Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
I brought up an analogy. I brought up an association between evolution and leftism because there is such an association. I was showing how things supported by the left become entrenched. That's totally distinct from saying that all evolutionists are leftists.
Most of the left opposed the Iraq War, but so did a minority of right-wingers. Do you conclude from that fact that anyone who notes that the far left opposed the war (a simple fact) is accusing those rightists who opposed the war of being leftists?
#####Sit back and watch the tapdancing#####
I think we've already seen it, Mr. Bojangles.
That's nice, but there's only scientific grounds for the one theory, the one that's already in the science books.
Rev. Jim Jones, the man who made Kool Aide famous, was a creationist! I've noticed that a lot of other fallen preachers are also creationists. Now, don't get me wrong, ... I'm not making any accusations, but have you noticed any analogy ...
</tapdancing mode>
Well, people can read what I wrote. If they can find anywhere where I said all evolutionists are leftists, they can alert me to it.
Until then I'll assume I made no such accusation, because I did not. And no such quote can be attributed to me.
Virtual Ignore is invoked.
One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...
The Theory of Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang. But, then again, most creationists are scientifically ignorant and cannot grasp this fact.
What you tried to bring up is guilt by association. The problem is, that even if every biologist who teaches evolution is a Satanist, even if they abuse theor children and frighten small doge, even if they are worse than Hitler and Stalin, it doesn't change the science.
I would be happy to conceed that most university professors are considerably left of center. It makes no difference to the science. To argue otherwise is to employ the logic used by feminists and marxists and deconstructionists: ideology=motive=self interest.
Even if they can't type...
Well, your argument that I implied guilt by association is exponentially stronger than the claim that I accused all evolutionists of being leftists. But I really wasn't doing that, either. I suppose it could be a matter of interpretation, as opposed to a matter of fact, so I won't press the point beyond that.
I did indeed draw an analogy. I suggested that leftists entrench themselves and their beliefs through the herding/hiving behavior I described, and that evolution may have become entrenched via a similar process among the ascendant secularist forces of the 19th century. I also noted that modern leftist groups are involved in the "crevo" wars on the pro-evolution side, but that's simply the truth. It doesn't necessarily mean that evolution is wrong, though I'll agree that my instincts tell me that is the case. Being a conservative, that's my default position. :-)
I'll agree you are correct that science is science regardless of ideology.
Don't worry....I'm a two finger typist myself, with plenty of typos to my credit!
"Do you think there's any analogy between how most scientists came to support evolution and how most professors at major universities came to be leftists?"
Nice analysis. I think you are on to something.
My view is that the roles of science and religion have reversed in the past century. As we all know, there was a time when religion ruled over science and decided what was and what was not acceptable. Now its the other way around. Now it's the scientists who have come to be seen as the ultimate authorities, and they have learned well how to excercize their power. Anyone who disputes their dogmas is "excommunicated" by being dismissed as less than a scientist. At that point the actual facts are irrelevant.
"When a creationist has nothing substantive to say, he babbles something about all evolutionists being leftists. (But sometimes it's Nazis.) This knee-jerk lie seems to be "deeply entrenched" in the creationiod brain."
And evolutionists label anyone who disputes the NDT as a "creationist." I wrote earlier that I don't consider myself a "creationist" if that means I think the biblical account of creation has been proven scientifically. I don't think it has been proven. However, I have little doubt that the purely naturalistic version of the NDT *has* been *disproven*.
Where does that leave me? It leaves me with the honest realization that *I don't know* what really happened. Does that make me indecisive? Perhaps, but it also makes me honest. Modern science is apparently not honest enough to admit that it just does not know what really happened. And, no, I'm not talking about the details; I'm talking about the big picture.
Having said that, I would appreciate the courtesy of not being called a "creationist." But do I expect to get such a courtesy? Of course not. Labeling is one of the best tricks in the evolutionists arsenal of dirty tricks.
Good points! I think it would actually be to evolutionists advantage to be less dogmatic. People tend to be suspicious of any idea when its proponents go to court to block the opposing idea from being considered.
Take a look at Spallanzini - ergo 1750
Take a look at Spallanzini - circa 1750
VadeRetro wrote:
You, RussP, TalkOrigins, and Spetner can fight this out. He is widely known for making this claim [no mutations are both beneficial and information-increasing] repeatedly and insisting upon the truth of it. If you can find where he contradicts himself, have a ball with it. Personally, I don't see it, although he's being very cagey about what amount of evolution his vague model does permit.
RussP replies:
You may be tired of it, but I want to get back to the Spetner stuff for a minute because I think the major points have been overlooked.
Spetner did claim in his book, if I recall correctly, that he is aware of no documented mutation that was beneficial and *added* information.
You sent a link that purported to show that such mutations have indeed been documented. I didn't follow the link, but I will stipulate for the sake of argument that your link does indeed document such mutations.
Spetner's point was that he is unaware of such mutations. He was stating that as *more* than necessary to make his point. In other words, the fact that some such mutations have been found does not invalidate his original point. It's as if I was arguing that team A will not win the Super Bowl, and I say that, "in fact, I don't think they won a single game last year." Well if they did not win a single game last year, they are indeed very unlikely to win the Super Bowl this year, but if it turns out that they actually did win a game or two, they are still very unlikely to win the Super Bowl this year.
So what is the main point? The main point, which the evolutionists religiously avoid, is the question of what percentage of mutations are beneficial, and what percentage are detrimental? I don't recall ever reading any discussion of this critical ratiio by any evolutionist. Please advise me if I missed it somewhere.
I think the vast majority of mutations are either detrimental or neutral, whereas only a tiny fraction are actually beneficial. That is where the probability analysis comes into play. Evolutionists don't know this because they don't understand the problem. But if, say, 50% of mutations are detrimental and only 1% are beneficial, what will happen?
Well, how can natural selection work if those are indeed the ratios? For every beneficial mutation there would be 50 detrimental ones. So how can the beneficial ones be "selected" without getting some detrimental ones caught in the net too? Over the long haul, the detrimental mutations will overpower the beneficial ones, and not only will no progress will be made, but serious problems will occur. The ultimate fate will be extinction, with extremely high probability.
That was Spetner's conclusion at least. You may disagree with his assumptions, parameters, and/or calculations, but he at least understood the problem and *did* some calculations. The evolutionists don't even understand enough to realize that calculations need to be done. All they think they need is their imaginations. They're deluded. And arrogant to boot.
Of course this is just another Creationist lie. A simple examination of: R Durrett, R Durrett, "Probability models for DNA sequence evolution" and the references therein refute the claim entirely.
Continual posting of false claims by Creationists shows that they are not to be trusted.
Again showing the equivalence of the Creationist and Postmoderndeconstructionist world views. Each person's belief is deemed valid irrespective of any externalities.
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.