Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[shuckmaster]

It's an open discussion forum. Post sheer willful ignorance to educated people and expect a bit of ridicule.

[Dimensio]

You are welcome to trash them immediately at your preference.

I hardly see a reason to do so. Several of them, such as your claim regarding panspermia replacing the theory of evolution, are clearly absurd. Others are merely incoherent. However, I will listen if you are willing to explain what you mean by them, and attempt to justify their validity.

Or, you could put them on a high shelf and wait and see what falls off at some point in the future.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

Or, you could study the issues out more thoroughly than perhaps you have heretofore.

I have studied the issues. In fact, it is for that reason that I understand the notion of panspermia -- which attempts to explain the origin of the first life forms on Earth -- "replacing" evolution -- which explains how life on Earth diversified over time -- is an absurd notion. It would be like replacing rubber tires on an automobile with a new steering wheel. There is no reason to expect a scientific explanation for one event to "replace" a scientific explanation for a different event.

Or, perhaps Holy Spirit at some point in the future will remind you of such humble statements amidst much fulfillment falling all around you in vividly tangible and dramatic forms.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the theory of evolution or with what is called "Intelligent Design".

[Dimensio]

That is the whole purpose of evolution: to demean, belittle and eventually stamp out Christianity and the culture (Western culture) it gave rise to.

Please justify your assertion regarding the alleged purpose of evolution.

[metmom]

Post sheer willful ignorance to educated people and expect a bit of ridicule.

Yes, that's why people pick on you.

[bondserv]

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Microevolution is a theory. Macroevolution is a belief.

There is evidence that supports that organisms change with time. In fact many species experience so much Microevolution, they go extinct. We have thousands of examples.

Macroevolution has no evidence. We do not have a demonstrably new species that shows evidence of more complexity (such as an improved system that functions better than it's ancestors or non-degraded element of an organisms DNA that demonstrates a branch of programing, via RMNS, not found in it's ancestor).

When scientists overcome these shortcomings regarding Macroevolution, we would have something to debate.

[Dimensio]

I already did in post 440.

You are mistaken. In post 440, you asserted that the purpose of evolution is to destroy Christianity and western civilization with it. You did not provide justification for this assertion.

I've been reading the evolution posts over the last month and have come to the unshakable conclusion that Darwinists and the so-called theory of evolution, either don't believe in God, have been brainwashed by the media or have an outright anti christian agenda.

Then you should be able to reference these postings and explain how they are indicative of all who accept evolution not believing in God, are media-brainwashed or have an "outright anti christian agenda".

[Dimensio]

How do you reference the posts with a link? Can you show me?

Do you require instruction on obtaining a URL to a specific posting, or on creating a link to a specified URL?

All postings on FreeRepublic are noted by a number below the text of the post. This number is a link to the post itself. If you right-click on that number and choose "Copy Link Location", your operating system will save that specific link to its "clipboard". You can then 'paste' that link via Ctrl-V or an equivalent command in any text editing box.

To create a link within a posting, you will need to format it with proper HTML. An example, referencing my own posting:

<a href="http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1625993/posts?page=449#449">This is an example link</a>.

Will produce

This is an example link.

You begin by denoting an HTML code statement with the less-than character, <. You then denote a link with "a href=", followed by the URL -- in this case the URL to my own posting -- in quotation marks, then you close the HTML code with the greater-than character, >. That will tell web browsers to link the text following that line of HTML to the URL within the code. When you have typed the full text that you wish to comprise your link, you close the link with the "/a" code in another set of less than and greater than symbols.

Another example, to link the word "another" in the sentence "This is another example." to http://www.example.com.

This is <a href="http://www.example.com/">another</a> example.

Will produce:

This is another example.

[Quix]

It really ceased being a fun topic to go round and round about a long time ago, to me.

However, out of respect for your thoughtful reply, I'll try and give in kind.

You are welcome to trash them immediately at your preference.

