Of course I have judged you, ABE. You have made so many claims on here which you are clearly not qualified to make, that it is impossible not to judge you.
You, and probably everyone else here, have also judged me, based on what I have said. I dare say some other people's judgement of me might be different from yours. Likewise, their judgements of you are probably different than mine.
But that's really the crux of the problem, isn't it? People make different judgements about people/events/beliefs, based on their own experiences.
> 2. You are in no position to judge my credentials, because you
> don’t know them.
You're right that I don't know your credentials, but I have used logic and reason to deduce, based on your comments throughout this discussion, that you have very limited scientific knowledge/experience. Others here might see it differently - I would be interested in hearing their opinions. I'm going to call your bluff here: if you really want us to believe you have credentials, produce them. Or at least describe something from your field of expertise.
You could start by telling us which isotope of mercury you would like transformed into which isotope of gold, and how much you're willing to pay me for my service.
You see ABE, most people, when they don't know something, don't pretend that they do.
> 3. You are prime example of someone who jumps to conclusions.
Isn't this covered under observation 1.?
> 4. You consistently reject using logic and reason.
I've just used them, under my definition of "logic and reason". I've already said this - your definition of "logic and reason" is entirely different from my definition. You and I are clearly very different people, ABE.
> 5. You think you know it all.
That is patently absurd. I claimed to have credentials in the area of genetic research, and that is all I claim. I didn't link to my publications for the reason I gave above (comment 201). But I did provide support for my claim by describing, in great detail, some studies from my area of "expertise". You don't believe I have the credentials I claim to have? Tough luck.
Other people here probably see it differently. In fact, I'm willing to open that up for discussion too - anyone else here think I'm a phony? Want to tell me what you think I lied about?
Either way, my credentials aren't important. I've just been reading the website of the National Science Teachers Association . Their credentials are important; maybe you should go complain to them.
> 6, You use ridicule because you have no better response.
Pot calls kettle black.
> 7. You contradict yourself.
> Comment 203
> “But Greg, you said earlier that
> you “don't do research to
> specifically prove or disprove
> evolution” .
> Which is it?
> This litany of detail, or your
> earlier statement?
ABE, everyone can read this entire thread. Some people have followed it from start to finish. Do you really think people don't notice when you quote other people completely out of context? Do you really think it makes you look smart? Do you really think you "win" by doing it?
277 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 6:27 am
Duane:
Your attempt at ridicule is juvenile. Grow up.
---
Greg:
Same message.
Except you go over the edge.
Duane simply mumbles;
You harangue.
It’s pathetic to see your lack of ability to win an argument without resorting to such juvenile techniques.
You show your ignorance by ridiculing my understanding.
Right, but one of those avenues have a factual basis and the other has no support, therefor option A is not appropriate for science class. For 200+ comments I have heard every effort on you part to refute that claim and it can't be done. Since your argument is falling on (rightfully) deaf ears, give up.
282 -
Steve
Sep 02, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Greg,
Re. your point about Hitler, yes he was a confused (not to mention evil) guy, but as far as I know he always led the nation on a secular platform (just like Arthur Conan Doyle, who was heavily into spiritualism, always wrote Sherlock Holmes as a rationalist). I'm certainly not saying that bad things haven't been done 'in the name of' Christianity over the centuries but...you look at the body count, and more were killed in the 20th century by atheistic regimes than were killed in all the recorded 'religious' wars in history. Just going by the facts, that's all.
Also, there are a number of scientists from all disciplines who are not evolutionists, this notion that without evolution, there would be no science has got to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard, and flies in the face of the history of science. Nobody has, or should have, a monopoly on who studies the universe. The more viewpoints there are, the better the chance of groundbreaking discoveries...tunnel vision will only slow us down. Remember, I'm not the one who is saying only one view should be taught. Your comment is getting close to the root of the matter though (Greg < "you're going to have a hard time convincing biologists to become biology teachers") is telling. Evolutionary biologists are not the only biologists out there, you know?? Most biologists involved in major discoveries in the history of science have not been evolutionists. I think the real issue is, you want your RELIGION of evolution taught to the exclusion of all other views. That's what's really going on (at least in your case, not saying everybody). You know, Greg, I loved biology in high school, it was my favorite subject...you know why??...because it propped up my atheism nicely (or so I thought at the time). It was my religion in my teens. That is why it is so dangerous to teach only one view of origins in science class, Greg...because you are really only teaching one worldview...very dangerous indeed. Just like the Taliban was doing in Afghanistan..it's just indoctrination, please wake up, Greg!
283 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Sorry Cranky Liberal:
“Right, but one of those avenues have a factual basis and the other has no support”
A factual basis?
---
Your “avenue” with a “factual basis” is not factual.
Your “factual basis” has a GAP that is wider than the Grand Canyon, and you can’t see it because you don’t want to see it.
The Intelligent Design option challenges the GAP in your “theory“.
The GAP is there -- your “theory“ is unproven.
Yet -- you continue to deny there is a GAP.
And you insist on concealing what is unknown to public school students.
What you are proposing is that “it can’t be proven -- BUT it will be proven someday!”
That’s not science.
Take your magic show elsewhere.
Otherwise -- show some intelligence and admit the GAP is there.
"Has anyone seen proof that a complex system of order came about by chance?
"If so, please tell me about it."
There are actually several examples. Look at crystals for example. Disolve Alum in water in a clean glass and you will get a large crystal pyramid. Are you saying that God placed each atom after each other in order and orientation to create the crystal out of randomness?
You propose two suggestions for how the Universe can into being. However, a scientist would not assume either suggestion, because there is no proof of either suggestion. It is not a matter of making a choice between a designer and random chance. The scientific answer is "We don't have any evidence."
Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school...
285 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Thank you Dr. Forbush:
Your example of crystals is interesting but doesn’t fill the bill.
I have no idea why “God placed each atom after each other in order and orientation to create the crystal out of randomness“, but it wasn’t likely to have come about by chance.
If such phenomena is produced by “chance” and that is an immutable law, it should have been replicated throughout the universe.
We don’t see metamorphosis or other such “magical” transformations, except in extremely rare cases.
___
“You propose two suggestions for how the Universe can into being. However, a scientist would not assume either suggestion, because there is no proof of either suggestion. It is not a matter of making a choice between a designer and random chance. The scientific answer is "We don't have any evidence."
I agree.
“Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school…”
Steve> Also, there are a number of scientists from
Steve> all disciplines who are not evolutionists, this
Steve> notion that without evolution, there would
Steve> be no science has got to be one of the
Steve> dumbest statements I've ever heard, and
Steve> flies in the face of the history of science.
Ah, misquoted again. How I enjoy being misquoted.
I said the theory of evolution is the unifying theory of BIOLOGY, I said BIOLOGISTS believe that theory. And a whole lot of scientists from other disciplines besides.
