Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.
The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]
Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."
Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.
"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."
Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.
Aaah, linkomania.
Ah, a cheap dodge. Fine, if you don't want to educate yourself on the subject, it's your loss, not mine.
You cannot make an argument for your theory
Gosh, that must be why I do so on a regular basis. Not too swift, are you?
But no, I'm not going to compose a personal reply from scratch every time someone repeats a fallacy for the 200th time, when there are perfectly good FAQ files which already deal with it. That's what FAQ files are *for*, in case you haven't figured that out yet.
because you know the links are themselves so banal that they cannot stand scrutiny.
I know that's your cheap excuse for not reading them, you mean. I link to them because I'm satisfied that they do a good job of education on the topic -- for those who care to lift their blinders, that is.
The Evidence Disproving Evolution is overwhelming
Yawn. So I keep hearing, but so far all the "evidenced disproving evolution" has been remarkably shoddy. Here, let's look at something from your own provided link, shall we?
Here's one listed under "Biology Disproving Evolution": Genetics Glossary AB
Um, son? That's just a list of definitions of terms used in genetics discussions, for words starting with "A" and "B". If you consider that "Biology Disproving Evolution", it's time for you to take a nice, *looong* nap.
Let's grab another at random, from the "Intelligent Design" category: Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes
Um, okay -- that's just an overview of the little whips that some bacteria use to move around. If this "Disproves Evolution" or proves "Intelligent Design", you're going to have to do a lot better than just describe the structures.
How about something from your "Mutations" category? Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . AHAHAHAHAHA!! Um, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but you just included a very pro-evolution article on your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" page. Do you even *read* this stuff, or do you just cut-and-paste at random? Given that you included the "A-B glossary", that seems increasingly likely.
Okay, maybe you'll get luckier in the "Darwin and his Theory" heading: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty. Um, no, that happens to be an article that discusses the *verifications* of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution. For pete's sake, I thought this was supposed to be "Evidences" *against* evolution?
If this is the best you can do, you're not worth my time.
which is why evolutionists will never give us either what the theory of evolution is
Lie, it's been done dozens of times on these threads, and you know it. Why do are you so dishonest? Oh, right, you're a troll -- I forgot.
or what the facts supporting it are but must send everyone on a trip to the library to self-indoctrinate themselves in their phony theory.
Another lie, these threads consistently contain reams of facts, both inserted into the posts, and as URLs to webpages which are only a click away. Surely even you understand the difference between clicking to another page and "being sent on a trip to the library.
This goofiness was already dealt with a hundred posts ago. Do try to keep up.
Wrong.
Wow, another lame dodge from a creationist when challenged for support. Who'da thunk it?
It is evolutionists, who claim their theory to be science that need to give proof that random processes do indeed create complex systems. Evolutionists have been claiming this happens for 150 years. Seems to me it is time for them to put up or shut up.
Already been done, countless times. Check any of the literature on genetic algorithms, for example. It's amazing how far behind you are.
[First, evolution does not "discard" DNA "information"]
Yes, they did, and some still do
Try to work on your reading comprehension. We're talking about what evolution as a process does, not people. That's why the word "evolution" appears in that sentence, not "evolutionists". I hear that "Hooked on Phonics" can work wonders, give 'em a call.
even after it has been abundantly proven that it is what evolutionists have moronically called 'junk DNA' that really makes an organism run.
TROLLING again, eh? Your own links disproved this running gag of yours. Get some new material.
Real scientists call it 'non-coding DNA' meaning it does not code for proteins.
Yes, and I'm the one who explained that to you. Because it's true.
Evolutionists claim several times a week on these very threads that the DNA not in genes can be altered willy nilly and 'proves' evolution because it is there to show descent not any intrinsic purpose.
There are about three things wrong with your summary, so I'll just send you back to work on it until it more resembles what people have actually said. Shoo.
It is the total disregard for purpose in the organism that has brought evolution down to nonsense.
That *would* be nonsense if that's a position that people held, but it's not. Only *you* are saying something that silly.
Philosophically it was a dead end. Scientifically it was a dead end. So as soon as science learned enough it showed that the evolutionist view that life is purposeless and just a random amalgam of atoms is total bunk.
Let me know when you wind down and are willing to discuss the evidence again.
The problem that I find with this is that the “clumping”, or what ever you want to call it, is due to three different types of cells. When the first ameba formed in the ocean and then divided, it would have only reproduced itself, not two other types of cell life. Are you aware of any “clumping action” that involves only one type of cell?
What is PMFJI?
Think of how much more convincing you might be if you tried reason and evidence instead.