I hardly see a reason to do so. Several of them, such as your claim regarding panspermia replacing the theory of evolution, are clearly absurd. Others are merely incoherent. However, I will listen if you are willing to explain what you mean by them, and attempt to justify their validity.

Well, you can find lots of company hereon for considering me absurd, without looking too hard. Enjoy your perspective. I can handle it easily as long as God sees me otherwise.

My prediction is . . . that the global government tyranny folks will increasingly trot out the grand deception that ET's seeded man on this globe--having genetically designed him or some variation on that theme. This will be called some form of panspermia. This will take the place of evolution as it has been taught and believed.

But I can understand that you would not have studied that out very far or much. You may even still consider it yet more evidence of even greater absurdity. Time will tell.

Or, you could put them on a high shelf and wait and see what falls off at some point in the future.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

It's a fairly old metaphor, idiom. It has to do with holding things loosely which are of somewhat questionable validity. And, then waiting to see what time, events, facts later prove out or disprove.

Or, you could study the issues out more thoroughly than perhaps you have heretofore.

I have studied the issues. In fact, it is for that reason that I understand the notion of panspermia -- which attempts to explain the origin of the first life forms on Earth -- "replacing" evolution -- which explains how life on Earth diversified over time -- is an absurd notion. It would be like replacing rubber tires on an automobile with a new steering wheel. There is no reason to expect a scientific explanation for one event to "replace" a scientific explanation for a different event.

The ETs-as-seeders-of-panspermia-bioengineered-humans-on-earth explanation will likely include the info that they have shepherded their 'creation' at many points along the way in addition to beginning the grand experiment eons ago. Your assertion that panspermia is an absurd notion for the reasons you stated simply indicates to me that you have not studied the depth and breadth of the topic very much at all.

Or, perhaps Holy Spirit at some point in the future will remind you of such humble statements amidst much fulfillment falling all around you in vividly tangible and dramatic forms.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the theory of evolution or with what is called "Intelligent Design".

I believe that there will be much contrasting of light with darkness; truth with deception, lies etc. in coming months and years. I believe that all those seriously interested in knowing THE TRUTH and letting THE TRUTH determine where all the chips lie--that anyone seriously seeking truth will find it in abundance with thorough going confirmation.

Of course, I also believe that those exceedingly stubbornly refusing to be the least bit open to THE TRUTH will find plenty of rationalization to remain in their narrow, rigid, closed minded notions.

I believe Holy Spirit will be pinging folks in their brains with abundant evidence that will be increasingly available in the natural world in stark proportions and startling presentation.

--just an opinion I happen to have.

[Dimensio]

My prediction is . . . that the global government tyranny folks will increasingly trot out the grand deception that ET's seeded man on this globe--having genetically designed him or some variation on that theme. This will be called some form of panspermia. This will take the place of evolution as it has been taught and believed.

This is not panspermia. This is a form of intelligent design. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the first life forms arrived to earth from space. It says nothing regarding how or why this life developed once it arrived on earth.

Do you have evidence for your claim that "extraterrestrial intelligent design" will replace the theory of evolution in the coming future?

[Quix]

I guess we'll have to just differ on our definitions of what panspermia is or will be labeled as, defined as.

Some of the earlier discussions of the ET's part in such things included the label panspermia. I don't recall if panspermia was used by the sources themselves or by the persons writing about what the sources had revealed.

I suppose you could call the ET explanation a variant of Intelligent Design--certainly. But, that wouldn't fit the political agenda of so many evolutionists so rabidly hostile to Christianity etc.

I have plenty of (for me and many I know) evidence regarding such. But none I want to bother sharing here. But you could track it down at Dr Stephen Greer's DISCLOSURE PROJECT and a plethora of other sites. But it would be a bit of a tedious task. It's not set out per se as about that topic. The evidence is mixed in amidst a bunch of other stuff of varying quality and import, depending on the sources and sites etc.