Steve> Evolutionary biologists are not the only
Steve> biologists out there, you know??
Your point being?
Steve> Most biologists involved in major
Steve> discoveries in the history of science have
Steve> not been evolutionists.
Stats please. Verified stats. Don't send us another link to one of your creationist propaganda sites.
Steve> you want your RELIGION of evolution taught
Steve> to the exclusion of all other views
At school, yes. You've got your churches for your views. Schools is all we have.
Steve> That is why it is so dangerous to teach only
Steve> one view of origins in science class
But Steve, it's the only one with any science to back it up!
Look, I'll say this one last time, and then I'm out of here. The vast majority of biologists, as well as scientists from other disciplines - the people who are BEST ABLE TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE - believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be. They also believe that this evidence completely contradicts the biblical account of creation.
You and ABE don't have the knowledge to make a judgement one way or the other on whether the theory of evolution is correct or not, and yet you still insist on making that judgement.
And it's obvious why you want to make that judgement: because the theory of evolution completely undermines your belief system.
Just because you and ABE think you are entitled to make that judgement, doesn't mean you are. And it doesn't mean policy-makers will listen to you, when they have educated people to give them sound advice.
Finally:
Steve> Just like the Taliban was doing in
Steve> Afghanistan
You tell me what the Taliban's view on evolution is, Steve, and then we'll get closer to the truth of who is REALLY like the Taliban.
Okay, I've got it figured out. Abe isn't arguing Intelligent Design at all. He/she/it won't explain what/who/from where/why the "intelligence" is, or how/why/when/where it designed and created the universe, or how it differs from creationism, or where the proof is for it, or anything.
That's because Abe is not arguing for ID, he/she/it is arguing solely against evolution.
"What ID postulates is that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary “theory”." No, what it postulates is that the presence of a design indicates the presence and intervention of a designer, without giving any methods of creation whatsoever. (The Intelligent Designer could use evolution, for all ID says.)
YOU are postulating that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary theory for it to be taught in schools. Fine, sure, whatever. What should be taught in its place? I'll rephrase that: what should be taught in its place without MORE gaps than evolution currently has? Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence. ID- at least if your championship of it is anything to go by, which I very much doubt- has NO evidence whatsoever. There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be. There is NOTHING. You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like, but when your alternative has no holes because there's no cheese, YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach ID in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for ID that you can give. All you can do is say "there are gaps in the fossil record" over and over like a broken record. Okay, fine, evolution is wrong. What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?
289 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 5:15 pm
It’s interesting how Gwen can misinterpret something:
---
Comment 285
“Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school…”
---
Gwen says:
“Abe isn't arguing Intelligent Design at all.”
How did Gwen come to that conclusion?
---
One more time, Gwen:
Either NEITHER “theory is taught in public schools…
It's interesting how ABE can misinterpret something:
"What ID postulates is that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary “theory”." No, what it postulates is that the presence of a design indicates the presence and intervention of a designer, without giving any methods of creation whatsoever. (The Intelligent Designer could use evolution, for all ID says.)
YOU are postulating that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary theory for it to be taught in schools. Fine, sure, whatever. What should be taught in its place? I'll rephrase that: what should be taught in its place without MORE gaps than evolution currently has? Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence. ID- at least if your championship of it is anything to go by, which I very much doubt- has NO evidence whatsoever. There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be. There is NOTHING. You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like, but when your alternative has no holes because there's no cheese, YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach ID in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for ID that you can give. All you can do is say "there are gaps in the fossil record" over and over like a broken record. Okay, fine, evolution is wrong. What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?> Comprende?
Abe I understand that you're one angry person with way too much time to squander.
My original position has been restated by how many people now?
You seem to be in this just to wear people out, and that's no fun at all.
292 -
Duane
Sep 02, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Please see my post 205 for a refresher course explaining the IDer tactics used at BlogCritics. Post 232 expands a bit on the tactics used by the "professional" IDers.
293 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 6:23 pm
It's interesting how Gwen continues to misinterpret.
---
What ID postulates is that there is no proof that one species evolves into another species -- and there are too many unknowns in evolutionary “theory”,
What ID postulates is that randomness is inadequate to account for the complexity and order of the Universe.
---
But you are right on one point.
“The Intelligent Designer could use evolution“, for all ID says.”
You are correct in saying that “intelligence” could produce “randomness“,
It happens all the time.
Just spin the wheel in a game of “chance” such as Roulette.
There is “intelligence” behind the wheel.
---
“What should be taught in its place?”
One possibility -- “evolution theory” including the GAPS.
---
“ Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence.”
Then TEACH that -- and teach the GAPS.
Teach that there is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF that one species evolved into another species.
---
Again, Gwen fails to get it…
“There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be.”
Do you honestly believe it is “scientifically’ correct to teach the evolutionary theory” precept that “one species evolves into another” when there is no scientific evidence of it?
---
“You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like…“
But don’t say that the Swiss cheese doesn’t have HOLES -- and sell it as Cheddar or some other cheese.
That’s called FRAUD.
---
YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach EVOLUTION in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for EVOLUTION that you can give. All you can do is say "evolution is proven" over and over like a broken record.
Hovever, EVOLUTION is NOT PROVEN.
What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?
TBD.
Capisci?
294 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Pia:
It won’t work.
“Abe I understand that you're one angry person...”
Are you my psychiatrist?
My original position has been restated by how many people now?
Don’t forget what Bernard Baruch said about that.
You seem to be in this just to wear people out, and that's no fun at all.
ABE:
"How many instances of your example are there in the Universe?"
Every single time you do it you get the same results. That would be infinite.
Or, do you mean how many different crystals can be created by randomness? There are quite a few, and it happens all over the universe.
Is your standard somehow related to an assumption that life only exists on Earth?
I don't understand how you can spout nonsense with such bravado. You must be related to George W Bush who thinks that if he says it often enough it must be true. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. There are observations and experiments that need to be done before you can jump to a conclusion that there is an Intellegent Designer...
298 -
Steve
Sep 02, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Greg,
My point was that not all biologists agree (or scientists from other disciplines for that matter). Again, you overstate your case thru hyperbole. Of course, you would probably hear of more than the ones who have publicly stated their non-evolutionary views but it doesn't help when non-evolutionary scientists are threatened with being fired if they don't toe the party line!
"Greg < At school, yes. You've got your churches for your views. Schools is all we have."
Greg, schools are run by the govt., churches are not...sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. We all pay for our schools, you don't pay for our churches...sorry my friend...the comparison doesn't look good re. your argument against govt. funding for ID.
As far as scientific discoveries, there were dozens before evolution came along, so obviously those scientists weren't evolutionists!! How you can say there weren't any is beyond me!! Are you really unaware of ANY??? I think you need to study human history a bit more, you seem to be lost in your 'pre-history'. However, if you really do need a 'history of scientific discovery' 101 class, I guess I could fill you in, just alot of typing that's all.