Any three-year-old can engage in ridicule.
So? Are you afraid of furniture made out of very distant relatives? How about eating less distant relatives like cows, deer, or chickens?
I’ve tried that; go and look at the posts that I’ve put up today on this topic.
Yes, indeed, that passage is very revealing and also shows why evolution = atheism:
They ... who say to a tree, "You are my father, and to a stone, "You gave me birth".
No.
How about eating less distant relatives like cows, deer, or chickens?
No.
Wow, you *really* need to lay off those drugs.
But just for giggles, please do attempt to document this amazing claim.
The CHARLATAN Darwin said that traits are combined from mother to father. That the features 'meld' in the progeny. This shows quite well that the man was no scientist. In fact, I am sure he was led to this view due to his racism since the racial traits do seem to meld in progeny but this is due to these traits arising from different genes, not from 'melding'. It took evolutionists some three decades to figure out a way to reconstruct Darwinism to account for Mendel's genetics. This however was not quite successful and just dug a deep hole for them when DNA was discovered.
and even nowadays you can read arguments from moronic evolutionists saying that it is not true in all cases.-me-
Because it's not. Lateral transfer, for example, is one of the several ways that genetic information can be passed without Mendelian genetics.
Thanks for proving my point for me. Moronic evolutionists still deny the truth of Mendelian genetics.
How exciting for you. My answers are "no", "yes". Now the ball's back in your court -- explain your answers in detail and support them. Then maybe we'll have something worth talking about. And yes, I have read Kuhn.
Dr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Block" box will eventually be seen as the single conceptual challenge that produced an experimental anomaly that will topple neo-Darwinism.
Behe's a self-important crank. See my post earlier in this thread concerning Behe.
The responses to Dr. Behe's revolutionary work from the practioners of "normal" Evolutionary science have been pathetic.
Horse manure. There have been many excellent responses to Behe's errors. Again, see my earlier post for just a sampling.
Dr. Behe's character and credentials have been impugned but noone in the Evolutionary camp has produced a testable mechanism that would explain irreducible complexity.
Wow, that misses the point *entirely*. The "Evolutionary camp" doesn't have to "explain irreducible complexity", because they agree with the core of the idea (although not with all of Behe's baroque elaborations). It was understood long before Behe that one way that evolution could be falsified (hey, I thought you said evolution *wasn't* falsifiable?) would be the potential discovery of structures which could not have been formed by any type of stepwise evolution.
The "Evolution camp" has no argument with that point.
The problem with Behe, however, is that he has listed a few structures which he *believes* qualify as such, but (and here's the kicker) he hasn't actually *demonstrated* them to be. In fact, in several cases (again, check the links I provided earlier), Behe *misrepresents* the alleged irreducibility of the structure, and/or fails to see a "reducibility" of it THAT WAS ALREADY WELL KNOWN IN THE SCIENCE FIELD.
In short, Behe is (trivially) right in his core point, but has yet to make an actual case that any of his examples *are*, indeed, indisputably irredicible. Several, in fact, are already known to *be* reducible.
If Behe wants to claim to have driven a stake into the heart of evolution, he's going to have to do the difficult work required to *prove* something irreducible, instead of simply listing some examples he personally *thinks* might be.
True to history, advocates of Evolution have reacted like all practitioners of normal science have reacted when an authentic anomaly is elicited to challenge the dominant paradigm. They throw a fit.
A fit of laughter, yes.
Nor is it in any way wrong to be outraged by sophomoric attacks by people who have very little idea what they're talking about, but think that they can tear down 150 years of research with just an idea or two and an arrogant smugness.
It is on the issue of falsifiability that Evolution fails most glaringly as a scientific theory. Evolutionary theorists posit any scientific result as "proof" of evolution and attempt to adjust their theory. The number of ad hoc accretions to neo-Darwinism make it begin to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy with its "epicycles". Any theory that is always true "by definition" is not a scientifc theory; it is an a priori dogma.
Who wrote this nonsense? From the formatting it's hard to tell -- is this your writing, or cut-and-paste from somewhere else?
First, evolution sure as hell is falsiable. See this and work through the pages. It lists several dozen *specific* types of falsifiability for evolution. Then read this, this, and this.
Second, no one claims anything as a "proof" of evolution. Scientists know that the nature of science does not deal in "proofs".
Third, what you disingenuously denigrate as "ad hoc accretions" are honest adjustments of the theory to incorporate new observations. It would be dishonest *not* to, and any scientific theory is strengthened by such adjustments. Biology and the history of life are "messy" enough fields that any complete description of how things work is going to be necessarily complex. It's unfair to deride this as if it were some sort of failing.
