Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
7. Scientific achievements:
I'm curious. Since when are political goals to be considered scientific achievements?
I looked throug the entire document and saw no outline of research proposals.
FWIW, I have no great doubt myself that evolution as we currently understand it remains an incomplete framework, much the same as can be said of a whole array of scientific inquiries. I personally consider it rather foolish when anyone suggests that our knowledge of the universe is more or less complete, and particularly disappointing on the rare occasion that a scientist implies as much.
But as far as the conceptual lattice of adaptive speciation under natural selection pressure there can be no reasonable doubt in my view.
You know, don't you that you are doing the grunt work for the Moonies and Muslims? Christians are a tiny minority of this movement.
Besides, we have come up against one-another in the past, and I can assure you no one believes you are not a creationist.
That is ludicrous and illogical.
There is no NEED for a theory.
A theory stands on its own.
Lack of another theory is not supporting evidence for a theory.
Take observed UFO's. There is no sound theory to explain them but that does not prove they are flown by space aliens (which is a theory)
Your statement is similar to saying: one must prove who actually did a crime before one can be found innocent.
I avoided using that word since too many on the C side associate it with a tautology (falsely of course).
I thought it was perhaps it is easier to imagine a competition between individual self-replicating entities.
I don't see a lot of difference between you post and the Wedge Issue document. I'm not in favor of destroying people's careers over their beliefs. You have a point there.
But that point cuts both ways. Schools and government have always been PC. What changes from era to era is who has the power to define correctness.
The issue being argued on these threads is not who gets jobs, but how science is defined. That really hasn't changed in 200 years. Science is always empirical, always follows evidence, always searches for the naturalistic explanation. It's not political correctness; it's just what science is and does. Scientific theories are never going to be replaced by assumptions of supernatural intervention and design.
The ID movement is dead, not because it is wrong -- I can't prove it is wrong, and have no interest in trying. It is dead because it has no research program. It has no testable hypotheses. The concepts of irreducible complexity lead to no research proposals, except ones that promise to find functional subcomponents. You cannot have a healthy, living intellectual community based on fear of finding that things have natural explanations.
That only proves you have no idea what you are talking about - you are intellectually lazy and you rely far too much on bigoted clichés. I am not a creationist and I am not trying to disprove evolution.
Like I said: You argue to a creationist straw man of your own creation no matter how inapplicable it is.
BTW: when one has to resort to implying they speak for other people - usually it is a sign of a weak position.
I do not agree with you but thank you for ‘actually’ reading my post. Now do me a favor and answer this question I asked you… Do you know for certain that your brain (your very being, consciousness, logic) is the ultimate result of mindlessness?
No one is ever found innocent. If the evidence is insufficient they are found not guilty.
But you have entered the realm of judgement now, rather than proof. Science works exactly like the courts. Scientists, like jurors, must decide the facts, and facts are decided by judgement, not by pure logic. The jury of science has decided about 10,000 to one that the facts favor evolution.
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements. When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence. You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels. You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Define mindlessness, Convince me that evolution is not the thoughts of God.
Or, briefly, even a weak theory beats no theory at all.
and a weak placemarker is better than no placemarker at all.
If I thought evolution was a weak theory (judgement again) I would not argue for it vehemently.
I understand that hypotheses attempting to explain abiogenesis are currently weak (but they have the virtue of suggesting research). I would be careful with this in high school.
As you point out, ID is worse than weak, because it suggests no lines of research. It's worse than that because it suggests that research is somehow immoral.
When you see words like mindless tossed around, you know the tosser is making moral judgements about ideas themselves, and no longer cares about truth (or even confidence). ;-)
evolution = strong theory > weak theory > ID = no theory
delicious placemarker
When one stops questioning, it is no longer science - it is faith
The evos need a Evo-Pope. I nominate you! And lookee there -- puffs of white smoke -- or is brown -- whatever. Tag you're the new Evo-Pope.
I think you have your starting roster right here on the FR crevo threads for the the Society of Evoeus, the Evoesu-its -- the Order that purues evo-heretics and brings the Evo-Inquisition against them.
All Hail Evo-Pope Minoreus I!
When's your first Auto-de-fe? Where's the Iron-EvoMaiden?
Argh! The Dark Ages of Science are upon us ...
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.