So, help yourself, throw it all in the trash. But when it comes up again in public, you'll remember where you first ran into such notions.

[metmom]

Scientists are the ones stating that science does not does not deal with the supernatural. I haven't seen any Christians/creationists/IDers/whatever say that the supernatural excludes the natural. If scientists don't take the supernatural into consideration or have no way to measure, test, or observe it, then they are in no position to make intelligent, well-supported comments on it; all they have to offer at that point is their opinion based on speculation, which should not be presented as scientific fact or findings.

[RunningWolf]

You know Quix I have been following what you are saying here and as you say it would be a tedious task over many many sources.

But you can already see where they are going with it.

And if you do post the material, do it for everyone and don't look for any confirmation from the evo-cultists.

Wolf

[Quix]

I think your analysis is very perceptive and quite accurate.

And, I'm trying to reduce the amount of

--futile exercises
--tedium
--p*ssing in the wind
--useless pontificating

in my life.

Thanks for your wisdom. Will keep it in mind. But likely will leave such tedium for those who truly want to seek out such evidence. I've studied such things since 1961-ish. I'm not a bad researcher. I'm not a bad screener of evidence. Doesn't mean I always want to defend my perspective in a hurricane of narrow, rigid 'orthodoxy.'

Many things are tentatively known and held until the proof is FINALLY in. But by then, the merit or benefit in knowing the truth is much different than it is when the truth seems much more tenuous and up for grabs.

[Liberal Classic]

FYI: FreeRepublic HTML Sandbox thread

"This Sandbox is devoted to giving you a place to practice basic HTML, and to get some coaching."

[Dimensio]

I guess we'll have to just differ on our definitions of what panspermia is or will be labeled as, defined as.

Actually, panspermia is well-defined. Your definition of the term is not the standard accepted definition.

I suppose you could call the ET explanation a variant of Intelligent Design--certainly.

It is a variant of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design have conceded that the "designer" could in fact be an extraterrestrial agent.

But, that wouldn't fit the political agenda of so many evolutionists so rabidly hostile to Christianity etc.

Please explain.

I have plenty of (for me and many I know) evidence regarding such. But none I want to bother sharing here.

Then, again, why should what you say be believed?

But you could track it down at Dr Stephen Greer's DISCLOSURE PROJECT and a plethora of other sites. But it would be a bit of a tedious task. It's not set out per se as about that topic. The evidence is mixed in amidst a bunch of other stuff of varying quality and import, depending on the sources and sites etc.

I was not aware that the Disclosure Project included in its agenda an attempt to replace the theory of evolution with a theory stating that extraterrestrials were involved with the development of life on earth. Do you have a reference? Moreover, I was also not aware that the Disclosure Project had been making any significant headway amongst biologists.

[RunningWolf]

Dimensio you make many perhaps hundreds statements that might suggest you speak knowingly/or unknowingly> for various groups of individuals, as here this most common inference to the 'biologist's'

A quick google search reveals there are all sorts of biologists in wide area of interests, and they come from a broad range of qualifications and experience. Just which ones do Dimensio speak for?

And BTW, you have never established yourself as a biologist scientist, nor an astute and accurate debater. Nor have you ever given any good reason why what you say should be believed.

Other than that though, you are quite a circular girl.

Wolf

[ToryHeartland]

We figured two conservatives should be able to take on 20 or so liberals. :-)

Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel, Prof--hope you gave them a handicap to make it a bit more sporting!

Thanks for your post, btw: the situation you describe in the 1990's was similar in Europe: after the arts and the soft sciences, the Left began its post-modernist assault on the hard sciences, but without much success. Here, at least, Conservatives remain stalwart defenders of genuine education, the only really vocal religious pressure group are the Islamists.

[ToryHeartland]

I didn't want to be a message board debater in the first place, I wanted to be a lumberjack! :-)

And I wanted to be a Lion Tamer! I'm qualified, I've got a hat that says LION TAMER on it!

Have a good one, puroresu!