Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Forensic techniques were applied to the investigation of the two murders. Was this a reasonable method of determining what happened in the absence of established witnesses? Were the conclusions reached beyond "reasonable doubt"? How many ways can you duck the question?
The hard-core creationist, desperate to discredit evolution, is only too delighted to invent his own definition of science ("reproducable lab results only"), which includes only physics and chemistry. Thus, all knowledge of the past is impossible, because we can't re-create it in the lab. No fair looking at presently-available evidence and reasoning how it came to be -- oh no -- that's not science. So then ... ta da! ... evolution isn't science (nor is astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, or cosmology). Simple, huh? The creationoids win!
Unfortunately for the creationoids, their intellectual weapon of mass destruction has consequences that they might not like. We can't re-create the Genesis account in the lab either. We can't re-create the miracle of the loaves and fishes in the lab. We can't re-create anything described in the bible. So along with evolution, we'd have to toss out stuff the creationoid doesn't want to toss out. When presented with this uncomfortable consequence of their "only reproducable results are acceptable" principle, the creationoid will manage to tap-dance away.
As Doctor Stochastic wrote in his reply, "The essence of science is to make the model fit the discovery."
How can you possibly manage to construe this as a flaw in the scientific method? If the model doesn't fit the observations, change it until it does.
change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution
Weren't we just talking about how observations will either support or disprove a theory? And that how a theory must account for all the observations? And if it doesn't it must be changed or discarded? Or are you just irritated by the nomenclature?
The problems Darwin already had with his own theory would have been further realized if he had modern technology.
If Darwin knew that the individual cells that make up the eye were far more sophisticated than anything he imagined (can be compared to the mechanisms present at a space shuttle production facility), he would have fell off the fence on the side of Creation.
Unfortunately, you are getting your information from a creationist website, run by deceitful charlatans. That "eye" quote from Darwin is one of the best-known examples of fraudulent "quote-mining." This sort of dishonesty is a big part of the creationist bag of shabby tricks. Here's a website which explains the fraud to which you've innocently fallen victim, and it gives the full text of Darwin's statement, which shows that Darwin's thinking was actually the opposite of what the lying creationoid filth have told you:
An Old, Out of Context, Quotation.
His style would be hard for his assailants to emulate and they don't. They summon from his works the very texts of his rhetorical questions, presenting them as the be-all and end-all "rebuttals" to his theory, proof that he somehow knew his "faith" to be irrational but went ahead anyway.
You can't build a great cathedral on a foundation of lies.
Here is the complete quote from the link you graciously provided.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
If you review my prior posts you will be quick to see that I posited that Darwin was ignorant by no fault of his (scientific tools from the middle to late 1800's).
Darwin’s assumption that man would smoothly walk down the road to prove out his theory was actually the opposite. As you see from his quote he expected that science would eventually meticulously step through the processes he proposed.
Fortunately scientists are beginning to become exhausted by their attempts to finagle the data to fit the model. As Doctor Stochastic wrote in his reply, "The essence of science is to make the model fit the discovery."
Making the model fit the data (absolutely massive amounts of unique irreducibly complex information in living organisms), Thank God, is now forcing scientists to follow the scientific method, unlike Darwin who clearly took the model first (there will be discoveries in the future that prove my model correct) and the discovery will follow. The above quote more clearly demonstrates this than any I have seen.
My main point is if Darwin were intellectually honest with today’s data he would quickly realize his error.
Thank you for being a worthy sounding board, I hope that I provide some items for you to consider as well. You were correct in your assessment that the Darwin quote was taken out of context (if your source is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not). Thank you for your enlightenment on that point.
bondserv
I tried my hand at your communication method in post 1319, and I must say it was fun.
Hope your progress toward Godliness is going smoothly.
Back from a big dinner out. Wined, dined, drowsy, looking for an early bedtime. You have a good one.
Exhausted? Do you really think that most scientists finagle data? Generally this leads to things like the treatment of J. Hendrick Schön. Bell labs just withdrew patents based on his work. Likewise Science has withdrawn 8 papers of Schön's (at the request of the co-authors.) Pons and Fleishmann have been ostricized for faking their data. Faking is rare and has serious consequences.
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.