You wont find any former members of the Taliban advocating what I have been, my friend i.e. equal time for all views on origins. Too bad you can't see the similarities with your own position and theirs. As a biblical creationist, I don't go by the Koran by the way.
Did you know Greg, that US high schoolers in the early grades rated higher than other Western countries, in the middle grades they rated the same, and in the later grades, they were behind most other Western countries?? The point is, too much education can be a bad thing too. Not all scientific discoveries came from the 'mainstream' of science in the past...you berate those outside of it now at your peril. I'm not asking you to accept alternate theories per se. Just asking you to be a little less dogmatic about your own, that's all.
Re. evidence, as I've said before, I've found alot in evolution rests on assumptions based on historical silence more often than not...definitely not a good basis for dogmatism.
299 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Dr. Forbush’s retort.
"How many instances of your example are there in the Universe?" Every single time you do it you get the same results. That would be infinite. Or, do you mean how many different crystals can be created by randomness? There are quite a few, and it happens all over the universe.
“Quite a few” is the correct answer.
Not quite a universal phenomena.
We all know there are aberrations in the Universe.
---
“Is your standard somehow related to an assumption that life only exists on Earth?”
Whether it does or not, we cannot agree on what we perceive here and can measure here on Earth -- so why bring that up?
I don't understand why you bring up such an irrelevant topic at this juncture.
I just can't seem to bring myself to leave this alone.
Steve> ...it doesn't help when non-evolutionary
Steve> scientists are threatened with being fired if
Steve> they don't toe the party line!
If they've been beavering away for 35 years, as you claim (comment 216), and still haven't come up with one single result that the rest of the scientific community will accept, then they deserve to be fired.
Steve> Greg, schools are run by the govt., churches
Steve> are not...sounds like you want to have your
Steve> cake and eat it too. We all pay for our
Steve> schools, you don't pay for our
Steve> churches...sorry my friend...the comparison
Steve> doesn't look good re. your argument against
Steve> govt. funding for ID.
Ah, yes it does, actually. People go to their church/mosque/synagogue/whatever to satisfy their SPIRITUAL needs. Some of those people are willing to part with large amounts of money because of the joy that celebrating their spirituality brings them. Fortunately, society hasn't made it compulsory to have a soul, and those of us who don't have souls, and who live in free democratic countries, aren't forced to attend churches/mosques/synagogues/etc and aren't forced to fund them.
On the other hand, a good standard of education - including an education in science - for everyone is generally seen as beneficial to the whole of society, and that's why everyone pays for it.
I don't know what it's like in Canada (actually I do, but that's a different story), but where I live you can pull your kid from classes you don't want them to attend, or even home-school them completely, if you're that paranoid about them being exposed to 'dangerous' ideas.
Steve> As far as scientific discoveries, there were
Steve> dozens before evolution came along, so
Steve> obviously those scientists weren't
Steve> evolutionists!! How you can say there
Steve> weren't any is beyond me!! Are you really
Steve> unaware of ANY???
Your most feeble argument yet! Of course there were no evolutionists before anyone had come up with the idea! That's like saying "Where were all the heliocentrists before anyone had worked out that the earth isn't the centre of the universe?". Or "Where were all the Christians before Jesus hit the streets?".
Unlike you Steve, I don't pick and choose the science that fits nicely into my belief system, and flatly reject the rest. I give it all a chance, I let time and the scientific community decide which is "right". And I most certainly don't turn to the anti-science crowd for advice about science, just as I don't turn to oil companies for reliable information about the environment, or take my car to my hairdresser to have it fixed.
Steve> You wont find any former members of the
Steve> Taliban advocating what I have been, my
Steve> friend i.e. equal time for all views on
Steve> origins.
That's not really what you're advocating though, is it Steve? What you're trying to advocate is the dilution (or even abolition) of the teaching of the theory of evolution in the school curriculum. Come on, be honest.
If you want to have a new subject - World Religions, or some such - introduced into the curriculum, go petition your local politician/school board. But don't try to put it in a science class, because there isn't any science to it. You yourself have admitted that.
If you want it in the science class, then you could divide the time based on the relative amounts of scientific evidence for each theory. In which case you'd be committing ... oh ... 0% of the time to ID/creation.
BTW, you're the one who started bandying around the term "Taliban". When you get back to me about the Taliban's views on scientific discovery, the theory of evolution, and the value of actually thinking for yourself, then we can talk about which of us fits the tag better.
Steve> As a biblical creationist, I don't go by the
Steve> Koran by the way.
But you'd have to admit that their scientific evidence to support their beliefs is just as solid as yours.
Steve> Did you know Greg, that US high schoolers
Steve> in the early grades rated higher than other
Steve> Western countries, in the middle grades
Steve> they rated the same, and in the later grades,
Steve> they were behind most other Western
Steve> countries?? The point is, too much
Steve> education can be a bad thing too.
I agree with you that there are probably better ways to educate people than the way we do it now. But I disagree that placing LESS emphasis on science is the way to do it.
Steve> Not all scientific discoveries came from the
Steve> 'mainstream' of science in the past...you
Steve> berate those outside of it now at your peril.
Who's berating it? I have inestimable admiration for those scientists (such as Darwin and Russell) who have done such good science, and have come up with such good hypotheses, that they have shattered the prevailing beliefs of their times. Science which has not only withstood scrutiny, but has been strengthened by it. But it has to be good science to do that, not some crackpot idea with no basis in reality.
What I am saying is that we have a better understanding of the world around us now than we have ever had in the past. I'm saying that our methods of investigating the world around us are better than they have ever been. Do you disagree with that? You're going to have to come up with some pretty good evidence to shake most of today's foundations of science. So far, your creation scientists/IDers have failed to cut the mustard in that respect.
Steve> I'm not asking you to accept alternate
Steve> theories per se. Just asking you to be a little
Steve> less dogmatic about your own, that's all.
Likewise.
Anyways, all of this detracts from Pia's original blog. The teaching of the theory of evolution is not on trial here. It's already being taught in schools, and for good reason - because society as a whole has accepted it. What you need to do is convince society that your idea is just as scientifically sound as the theory of evolution, and then you can teach it. So far, society ain't buyin' it. But you can go on (and on ... and on ...) trying.
Ooh look, I'm comment #300.
301 -
ABE
Sep 02, 2005 at 11:02 pm
“The teaching of the theory of evolution is not on trial here. “
Have you been asleep?
302 -
Steve
Sep 03, 2005 at 12:10 am
Greg,
Again you fail to realise there is far more to science than evolution. I wasn't talking about putting less emphasis on science, I was talking about being more intellectually honest about the fact that origins involve other topics, not just science!! Hence putting origins in a class of it's own.
