A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[SoldierDad]

You go Jim :}

[Coyoteman]

NO you misunderstood. I asked you if there were serious self inquiry in your field permitted...within the field...not from external sources.

Of course. DeVries (1958), for example, made a major contribution to the calibration of samples. There has been a correction to the calibration curve within the last couple of years. It changed most of my samples by less than 5 years.

But the deliberations within the field are much different from those coming from the outside.

[wyattearp]

I feel like I missed the "dave" spectacle.

It was on another forum, which is where a lot of the scientists and people interested in science have been going to. This is the last post he was allowed to make, after posting a link (only) to try to get a food fight going on here at FR, and nobody was interested. Note that the "actual thread" was him clearing his throat, and a link, nothing more.

Ah, the musty smell of unused brains...

Does ANYONE here care to address the actual thread, and subsequent point? Is anyone capable? Or has the complacency of DarwinCentral eroded all your mental faculties?

[grey_whiskers]

". . .and the theory of gravity has a heck of a lot less supporting evidence for it than does the theory of evolution."

But...but...

...that's the whole POINT! Gravity makes things fall *down*, so of course there's not any *support* for it! :-)

Full Disclosure: pick up a good translation of Aristotle's De Caelo...

Cheers!

[SoldierDad]

LOL! Very good.

[grey_whiskers]

Coyote, was it you who was in a discussion of this list with RightWhale within the past few days?

I believe he wanted to use the definitions of someone else (Whitehead)?

How did that conversation end up?

Cheers!

[jennyp]

The mods don't have access to the posters' profile pages. I do. And I've removed a few of them. Those that I have removed should take it as a warning (if I didn't ban them in the process).

Are you saying that you're the one who kept deleting PatrickHenry's homepage back in (March, IIRC)?

[wyattearp]

Has the "get fisted" account been nuked? Or is that Creationists still posting?

Still posting, AFAIK. He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud. But, hey, he's against evolution, so he must be alright, right? %-)

[Mom MD]

Why does pro science mean pro evolution?

In the eyes of the evo supporters, if you are a creationist, you are not a scientist or pro science. THere are a growing number of us that are scientists and creationists. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

And why would you take this one issue to define if one is pro science or not?

[metmom]

"My not choosing to slap down every nutjob poster that comes along is not an indication of my agreeing or disagreeing with what he says, and I will not be manipulated into certain behavior by the specious accusations of someone who disagrees with me. You can accuse and imply all you want but I will not be used."

[stands2reason]

He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud.

OMG, he did?

[wyattearp]

Hey, nothing wrong with reading fiction.

Unless you want to post something factual. You should try the non-fiction section sometime, unless you want to keep posting from a fictional viewpoint.

[Dimensio]

So you admit there does exist a political bias against ID being taught in school.

I do not deny suh a bias. While I have not encountered such individuals, I cannot rule out the possibility that there exist those who oppose the teaching of intelligent design purely on a political basis. While this reasoning, if it is held by anyone, is invalid, it does not alter the fact that there do exist valid reasons for not teaching intelligent design as science.

You also admit that evo isn't an exacting science that you can use any standard testing or experiments to prove.

Absolutely no theory in science can be proven. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory. The theory of evolution can be subjected to experimentation and testing, and in fact it has been subjected to this extensively, but this can only establish further confidence in the theory or potentially -- though this has yet to happen -- disprove the theory. No amout of testing, however, can prove any scientific theory.

But you also say that ID can't be taught because its not proved to be a science.

This is correct. If you disagree, please explain how intelligent design satisfies the requirements of the scientific method.

[SoldierDad]

Oh, I was referring to what you read.

[Jim Robinson]

Yup.

[metmom]

Lovely. Sir Francis Dashwood denies being a "creationist", but he's automatically labeled as one. Why? I wonder? Any good answers from the evos?

[Dimensio]

THere are a growing number of us that are scientists and creationists. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

This is correct, however creation itself is not science, and I have not observed any actual opposition to the theory of evolution that is scientifically valid. I have observed that the majority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution are not biologists. As the theory of evolution is a subject of biology, the existence of non-biologist scientsts who reject the theory of evolution demonstrates neither that evolution is not valid science nor that creotionism is valid science.

[Mom MD]

some of us actually do know some science and have the degrees to prove it. I work in the science field and do have problems with the evolutionary theory.

You can't paint everyone with a broad brush. There are scientific facts to support both sides of the coin, and my religion is as valid as yours.

[metmom]

Sheesh! I can't even float in water.

[Dimensio]

I work in the science field and do have problems with the evolutionary theory.

What is your field of expertise, and what are some of the "problems" that you have with the theory of evolution?

There are scientific facts to support both sides of the coin

When you say "both sides of the coin", to what specific dichotomy do you refer?