Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[oldcats]

"Religion does not claim to be science, therefore no scientific proof is required for it."
Then why do so many want it taught as a science along with evolution?
"Evolution however, not only claims to be science, but also claims to disprove God's existence through scientific proofs."
It does claim to be a science...it IS a science. I have looked and looked, and have found no claims that evolution disproves God's exsistence. If you would please show me where a reputable source says that, I will gladly read it.
"You of course did not respond to it and now act as if you had "forgotten" it."
Sorry if you think I ignored your post, but I have been installing a new computer at home and just didn't get around to it. "Seems you evolutionists keep just repeating the same mantras and ignore the responses as if they never had been made."
Both sides of the discussion have their mantras..The Bible says so seems the be the one for creationists. Perhaps what you see as repeating mantras is mearly restating the facts as we see them?
1268 posted on 3/1/02 9:35 PM Pacific by gore3000 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[medved]

Then why do so many want it taught as a science along with evolution?

Because evolution is an ideological doctrine, similar to a religion. The problem is that in order to have a religion taught alongside evolution on an equitable basis, you'd have to have a religion which operated on a comparable intelectual level to evolution, and the only two feasible candidates are rastifari and voodoo.

[Iota]

I see what you're saying about zero-sum teaching, and mostly agree. But creationism differs from numerology and Flat-Earthism -- or whatever it's called -- in two important respects, IMO.

First, a significant percentage of mainstream society adheres to creationism; the same cannot be said for alchemy or any of the others. Debunking something no one believes in is a pointless exercise; debunking someone's actual misconception may be necessary to getting that person to consider the alternative.

Second, I don't think one gets a proper respect for the power of the ToE to describe what's going on (and has gone on) in the world without looking at the inability of any other theory to do so with any reliability.

And it's not like it's entirely without precedent to teach theory "B" in part by pointing to the flaws of its predecessor, theory "A" (and how "B" solves 'em). For example, I still recall learning in astronomy class about the problems with the circular planetary orbits hypothesized by Copernicus leading Kepler to formulate his laws (and theorize that planets had elliptical orbits).

Like I said, I think the bigger problem would be Christians who also believe in evolution thinking that the debunking was unnecessary and therefore a gratuitous attack on Christianity.

[cracker]

And it's not like it's entirely without precedent to teach theory "B" in part by pointing to the flaws of its predecessor, theory "A" (and how "B" solves 'em). For example, I still recall learning in astronomy class about the problems with the circular planetary orbits hypothesized by Copernicus leading Kepler to formulate his laws (and theorize that planets had elliptical orbits).

In that sense, it would make sense to teach evolution in the context of 18th and 19th century conceptions of the universe as a clockwork whose laws are knowable to scientific examination. Evolution would be prefaced by a discussion of the state of the life and geological sciences previous to Darwin. This sort of chronological approach would make clear how long evolution has been central to biology, and would also illustrate how many later challenges and discoveries have strengthened the theory (DNA, plate tectonics, etc.)>

Yet this would all take away time from discussions of photosynthesis, cell structure, anatomy, frog dissections, and the other frequent topics of middle school and high school biology.

[VadeRetro]

Of course, he'll come back and say we claimed whales evolved from coyotes.

But he already did that in post 87, which you had called in advance in post 68 after lexcorp linked Thewissen's cetacean page showing a Pakicetus skull fragment next to a coyote skull for comparison.

Gore's 87 also contains the following intriguing little snippet:

BTW - evos were trying to pass off the hippo as the ancestor of the whale, but they ran into a little trouble - DNA. The DNA proved conclusively that whales did not descend from hippos.

When O when will he tells us his sources?

[Iota]

Yet this would all take away time from discussions of photosynthesis, cell structure, anatomy, frog dissections, and the other frequent topics of middle school and high school biology.

True, but similar to what I said before, nobody's seriously disputing what the various animal body parts are called, where they're located, etc. In that respect, evolution differs from the rest of the biology curriculum.

[jennyp]

I think I missed posts 101 - 1405. Could you summarize them for me? :-)

[Junior]

Could you summarize them for me? :-)

gore3000: God did it. I have special dispensation to lie for God. Besides, I'll ignore all your evidence so that I can complain you never give me any.

medved: God came from Saturn.

[jennyp]

Oh. IOW:

On your computer tonight: A crevo rerun marathon!

[cracker]

Indeed. I'm just hanging around to see if this hits 1883 and thus qualifies as longest single crevo thread.