I find it intriguing that you fail to bring up the names of any accomplished scientists pre-Darwin...not only do you seem to believe that evolution is science, which is one thing, but you also seem to believe that science is evolution!!! Wow, what a small view of science you have. Just because people aren't evolutionists does not make them anti-science...methinks it is you who are paranoid.
I've heard of a number of creationists who have been accredited for their work (as long as they don't mention the fact that they are creationists, of course...so much for 'free scientific inquiry', but if you don't toe the party line...bye bye).
I say again, this notion you have that no one can do real science without being devoted to evolution is just another big lie I'm afraid.
And Greg, I have a shocker for you...we all pick and choose things that fit our belief system, if you think you are exempt in that regard I feel sorry for you. And we do it because we both believe our belief system to be the correct one! Naturalism is one of many ways of looking at the universe, you have chosen to limit yourself to that one view, most other people in the world have not.
I am not advocating the abolition of teaching of evolution. All I'm looking for is a level playing field. I do believe, however, that when people who don't realise there are other ways of looking at the universe, find out there are other options, I think it will ultimately die out as a theory. That is what you are afraid of, isn't it? I say again, if you are really so right and invincible, I really don't know what you are so afraid of.
"Society as a whole has accepted it"? Every US poll I've seen says the majority of people are open to other views being taught. They apparently don't accept it as rigidly as you do.
You say at one point in your post, "I let time and the scientific community decide what is right" then you talk about "the value of thinking for yourself". Do you really think you are doing both of those things??
I certainly haven't been arguing that my viewpoint be taught exclusively, I would not be comfortable with that idea at all, from my reading of the history of science, I have seen the perils of teaching science from one perspective alone...so I haven't been nearly as dogmatic as you have been.
Steve> And we do it because we both believe our
Steve> belief system to be the correct one!
Too true. It's obvious we'll never agree, so why continue arguing?
One thing I've been curious about all along, though, is what changed your mind. When did you turn from an atheist evolutionist to a Christian creationist, and why? Did it coincide with any major life events, eg. fallling in love, a near-death experience? What happened, man?
304 -
Duane
Sep 03, 2005 at 1:39 pm
AbE says: ID points out holes and gaps in evolutionary “theory”.
For the millionth time, ID does no such thing. ID is a parasitic movement -- it's not a theory. ID bloodsuckers latch onto real scientists, find out what the problems are at the cutting edge of research, then parrot what they've been told by scientists, as if they could have figured this stuff out on their own. What a great joke. Then the scientifically disgruntled guys like ABe come along: Oh lordy --
Against Believers in Evolution
who pretends to be confronting scientists with the tough questions. It's all part of the ploy. IDers have yet to produce a single scientific idea on their own, in spite of the substantial funding they receive from religious dogmatists. They are scientifically impotent. They have zippo. All they can do is suck blood off the body scientific.
Wish that I had a good prize to award you, but I only have the Seinfeld Prize for much talk about nothing, and this certainly calls for something better!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Duane deserves the Aristotle Award for Logic and Reason.
This is too much fun.
Greg> "I let time and the scientific community
Greg> decide what is right"
...
Greg> "the value of thinking for yourself"
Steve> Do you really think you are doing both of
Steve> those things??
Yup. I was talking about thinking for yourself on day-to-day issues, issues that science (for the most part) can't/hasn't reached conclusions on. Issues like (sensitive readers may want to turn away here):
- whether I should have sex/oral sex with a woman (or man, for that matter), and whether I should use contraception while I'm doing it;
- whether I should treat women as my intellectual equals (or superiors, even);
- whether I should masturbate if I feel like it;
- whether I should go buy a case of my favourite beer and drink the whole thing in one night;
- what I should do with my spare time on any given Sunday;
- what I can eat on any given day of the week/year;
- whether a bat is a bird or a mammal, and whether I should make soup or a kebab out of one.
I suspect your church, and the Taliban, is a little more DOGMATIC about such issues.
I have a couple more questions to add to the list of un-answered ones.
How much time do you spend in church teaching the theory of evolution?
The same amount of time as you spend talking about Genesis?
Have you ever invited an atheist evolutionist into your church to explain the theory of evolution? If not, why not?
307 -
Steve
Sep 04, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Greg,
To my knowledge, the churches I've been involved with have never had anyone speak on the issue of the creation/evolution conflict from either side. I would expect if we did, we would have speakers from different sides of the debate because I don't think any one opinion on the issue is dominant in the churches I've been involved with. Which is what I would expect of schools, after all, they are using public money! I always say, if you are going to eat at the public trough, be prepared for questions and objections. That's a part of what a democracy is all about.
Re. day to day issues, I can't recall any teaching that has come up on eating bats, or what I can eat on a given day of the year, whether women are intellectually superior or not, or what we do with our spare time on a Sunday (Sunday is not the only day one can attend church these days, lots of churches have more than one service in a week). As far as the other issues go, I feel sorry for anyone whose life is so boring, that they have to drink themselves silly...after all, not only does it reduce your muscle coordination and make you more liable for nasty falls, but around people it also hampers your judgment and makes it more likely you'll make big mistakes you would never do in your right mind. Both my parents had drinking problems of different types, and I have to say, it was rarely amusing or entertaining. They were lovely people mostly when they were sober. My dad ultimately died of schirrosis (sorry about the spelling) of the liver. Nothing wrong with a drink or two, although I abstain myself because I can't stand the taste or smell of it.
Re. sex with others, well, we do have teaching on the dangers of that, as does our govt. here in Canada..seeing as it's misuse can often have so many disastrous consequences, I think it would be crazy to be silent about it. Re. masturbation, I've only heard one teaching on that in ten years, and that it's ok, within limits. It's suddenly dawned on me that I think you're confusing Christianity as a whole with Roman Catholicism and/or Islam...they are not quite the same thing (in the latter case..WAY different). But that's a whole other story.
Excuse me Steve, I believe that on Tuesday or Wednesday you told me that a hurricane in America wasn't important; we're not the center of the earth. I agreed with you but said whenever there is a disaster wherever that place is.
What I am trying to say is that we are a country in deep mourning for many reasons that are beyond your scope of understanding obviously.
This last comment had nothing to do with my post--I stopped trying to keep this on track several days ago.
You can keep your wonderful Christian mentality--you've more than proven during this thread that if you're a true Christian, I'm happy I'm not.
If you want to talk about the dangers of alochol find yourself another place; if you want to talk about sex etc same thing
And I do believe that you owe me an apology for your comment on the hurricane, but don't waste your time sending me one. That one comment proved that you have no understanding of true Christianity, compassion or human decency.
I'm in a horrible mood and don't want to begin cursing you so stay away please
If I remember my post it was on Intelligent Design as an infringement on the separation of church and state.
