Posted on 03/24/2007 10:28:12 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Professors opposed to the Bush library aren't the only angry faculty members at Southern Methodist University this week.
Science professors upset about a presentation on "Intelligent Design" fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.
The “Darwin vs. Design” conference, co-sponsored by the SMU law school’s Christian Legal Society, will say that a designer with the power to shape the cosmos is the best explanation for aspects of life and the universe. The event is produced by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based organization that says it has scientific evidence for its claims.
The anthropology department at SMU begged to differ:
"These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits," said the letter sent to administrators by the department. "They have no place on an academic campus with their polemics hidden behind a deceptive mask."
Similar letters were sent by the biology and geology departments.
The university is not going to cancel the event, interim provost Tom Tunks said Friday. The official response is a statement that the event to be held in McFarlin Auditorium April 13-14 is not endorsed by the school:
"Although SMU makes its facilities available as a community service, and in support of the free marketplace of ideas, providing facilities for those programs does not imply SMU's endorsement of the presenters' views," the statement said.
The school also will review its policies about who is allowed to hold events on campus, Dr. Tunks said.
The size of the dispute reflects two ongoing battles about academic freedom and responsibility.
One is local: The concern that some SMU professors have that the proposed Bush library and an accompanying policy institute would create the impression that the school tilts politically toward the positions of the current administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Genesis 7:11-12
And yes, it was a global, not a local flood.. Why? because God said there never would be another flood like this one. But of course there have been local floods. God can't lie, so the flood of Noah MUST have been global. Genesis 8:21
"The theory of evolution, and most other historical sciences, are becoming increasingly accurate at this type of prediction."
Also called "retrodiction". Sorry. Not buying it.
Does this mean you don't accept forensic evidence in court cases?
How do you know the Noahic flood was falsified?
I do archaeology. I am very familiar with 4300 year old sediments.
In the western US we have cultural continuity across the 4300 time period.
We also have a mitochondrial DNA record across this time period, with no replacement by Middle Eastern DNA.
The major floods we see were in Washington state at the end of the last ice age (google "channeled scablands"). They are readily identified and dated. A global flood would have 1) been much larger and more easily discovered, and 2) eliminated evidence of the earlier flood.
Early geologists seeking to prove the flood largely gave up by about 1830.
So you're putting your faith in the geological evidence.
Is that a trick question, or do you think following rational investigations to logical conclusions is a bad idea?
Not a trick question at all. But now that the issue has come up, I would argue the idea of drawing a "rational conclusion" presupposes that the human mind is the supreme arbiter of truth, doesn't it?
It's what we have. Unless you are superhuman. Or sub.
OK. Show me.
Nope.
Per the math shown earlier in this thread via link, and per the sole example listed so far in this thread (e.g. the pig that manufactures human growth hormone), Evolution doesn't work at all.
Perhaps you have a better example, but you (and your peers) haven't shown it yet.
ID doesn't conflict with evolution, either.
Trust, not faith.
And it is far from just geological evidence. Do you recall my mention of DNA? Archaeology? Cultural continuity?
To that list you can add a lot of other interrelated fields.
I fear it is you who is relying on faith. That's fine, but please don't mistake religious belief for scientific evidence (hmmmm, there's a tagline in there somewhere).
What, in your view, is the difference?
Why is your trust/faith in "evidence" any more valid than my trust/faith in God's word?
Also, please answer a previous question: if, tomorrow, you hold a pencil and let go, which direction do you think it will go?
What, in your view, is the difference?
Here are some definitions I put together a while back (from a google search, with additions from this thread). I am including only the sections on theory. These might help explain how science approaches things:
The full list of definitions is here.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.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Thanks, but I'm still waiting for an answer: what happens to the pencil that you let go of? What direction does it go? Up, down, sideways? Does it make a difference if you do it tomorrow, or next week, or next year? On what basis do you form your answer?
Evolutionary algorithm for Shakespeare
1) Start with something.
(We will not look at abiogenesis of language)
2) Select the better ones.
(Selection criteria is the sum of the distances of a letter to the aimed one.)
3) Recombination of the selection
(I'll call it letter sex)
4) Mutation
(The evil that only causes harm.)
5) Continue with 2)
I'll make a small program and tell you the average passes of the loop to reach the aim "to be or not to be".
Any complaints?
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.