[VadeRetro]

f.Christian . . . well . . . doing what he does,

AndrewC denouncing a Pakicetus skull as a replica (cue taken by gore)

Repeat for (whales, hominids, primates, quote ethics)

1) gore announces lack of evidence
2) gore gets showered with evidence
3) go to 1)

End repeat (if you can get to here)

[jennyp]

Hmmm... 1883 posts, huh? That shouldn't be too difficult, especially since the thread's subject hasn't even begun to be addressed. (What was the subject, anyway? Oh yeah, something about some state board of rejections or sompin...)

[jennyp]

Space filler-upper.

[Iota]

FYI, Cracker updated us about the status of the two bills and the folks involved at post #1398.

[AndrewC]

AndrewC denouncing a Pakicetus skull as a replica (cue taken by gore)

Thank you very much.

To: AndrewC

The skull is a composite. Four skulls plus 150 post-cranial bones were found.

469 posted on 2/22/02 5:33 PM Alaska by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: AndrewC

Composite?

Ah. Yes.

470 posted on 2/22/02 5:33 PM Alaska by Nebullis

[oldcats]

"Because evolution is an ideological doctrine, similar to a religion."
Sorry, but evolution is based on science, not ideological doctrine.
"comparable intelectual level to evolution, and the only two feasible candidates are rastifari and voodoo."
Cute...really intectual rebuttal...(just what I would expect from someone who uses the nick medved. Does he know you are impersonating him here? Or is it some sort of flattery? Nevermind that..)
Can you tell me honestly that creationism has more evidence on it's side than either rastifari and voodoo? And I am talking about hard evidence....not just the word of the Bible.
Through all the discussion here, I have yet to see on hard scientific shred of evidence for creationism that does not go back to the Bible. I am all for anyone believing what they wish, but if you want to have it put out as a scientific theory, please have a little science in it.
Oldcats

[medved]

I think of evolution as an "ISID", or Infinitely Stupid Ideological Doctrine. Once you begin to realize that evolving ANY complex creature involves a probability which is basically a tenth or twentieth order infinitessimal, i.e. that it's basically impossible, and then you realize that that evolution requires beating these odds not just once, but an endless series of times, i.e. once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked, swam, flown, crawled, or slithered upon the face of the Earth, you begin to realize the problem.

In other words, a reasonable person might at least listen to a theory which requires one or two probabalistic miracles in the entire history of the Earth, but an endless series of them? That basically just stands everything we know about mathematics and probability on its head.

Now, creationism, you can take or leave. I'd be perfectly happy with having both religion and evolutionism banned from our science courses, or at least not ever taught at public expense. Religion does not need public money. Christianity has been barred from our schools for the last thirty years and is still thriving. Could the same be said for evolutionism some thirty years hence? That would make an interesting experiment.

On the other hand, if you want to insist that evolution be taught in public schools at public expense, then you really need to teach Rastifari alongside it. In fact, Rastifari would fit well into team-teaching systems; in other words, a teacher wondering how to put 30 teenagers into the proper frame of mind to be indoctrinated into something as dog-stupid as evolution, could walk across the hall to the rasta class for a box of spliffs...

[Junior]

medved is not a creationist. He believes that the Earth orbitted a proto-Saturn where the asteroid belt is now. Sometime in the last 10,000 to 20,000 years proto-Saturn broke up, flung Earth into its present orbit and skittered several astronomical units out to its present orbit.

medved bases this "theory" on his own interpretations of primitive myths and his belief, contrary to all attempts to show him its folly, that dinosaurs could not stand up in a 1G field and therefore Saturn must have been tugging on Earth to reduce its gravity to one-sixth of a G.

It has been pointed out to him on this forum and on numerous other forums and websites that the planetary configuration of the Earth and proto-Saturn would be very unlikely to form in the first place; that the gravitational tug required to reduce Earth gravity by five-sixth would of necessity create humongous tidal stresses on Earth; that engineers and biologists have shown that dinosaurs could, indeed, walk around quite comfortably in 1G; that the energy required to break up proto-Saturn and move Earth would be literally astronomical as would the energy required to even out the resulting orbits to the tiny bit of eccentricity they now enjoy; that the angular momentum of the Solar System would be changed by such a move; etc.

However, these points have increased his paranoia that there is a conspiracy by Satan-worshipping atheistic scientists (literally tens of thousands of folks in on this conspiracy, mind you) to lead humanity down the road to perdition in an effort to teach evil-ution. He has never addressed the criticisms of his "theory," and he has never given any up-to-date scientific evidence why evolution is wrong. He simply calls evolutionists, and anybody else who disagrees with him "idiots" and posts decades-old out-of-context quotes to bolster his ego and earn browny points with the "evolution is the devil's tool" crowd.