It was a good post but it's a bit irrelevant today
309 -
Greg
Sep 04, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Yeah, sorry Pia. I agree that this argument has gone off topic, and has become irrelevant at this stage.
I just take exception to being compared to the Taliban, that's all.
310 -
Steve
Sep 04, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Yes, Pia,
You are in a horrible mood, and I think it is clouding your judgment...no offense taken.
My judgement? When you said in some comment that America is not the center of the universe.
You didn't find the hurricane significant, and that speaks more about your character than I could ever say.
I really didn't have the heart for this thread since Tuesday morning. I let it get off topic.
That would have been poor judgement had I given a damn then. Yesterday I repeated your comment about America and repeated parts of your last comment and told you that they were totally extranous (again) to my argument
I have no patience nor respect for anybody who can minimize any disaster, and your comment about the hurricane stayed with me as an example of a callous, self centered person who considers himself to be a good Christian.
312 -
Steve
Sep 10, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Now you are really reading into what I said, I suspect because we have different worldviews to begin with. I guess that's par for the course. I didn't say the hurricane wasn't significant, my point was I saw no reason why I should put my life on hold for it, that's all. I also said my heart goes out to the families etc. which you amazingly managed to completely ignore...but anyway, I know it's been an awful week or two down there, so no offence taken.
It actually does have some bearing on our argument, about the limitations of science (in this case, when faced with natural disasters) but that does have bearing on the discussion about your article, i.e. what are the limitations of science re. origins. I really think we could save more people, discover more new things and able to harness them with fewer negative outcomes if science was a little more humble in it's approach to everything. It seems like science is more anxious to push boundaries without having a clear idea of where it's going. Certainly, some of the stuff that is allowed in our foods is ridiculous (e.g. genetically modified foods, etc.). I think increasingly, science is becoming more and more like a bull in a china shop, hence people are starting to have doubts about science's ability to keep itself in check. Hence things like the one in your article, which is only one area in a much bigger debate.
Please tell me that your comment is a joke, please.
When I said I didn't have the heart for this discussion did you think I was talking about a geographical location?
it's the people I care about and have spent the past two weeks donating money for, getting supplies for, and trying to rearrange my life so that I can go and volunteer as I do have certain skills they need and unfortunately will need for years.
I made that remark (I believe--can't remember) before the levees broke--at least a day before Condi Rice went to a Broadway play.
I'm not a scientist; never claimed to be. I just somehow understood that the US had never seen something so tragic as this--and I live in Manhattan--and am not in a good mood-tomorrow? 9/11?
oh right it happened in New York so it didn't impact on your life.
Well it changed mine in more ways than you could possibly imagine.
Just when I thought I could get through this month and the next when I had a personal family tragedy, Katrina happened.
And I'm not ashamed to say that I have spent much of the past two weeks in tears.
Only answered this comment because I found it to be personally insulting, and a good place to take out my anger.
Article comments
276 - Greg
> 1. You are judgmental.
Of course I have judged you, ABE. You have made so many claims on here which you are clearly not qualified to make, that it is impossible not to judge you.
You, and probably everyone else here, have also judged me, based on what I have said. I dare say some other people's judgement of me might be different from yours. Likewise, their judgements of you are probably different than mine.
But that's really the crux of the problem, isn't it? People make different judgements about people/events/beliefs, based on their own experiences.
> 2. You are in no position to judge my credentials, because you
> don’t know them.
You're right that I don't know your credentials, but I have used logic and reason to deduce, based on your comments throughout this discussion, that you have very limited scientific knowledge/experience. Others here might see it differently - I would be interested in hearing their opinions. I'm going to call your bluff here: if you really want us to believe you have credentials, produce them. Or at least describe something from your field of expertise.
You could start by telling us which isotope of mercury you would like transformed into which isotope of gold, and how much you're willing to pay me for my service.
You see ABE, most people, when they don't know something, don't pretend that they do.
> 3. You are prime example of someone who jumps to conclusions.
Isn't this covered under observation 1.?
> 4. You consistently reject using logic and reason.
I've just used them, under my definition of "logic and reason". I've already said this - your definition of "logic and reason" is entirely different from my definition. You and I are clearly very different people, ABE.
> 5. You think you know it all.
That is patently absurd. I claimed to have credentials in the area of genetic research, and that is all I claim. I didn't link to my publications for the reason I gave above (comment 201). But I did provide support for my claim by describing, in great detail, some studies from my area of "expertise". You don't believe I have the credentials I claim to have? Tough luck.
Other people here probably see it differently. In fact, I'm willing to open that up for discussion too - anyone else here think I'm a phony? Want to tell me what you think I lied about?
Either way, my credentials aren't important. I've just been reading the website of the National Science Teachers Association . Their credentials are important; maybe you should go complain to them.
> 6, You use ridicule because you have no better response.
Pot calls kettle black.
> 7. You contradict yourself.
> Comment 203
> “But Greg, you said earlier that
> you “don't do research to
> specifically prove or disprove
> evolution” .
> Which is it?
> This litany of detail, or your
> earlier statement?
ABE, everyone can read this entire thread. Some people have followed it from start to finish. Do you really think people don't notice when you quote other people completely out of context? Do you really think it makes you look smart? Do you really think you "win" by doing it?
277 - ABE
Duane:
Your attempt at ridicule is juvenile. Grow up.
---
Greg:
Same message.
Except you go over the edge.
Duane simply mumbles;
You harangue.
It’s pathetic to see your lack of ability to win an argument without resorting to such juvenile techniques.
You show your ignorance by ridiculing my understanding.
That’s not debate.
Do you really think you "win" by doing it?
278 - pia
Abe
It's you who needs to grow up. Your are condenscending, and refuse to listen to anybody else's opinion.
Yet you say you are open minded while everybody else refuses to see life your way.
The only true way. Abe's way.
279 - ABE
Pia:
You say I don’t listen?
I listen.
I just don’t buy your argument.
And because I don’t buy your argument, you are offended.
It's you who needs to grow up.
You are offended because I have frustrated your effort to control the debate.
You want to appear to be open-minded but you fail the test.
You disappoint me.
280 - ABE
What is this debate about?
The debate boils down to proof.
---
1. The Universe exists.
2 The Universe provides no evidence as to how it came about.
3. Matter appeared where no matter existed.
4. Matter was combined with the Forces to control it.
5 The Universe comprises several forces:
a. The Electromagnetic Force
d. Gravity.
b. The Strong Force
c. The Weak Force
6. The Forces act in accordance with “rules” -- fixed laws.
7. Life appeared on Earth -- one planet in the Universe.
8. Life appeared in thousands of different forms.
---
How did this all happen?
There are at least two possibilities to be considered:
a. “Something” or “someone” -- “created” the Universe.
b. Matter and the Forces controlling Matter “happenened” by “chance”.
