions can be observed from a bounding surface.

GR is complete as it stands, just as Newton's theory was. Any new theory can not change GR. GR must be contained within it. In the case of the "new" theories, the simplest are the deSitter(dS) and antideSitter(AdS) spaces of 5 dimensions, our 4d and one more time_d. They contain all simple string theories. dS space is flat in 5d, and AdS is curved. Regardless of which particular one is correct, all theories that exist now, for our 4d world will survive. That includes the Standard Model.

[darbymcgill]

however much evidence you provide, the opposing side will say, "its not enough".

You are so correct... It's a double sided sword... press here...

[spunkets]

" Contraction theory (to explain mountains) for one. Since replaced by the Theory of Plate Tectonics.
The Kelvin Helmholtz's Contraction Theory to expain the sun's energy for two --

Neither one was ever any more than a hypothesis. There may have been some evidence where a stretch might be made to call it a weak theory. In both cases, the hypothesis didn't pan out. The same for Lamarkian evolution.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Kuhn's book is philosophy and social science. It is not a science book."

What would "science" be without the underpinning of a (still evolving) philosophy of science? The only thing that sets alchemy or astrology apart from physics, chemistry and astronomy is the difference in the underlying philosophies, and the methods, procedures and protocols developed on the basis of that philosophy.

Kuhn was a "hard scientist". See: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html

"Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born on July 18, 1922, in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. He received a Ph. D. in physics from Harvard University in 1949 and remained there as an assistant professor of general education and history of science. In 1956, Kuhn accepted a post at the University of California--Berkeley, where in 1961 he became a full professor of history of science. In 1964, he was named M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Philosophy and History of Science at Princeton University. In 1979 he returned to Boston, this time to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as professor of philosophy and history of science. In 1983 he was named Laurence S. Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy at MIT."

[spunkets]

"Then, at what point did it transend from "hypothesis" to theory? What were the criteria used to determine it's status?"

Darwin had enough to call it a theory. It was weak and as evidence mounted, it gained strength. As, in the other post, once the biochemical foundaiton for genetics was established, the theory became bedrock.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Neither one was ever any more than a hypothesis."

Semantics.

[spunkets]

" What would "science" be without the underpinning of a (still evolving) philosophy of science?"

Science.

Science never changes. It is rational thought in a search for true knowledge and understanding regarding the real world; that can be and is verified by the scientific method. It's that simple.

The philosophy of science is not unique. Anyone with a pen can write their opinion. They are certainly not going to write a book on what science is, because I just gave the entire contents in the last paragraph. If their going to write a book, they have to do something else, like history of, philosophy of, or write about some particulars. Some folks write science fiction. ect...

" Kuhn was a "hard scientist". "

That's nice.

[spunkets]

"Semantics. "

No. As I said, science is hard core about the meaning of these words.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Science never changes. It is rational thought in a search for true knowledge and understanding regarding the real world; that can be and is verified by the scientific method. It's that simple."

And that would be your philosophy.

What is the "scientific method"? Where did it come from? How do we know it's a good method for getting to the truth? Are there any different versions of the scientific method?

Before there was a "scientific method" didn't people attempt to get to the truth? Weren't they applying rational thought to the best of their abilities? What was wrong about thier approach? Scientific methods have evolved over time -- why? What were the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the different methods?

What is "true knowledge". What is the "real world"? How do you know that?

You are purporting to speak for "science". That, in my view is a noble pursuit & I respect you for your efforts. However, if you are going to be an effective defender of science; you first have to really understand it. Gaining that understanding means delving into the philosophy of science. I'm certainly not claiming to understand it fully -- in fact, the more I learn about it, the more that I realize remains to be learned.

As the Bard said: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(And no -- I'm not referring to ghosts of dead Kings of Denmark.)

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I'm surprised that, so far, I haven't been challenged on the basis of Occam's razor. It is a powerful argument for the ToE. (Although, IMHO, it doesn't invalidate what I've been saying about the principle of falsifiability.)

Please note that Occam's razor is an alternative philosophy of science. Also, several variants of the Razor have been developed. Interesting, no?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"The philosophy of science is not unique. Anyone with a pen can write their opinion. They are certainly not going to write a book on what science is, because I just gave the entire contents in the last paragraph."

See Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/103-5145740-0163045?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=scientific+method

"1 - 10 of 2,074 results for scientific method :"

And Google:

Google Web Images Groups News Froogle Local Desktop more »

Advanced Search Preferences

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 3,580,000,000 for what is science. (0.12 seconds)

____________________________ Google Scholar Advanced Scholar Search

Scholar Preferences Scholar Help

Scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 1,250,000 for scientific method [definition].

[Lochlainnach]

How do you know Jesus did this...forgive me if it's in the previous posts, but I'm really zooming through.

[Dimensio]

I specifically didn't name names or say who was involved in a conspiracy. I only said he was conspired against. I based that statement on this post by js1138. Are you guys calling him a liar?

I see nothing in js1138's post that would suggest any "conspiracy" against gore3000 perpitrated by anyone.

[darbymcgill]

To: #3Fan Each abuse report and its corresponding post stands on its own. If you think we're gonna hash through hundreds of posts to see "who started it" you're nuts.

The mods started a thread to see who was causing the flame wars, and it turned out to be the creationists.

Then maybe you can tell me which of these conflicting statements is true?

[Virginia-American]

Was there ever a point where the Theory of Evolution was called the "Hypothesis of Evolution"?

Not exactly; start with the "Law of Faunal Succession".

From here:

In 1790, while engineering canals to link Britain's looming industrial age together, William Smith observed that fossils of invertebrate animals found in the rock layers appeared in a predictable sequence. From this observation the Law of Faunal Succession was developed and stated that fossils occur in a definite, invariable sequence in the geologic record.

There were a number of hypotheses proposed to explain this: they all involved some sort of evolution, but the mechanism was not exactly clear: EG Lamarck had the theory that acquired characteristics were heritable, Cuvier had another theory, and so on.

Darwin's big contribution to this was the theory that the same mechanism that allowed animal breeders to breed new varieties of, say, dog or pigeon, was all that was needed to explain the observed law, and also to account for all living species.

Based on this, he also made a number of predictions, all of which have turned out to be true:

For example, the ancestors of modern people would be found in Africa (Homo erectus, H. habilis, Australopithecus, et al); or that there were animals intermediate between whales and land-based mammals (EG, ambulocetus, pakicetus).