And, oh yeah, his best friend is bat named Splifford.

[medved]

A Portrait of "Junior"
(in his own words)

"We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#4

"Knowing gore3000, he'll take a look at your link and claim that evolutionists say coyotes are descended from whales. Do not underestimate the power of willful ignorance..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#68

You didn't even read the freakin' article, you dolt, or you wouldn't have made  the inane comment about whales evolving from coyotes, or vice versa. Do you  ever read any of the stuff we give you, or do you glance at the pretty  pictures, decide that nothing's going to change your mind and then post  inanities on these threads?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#143

My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer  algorythm.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#152

You are the only person I've met who suffered from Tourette's Syndrome of the  keyboard.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#384

Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a  cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total  of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual  pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture  painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And,  you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#632

 except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to  accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then  they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory  to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to  Hell).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#750

Gee, you get caught quote-mining red handed, and attempt to weedle out of it by  bantering semantics. You haven't read any real science since that nice old guy  down the street introduced you to Saturnism... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#978

Dear, dear, deluded g3k.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1073

 What must God think of you that you are reduced to bantering semantics,  twisting words, willful ignorance, and outright lies to support Biblical  creation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1080

I never said that, you liar and twister of words. The serpent in the Garden of  Eden could take tips from you.... Remember, God said, "Thou shall not bear false witness" (which means lying). Of  course, you probably think lying for God makes you a saint, don't you?  
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1082

Ahem, Mr. "I've got to lie for God,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1088

I'm wondering if my asking gore3000 how he believed God felt about his lying for  Him is what caused him to clam up. Medved, you claim God hates idiots, but not  one of the commandments states "Thou shalt not be stupid." However, there is a  "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Now that you know that your quotes are, at  best, disengenuous, shouldn't you attempt to distance yourself from them, or is  it okay to lie as long as it's "for the children?" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts#1209

That is why PatrickHenry keeps publishing the list - so that y'all do not keep  spouting the same, discredited drivel. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#147

I merely said that's what the Indians claim. And shortsighted politicians are  more than willing to bend over and grab their ankles for these folks.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm#191

Ah... the "Static Cling Theory" of life, the universe and everything. Came to  you one day while cleaning out the dryer lint trap, did it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/636491/posts?q=1&&page=101#140

I figured it had to be you. Can't keep a tinfoil hatter down.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634527/posts?q=1&&page=51#55

Your beliefs can't be proven scientifically so they must be forced on the populace through deception and the courtroom. Nice. In a few centuries America will have come to resemble the Islamic world in its backwardness and you can sit back in that special Hell God reserves for people who lie in His name, and gloat at your handiwork.  
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634066/posts?q=1&&page=151#164

Proof positive you have absolutely no clue about that which you speak.  Your  creationist brethren have given up this argument as factually incorrect, but  you persist in your ignorance as if it were some sort of talisman keeping the  real world at bay.
The Sun does not "reverse" entropy, you muggle....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=201#203

BTW, a mutation is simply a change in the genome. It happens all the time --  usually during the creation of the sex cells from transcription errors (there  is a word for this, but I cannot remember it for the life of me). Sometimes it  is caused by an external influence -- a stray particle of radiation might knock  part of a gene out of kilter (the biggest source of such radiation, BTW, is the  Sun), or environmental chemicals might play merry hell with one's genetic  coding. It's quite common and happens all the time -- which you would know if  you actually read something other than the Bible once in a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=301#346

 Oh, I forgot, the scientific community is conspiring to keep you silent, so  just sit in your basement and brood...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#356

A case could be made that you should alter your drinking...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=351#372

You are more incoherent than usual. Have they upped the dosage on your meds?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/626685/posts?q=1&&page=551#556

Are you being dense, or what? A descendent species can coexist with its parent species. There is nothing precluding Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapien from occupying the planet at the same time. The fact that you cannot see this obvious situation indicates a lack of thought on your part.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1370#1367

gore3000: God did it. I have special dispensation to lie for God. Besides, I'll ignore all your evidence so that I can complain you never give me any.
medved: God came from Saturn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/630185/posts?q=1&&page=1408

[Junior]

I'm flattered. You must be a serious Junior groupie. I've never had anyone follow my every word as if it were the very word of his master. Of course, you should have included the posts to which I was replying to really give it that contextual "oomph."

If you'd like, I'll send you an autograph.