Some believe that complexity and order show “design”.
Others believe that complexity and order happen by “chance”.
As I stated above, if you close your eyes and throw a shovel full of sand up in the air, do you expect it to fall in the form of a sand castle?
I have never seen proof that a complex system of order came about by “chance“,
Has anyone seen proof that a complex system of order came about by chance?
If so, please tell me about it.
281 - Cranky Liberal
Right, but one of those avenues have a factual basis and the other has no support, therefor option A is not appropriate for science class. For 200+ comments I have heard every effort on you part to refute that claim and it can't be done. Since your argument is falling on (rightfully) deaf ears, give up.
282 - Steve
Greg,
Re. your point about Hitler, yes he was a confused (not to mention evil) guy, but as far as I know he always led the nation on a secular platform (just like Arthur Conan Doyle, who was heavily into spiritualism, always wrote Sherlock Holmes as a rationalist). I'm certainly not saying that bad things haven't been done 'in the name of' Christianity over the centuries but...you look at the body count, and more were killed in the 20th century by atheistic regimes than were killed in all the recorded 'religious' wars in history. Just going by the facts, that's all.
Also, there are a number of scientists from all disciplines who are not evolutionists, this notion that without evolution, there would be no science has got to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard, and flies in the face of the history of science. Nobody has, or should have, a monopoly on who studies the universe. The more viewpoints there are, the better the chance of groundbreaking discoveries...tunnel vision will only slow us down. Remember, I'm not the one who is saying only one view should be taught. Your comment is getting close to the root of the matter though (Greg < "you're going to have a hard time convincing biologists to become biology teachers") is telling. Evolutionary biologists are not the only biologists out there, you know?? Most biologists involved in major discoveries in the history of science have not been evolutionists. I think the real issue is, you want your RELIGION of evolution taught to the exclusion of all other views. That's what's really going on (at least in your case, not saying everybody). You know, Greg, I loved biology in high school, it was my favorite subject...you know why??...because it propped up my atheism nicely (or so I thought at the time). It was my religion in my teens. That is why it is so dangerous to teach only one view of origins in science class, Greg...because you are really only teaching one worldview...very dangerous indeed. Just like the Taliban was doing in Afghanistan..it's just indoctrination, please wake up, Greg!
283 - ABE
Sorry Cranky Liberal:
“Right, but one of those avenues have a factual basis and the other has no support”
A factual basis?
---
Your “avenue” with a “factual basis” is not factual.
Your “factual basis” has a GAP that is wider than the Grand Canyon, and you can’t see it because you don’t want to see it.
The Intelligent Design option challenges the GAP in your “theory“.
The GAP is there -- your “theory“ is unproven.
Yet -- you continue to deny there is a GAP.
And you insist on concealing what is unknown to public school students.
What you are proposing is that “it can’t be proven -- BUT it will be proven someday!”
That’s not science.
Take your magic show elsewhere.
Otherwise -- show some intelligence and admit the GAP is there.
284 - Dr. Forbush
ABE wrote:
"Has anyone seen proof that a complex system of order came about by chance?
"If so, please tell me about it."
There are actually several examples. Look at crystals for example. Disolve Alum in water in a clean glass and you will get a large crystal pyramid. Are you saying that God placed each atom after each other in order and orientation to create the crystal out of randomness?
You propose two suggestions for how the Universe can into being. However, a scientist would not assume either suggestion, because there is no proof of either suggestion. It is not a matter of making a choice between a designer and random chance. The scientific answer is "We don't have any evidence."
Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school...
285 - ABE
Thank you Dr. Forbush:
Your example of crystals is interesting but doesn’t fill the bill.
I have no idea why “God placed each atom after each other in order and orientation to create the crystal out of randomness“, but it wasn’t likely to have come about by chance.
If such phenomena is produced by “chance” and that is an immutable law, it should have been replicated throughout the universe.
We don’t see metamorphosis or other such “magical” transformations, except in extremely rare cases.
___
“You propose two suggestions for how the Universe can into being. However, a scientist would not assume either suggestion, because there is no proof of either suggestion. It is not a matter of making a choice between a designer and random chance. The scientific answer is "We don't have any evidence."
I agree.
“Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school…”
Well said.
286 - Greg
Steve> Also, there are a number of scientists from
Steve> all disciplines who are not evolutionists, this
Steve> notion that without evolution, there would
Steve> be no science has got to be one of the
Steve> dumbest statements I've ever heard, and
Steve> flies in the face of the history of science.
Ah, misquoted again. How I enjoy being misquoted.
I said the theory of evolution is the unifying theory of BIOLOGY, I said BIOLOGISTS believe that theory. And a whole lot of scientists from other disciplines besides.
Steve> Evolutionary biologists are not the only
Steve> biologists out there, you know??
Your point being?
Steve> Most biologists involved in major
Steve> discoveries in the history of science have
Steve> not been evolutionists.
Stats please. Verified stats. Don't send us another link to one of your creationist propaganda sites.
Steve> you want your RELIGION of evolution taught
Steve> to the exclusion of all other views
At school, yes. You've got your churches for your views. Schools is all we have.
Steve> That is why it is so dangerous to teach only
Steve> one view of origins in science class
But Steve, it's the only one with any science to back it up!
Look, I'll say this one last time, and then I'm out of here. The vast majority of biologists, as well as scientists from other disciplines - the people who are BEST ABLE TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE - believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be. They also believe that this evidence completely contradicts the biblical account of creation.
You and ABE don't have the knowledge to make a judgement one way or the other on whether the theory of evolution is correct or not, and yet you still insist on making that judgement.
And it's obvious why you want to make that judgement: because the theory of evolution completely undermines your belief system.
Just because you and ABE think you are entitled to make that judgement, doesn't mean you are. And it doesn't mean policy-makers will listen to you, when they have educated people to give them sound advice.
Finally:
Steve> Just like the Taliban was doing in
Steve> Afghanistan
You tell me what the Taliban's view on evolution is, Steve, and then we'll get closer to the truth of who is REALLY like the Taliban.
287 - pia
Greg
That was brilliant. Totally brilliant.
Thank you for that. Summed up a lot of feelings that other people (me) can't express so eloquently.
That was summed up, as in the end.
And it's my thread I should want it to go on!
288 - Gwen
Okay, I've got it figured out. Abe isn't arguing Intelligent Design at all. He/she/it won't explain what/who/from where/why the "intelligence" is, or how/why/when/where it designed and created the universe, or how it differs from creationism, or where the proof is for it, or anything.
That's because Abe is not arguing for ID, he/she/it is arguing solely against evolution.
"What ID postulates is that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary “theory”." No, what it postulates is that the presence of a design indicates the presence and intervention of a designer, without giving any methods of creation whatsoever. (The Intelligent Designer could use evolution, for all ID says.)