Finally, it's just a disgusting and false slur to call evolution -- or any other scientific theory -- "true by definition". It most certainly is not, and I resent the slanderous implication.
Given the current controversy in the field of Biology School disricts should be allowed to teach ID and Evolution as competing and potentially falsifiable theories.
As soon as someone (anyone) manages to come up with an actual "scientific theory of ID", do let us know. Until then, it's not fit to be taught in science classrooms.
To teach Evolution as a "fact" is to distort the nature scientific theories and harm the students ability to form critical thinking skills in science.
Evolution *is* a fact. The only dispute is over what mechanisms contributed how much and in what ways to its occurrence.
From my experience, though, the number of people who can properly assess the "mathematical possibility" of something is far smaller than the number of folks who *think* they are competent enough to correctly do so.
Which are you?
Would it have made you feel any better if I had cited a half-dozen scientists who have refuted the remotest possibility of any of your "theoretical models"?
Only if their refutations were correct. See above. Feel free to present some of these alleged refutations, if you're able to. And if you're not, then you're just engaging in the fallacy of the "argument from authority".
Find a valid "hole" and I'll have no objection to teaching it. Got any?
Because he's a liar for God.
My mistake. Ken Ham is from New Zealand. You know who he is, right?
Goodbye loser. More excuses from a lame evolutionist. You do not even understand your stupid theory, you cannot even argue for it and give facts in favor of it. All you can do is make up nice sounding names for links that prove nothing at all. If you and your lame friends have any facts to disprove my statements - post them here. You do know how to cut and paste do you not? Or are you too lame for that also?
Yes, I think that people who want to understand the problems of evolution should understand the terms. What's your problem with that? Stupidity is your friend? Ignorance and evolution go hand in hand?
Let's grab another at random, from the "Intelligent Design" category: Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes
Another example of your ignorance. You expect everything to be spoon fed to you, you do not wish to learn the hard way. What that article shows is the names of the genes involved in the bacterial flagellum. The point of it being in Evidence Disproving Evolution is that as anyone can see the vast majority of the genes involved are unique to the flagellum, something which evolutionists deny.
How about something from your "Mutations" category? Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . AHAHAHAHAHA!! Um, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but you just included a very pro-evolution article on your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" page.
Unlike you and your fellow evolutionists, I do read what I link to. I also put Darwin's definition of evolution at the top of the article because it is necessary to understand what the opposition is saying before discussing it (something which evolutionists cannot be bothered with). The article - from TalkOrigins - is there to show exactly what the quote from f.christian says - 'evolution is whatever lie you want it to be'. It shows that evolutionists are very afraid of their theory and cannot even agree on what it is.
Okay, maybe you'll get luckier in the "Darwin and his Theory" heading: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty.
Again you show you do not read for understanding, but only for ideology. You show that you look at every question through the 'is it on my side or theirs' binoculars. The article shows tremendous problems with both gradual evolution and punk eek. Moreover, it shows that the evolutionists are saying that biology must be disregarded when talking about evolution! Now if that does not show my point (from an evolutionist!) that evolution is not science, then waht does??????
More is at stake here than the reality of species, however. If species sorting is real, then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations (microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled up. After decades of experiments on fruit flies, the most interesting evolutionary phenomena might only be studied in the fossil record, or in the embryology lab. With publications, prestige, and grant money on the line, the traditional research community of evolutionary biologists do not want to find themselves suddenly irrelevant to the most interesting issues in macroevolution. On the other hand, paleontologists have begun to shed their subservience to evolutionary biology (Gould, 1983), and assert the importance of the fossil record for detecting phenomena that are too large in scale for biologists to observe [emphasis mine] (Gould, 1982a, 1982b, 1985; Eldredge, 1985b). Clearly, all of evolutionary biology is undergoing ferment and change. To the paraphrase the old Chinese proverb, we indeed live in interesting times.
From the conclusion of: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty
these threads consistently contain reams of facts,
Not from evolutionists, which taking you as an example, do not even try to understand the questions involved or the position of the other side. You could not even be bothered to read the articles you attacked me for including in the discussion, you attacked me for trying to give those interested in the subject an understanding of the terms and the position of the other side. Clearly you and your friends are only incapable of doing anything more than posting links because you are incapable of understanding the theory which you support so vehemently.
You can read, can't you? If you could read, then you would have read this:
Do you represent the typical non-thinking defender of evolution or are you just exceptionally blind?
It's no wonder you're losing the battle in the classroom.
I hope you don't mind if I ignore you in the future. There's no point in communicating with you if you don't read the responses.
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.