YOU are postulating that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary theory for it to be taught in schools. Fine, sure, whatever. What should be taught in its place? I'll rephrase that: what should be taught in its place without MORE gaps than evolution currently has? Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence. ID- at least if your championship of it is anything to go by, which I very much doubt- has NO evidence whatsoever. There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be. There is NOTHING. You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like, but when your alternative has no holes because there's no cheese, YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach ID in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for ID that you can give. All you can do is say "there are gaps in the fossil record" over and over like a broken record. Okay, fine, evolution is wrong. What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?
289 - ABE
It’s interesting how Gwen can misinterpret something:
---
Comment 285
“Conjectures without evidence should not be taught in public school…”
---
Gwen says:
“Abe isn't arguing Intelligent Design at all.”
How did Gwen come to that conclusion?
---
One more time, Gwen:
Either NEITHER “theory is taught in public schools…
OR
BOTH “theories” are taught.
---
Capisci?
290 - Gwen
It's interesting how ABE can misinterpret something:
YOU are postulating that there are too many unknowns in evolutionary theory for it to be taught in schools. Fine, sure, whatever. What should be taught in its place? I'll rephrase that: what should be taught in its place without MORE gaps than evolution currently has? Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence. ID- at least if your championship of it is anything to go by, which I very much doubt- has NO evidence whatsoever. There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be. There is NOTHING. You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like, but when your alternative has no holes because there's no cheese, YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach ID in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for ID that you can give. All you can do is say "there are gaps in the fossil record" over and over like a broken record. Okay, fine, evolution is wrong. What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?> Comprende?
291 - pia
Abe I understand that you're one angry person with way too much time to squander.
My original position has been restated by how many people now?
You seem to be in this just to wear people out, and that's no fun at all.
292 - Duane
Please see my post 205 for a refresher course explaining the IDer tactics used at BlogCritics. Post 232 expands a bit on the tactics used by the "professional" IDers.
293 - ABE
It's interesting how Gwen continues to misinterpret.
---
What ID postulates is that there is no proof that one species evolves into another species -- and there are too many unknowns in evolutionary “theory”,
What ID postulates is that randomness is inadequate to account for the complexity and order of the Universe.
---
But you are right on one point.
“The Intelligent Designer could use evolution“, for all ID says.”
You are correct in saying that “intelligence” could produce “randomness“,
It happens all the time.
Just spin the wheel in a game of “chance” such as Roulette.
There is “intelligence” behind the wheel.
---
“What should be taught in its place?”
One possibility -- “evolution theory” including the GAPS.
---
“ Yes, evolution has gaps, but it also has evidence. Solid, scientific, testable, quantifiable evidence.”
Then TEACH that -- and teach the GAPS.
Teach that there is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF that one species evolved into another species.
---
Again, Gwen fails to get it…
“There are no gaps in ID- because there is NO SUBSTANCE in which the gaps could be.”
Do you honestly believe it is “scientifically’ correct to teach the evolutionary theory” precept that “one species evolves into another” when there is no scientific evidence of it?
---
“You can liken evolution to Swiss cheese all you like…“
But don’t say that the Swiss cheese doesn’t have HOLES -- and sell it as Cheddar or some other cheese.
That’s called FRAUD.
---
YOU LOSE. PERIOD. Give us proof, give us tests, methods, and verifiable results, and not only will we teach EVOLUTION in schools, not only will you get the Nobel Prize, but we'll fall down and worship at your feet.
You can't. Why not? Because there is no actual proof for EVOLUTION that you can give. All you can do is say "evolution is proven" over and over like a broken record.
Hovever, EVOLUTION is NOT PROVEN.
What, then, explains the origin of the world? What SCIENTIFICALLY (you know, following the scientific method type scientifically) explains the origin of species?
TBD.
Capisci?
294 - ABE
Pia:
It won’t work.
“Abe I understand that you're one angry person...”
Are you my psychiatrist?
My original position has been restated by how many people now?
Don’t forget what Bernard Baruch said about that.
You seem to be in this just to wear people out, and that's no fun at all.
I don’t see anybody getting worn out.
295 - Dr. Forbush
"If such phenomena is produced by “chance” and that is an immutable law, it should have been replicated throughout the universe."
And it is, so what is your point?
296 - ABE
How many instances of your example are there in the Universe?
297 - Dr. Forbush
ABE:
"How many instances of your example are there in the Universe?"
Every single time you do it you get the same results. That would be infinite.
Or, do you mean how many different crystals can be created by randomness? There are quite a few, and it happens all over the universe.
Is your standard somehow related to an assumption that life only exists on Earth?
I don't understand how you can spout nonsense with such bravado. You must be related to George W Bush who thinks that if he says it often enough it must be true. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. There are observations and experiments that need to be done before you can jump to a conclusion that there is an Intellegent Designer...
298 - Steve
Greg,
My point was that not all biologists agree (or scientists from other disciplines for that matter). Again, you overstate your case thru hyperbole. Of course, you would probably hear of more than the ones who have publicly stated their non-evolutionary views but it doesn't help when non-evolutionary scientists are threatened with being fired if they don't toe the party line!
"Greg < At school, yes. You've got your churches for your views. Schools is all we have."
Greg, schools are run by the govt., churches are not...sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. We all pay for our schools, you don't pay for our churches...sorry my friend...the comparison doesn't look good re. your argument against govt. funding for ID.
As far as scientific discoveries, there were dozens before evolution came along, so obviously those scientists weren't evolutionists!! How you can say there weren't any is beyond me!! Are you really unaware of ANY??? I think you need to study human history a bit more, you seem to be lost in your 'pre-history'. However, if you really do need a 'history of scientific discovery' 101 class, I guess I could fill you in, just alot of typing that's all.
You wont find any former members of the Taliban advocating what I have been, my friend i.e. equal time for all views on origins. Too bad you can't see the similarities with your own position and theirs. As a biblical creationist, I don't go by the Koran by the way.
Did you know Greg, that US high schoolers in the early grades rated higher than other Western countries, in the middle grades they rated the same, and in the later grades, they were behind most other Western countries?? The point is, too much education can be a bad thing too. Not all scientific discoveries came from the 'mainstream' of science in the past...you berate those outside of it now at your peril. I'm not asking you to accept alternate theories per se. Just asking you to be a little less dogmatic about your own, that's all.
Re. evidence, as I've said before, I've found alot in evolution rests on assumptions based on historical silence more often than not...definitely not a good basis for dogmatism.
299 - ABE
Dr. Forbush’s retort.
"How many instances of your example are there in the Universe?" Every single time you do it you get the same results. That would be infinite. Or, do you mean how many different crystals can be created by randomness? There are quite a few, and it happens all over the universe.
“Quite a few” is the correct answer.
Not quite a universal phenomena.
We all know there are aberrations in the Universe.
---
“Is your standard somehow related to an assumption that life only exists on Earth?”
Whether it does or not, we cannot agree on what we perceive here and can measure here on Earth -- so why bring that up?
I don't understand why you bring up such an irrelevant topic at this juncture.
Are you baiting me?
---
Probably.
---
“You must be related to George W Bush..."
Yup.
Dr Forbush is a baiter. And a master at it.
300 - Greg
I just can't seem to bring myself to leave this alone.
Steve> ...it doesn't help when non-evolutionary
Steve> scientists are threatened with being fired if
Steve> they don't toe the party line!
If they've been beavering away for 35 years, as you claim (comment 216), and still haven't come up with one single result that the rest of the scientific community will accept, then they deserve to be fired.
Steve> Greg, schools are run by the govt., churches
Steve> are not...sounds like you want to have your
Steve> cake and eat it too. We all pay for our
Steve> schools, you don't pay for our
Steve> churches...sorry my friend...the comparison
Steve> doesn't look good re. your argument against
Steve> govt. funding for ID.
Ah, yes it does, actually. People go to their church/mosque/synagogue/whatever to satisfy their SPIRITUAL needs. Some of those people are willing to part with large amounts of money because of the joy that celebrating their spirituality brings them. Fortunately, society hasn't made it compulsory to have a soul, and those of us who don't have souls, and who live in free democratic countries, aren't forced to attend churches/mosques/synagogues/etc and aren't forced to fund them.
On the other hand, a good standard of education - including an education in science - for everyone is generally seen as beneficial to the whole of society, and that's why everyone pays for it.
I don't know what it's like in Canada (actually I do, but that's a different story), but where I live you can pull your kid from classes you don't want them to attend, or even home-school them completely, if you're that paranoid about them being exposed to 'dangerous' ideas.
Steve> As far as scientific discoveries, there were
Steve> dozens before evolution came along, so
Steve> obviously those scientists weren't
Steve> evolutionists!! How you can say there
Steve> weren't any is beyond me!! Are you really
Steve> unaware of ANY???
Your most feeble argument yet! Of course there were no evolutionists before anyone had come up with the idea! That's like saying "Where were all the heliocentrists before anyone had worked out that the earth isn't the centre of the universe?". Or "Where were all the Christians before Jesus hit the streets?".
Unlike you Steve, I don't pick and choose the science that fits nicely into my belief system, and flatly reject the rest. I give it all a chance, I let time and the scientific community decide which is "right". And I most certainly don't turn to the anti-science crowd for advice about science, just as I don't turn to oil companies for reliable information about the environment, or take my car to my hairdresser to have it fixed.
Steve> You wont find any former members of the
Steve> Taliban advocating what I have been, my
Steve> friend i.e. equal time for all views on
Steve> origins.
That's not really what you're advocating though, is it Steve? What you're trying to advocate is the dilution (or even abolition) of the teaching of the theory of evolution in the school curriculum. Come on, be honest.
If you want to have a new subject - World Religions, or some such - introduced into the curriculum, go petition your local politician/school board. But don't try to put it in a science class, because there isn't any science to it. You yourself have admitted that.
If you want it in the science class, then you could divide the time based on the relative amounts of scientific evidence for each theory. In which case you'd be committing ... oh ... 0% of the time to ID/creation.
BTW, you're the one who started bandying around the term "Taliban". When you get back to me about the Taliban's views on scientific discovery, the theory of evolution, and the value of actually thinking for yourself, then we can talk about which of us fits the tag better.
Steve> As a biblical creationist, I don't go by the
Steve> Koran by the way.
But you'd have to admit that their scientific evidence to support their beliefs is just as solid as yours.
Steve> Did you know Greg, that US high schoolers
Steve> in the early grades rated higher than other
Steve> Western countries, in the middle grades
Steve> they rated the same, and in the later grades,
Steve> they were behind most other Western
Steve> countries?? The point is, too much
Steve> education can be a bad thing too.
I agree with you that there are probably better ways to educate people than the way we do it now. But I disagree that placing LESS emphasis on science is the way to do it.
Steve> Not all scientific discoveries came from the
Steve> 'mainstream' of science in the past...you
Steve> berate those outside of it now at your peril.
Who's berating it? I have inestimable admiration for those scientists (such as Darwin and Russell) who have done such good science, and have come up with such good hypotheses, that they have shattered the prevailing beliefs of their times. Science which has not only withstood scrutiny, but has been strengthened by it. But it has to be good science to do that, not some crackpot idea with no basis in reality.
What I am saying is that we have a better understanding of the world around us now than we have ever had in the past. I'm saying that our methods of investigating the world around us are better than they have ever been. Do you disagree with that? You're going to have to come up with some pretty good evidence to shake most of today's foundations of science. So far, your creation scientists/IDers have failed to cut the mustard in that respect.
Steve> I'm not asking you to accept alternate
Steve> theories per se. Just asking you to be a little
Steve> less dogmatic about your own, that's all.
Likewise.
Anyways, all of this detracts from Pia's original blog. The teaching of the theory of evolution is not on trial here. It's already being taught in schools, and for good reason - because society as a whole has accepted it. What you need to do is convince society that your idea is just as scientifically sound as the theory of evolution, and then you can teach it. So far, society ain't buyin' it. But you can go on (and on ... and on ...) trying.
Ooh look, I'm comment #300.
301 - ABE
“The teaching of the theory of evolution is not on trial here. “
Have you been asleep?
302 - Steve
Greg,
Again you fail to realise there is far more to science than evolution. I wasn't talking about putting less emphasis on science, I was talking about being more intellectually honest about the fact that origins involve other topics, not just science!! Hence putting origins in a class of it's own.
I find it intriguing that you fail to bring up the names of any accomplished scientists pre-Darwin...not only do you seem to believe that evolution is science, which is one thing, but you also seem to believe that science is evolution!!! Wow, what a small view of science you have. Just because people aren't evolutionists does not make them anti-science...methinks it is you who are paranoid.
I've heard of a number of creationists who have been accredited for their work (as long as they don't mention the fact that they are creationists, of course...so much for 'free scientific inquiry', but if you don't toe the party line...bye bye).
I say again, this notion you have that no one can do real science without being devoted to evolution is just another big lie I'm afraid.
And Greg, I have a shocker for you...we all pick and choose things that fit our belief system, if you think you are exempt in that regard I feel sorry for you. And we do it because we both believe our belief system to be the correct one! Naturalism is one of many ways of looking at the universe, you have chosen to limit yourself to that one view, most other people in the world have not.
I am not advocating the abolition of teaching of evolution. All I'm looking for is a level playing field. I do believe, however, that when people who don't realise there are other ways of looking at the universe, find out there are other options, I think it will ultimately die out as a theory. That is what you are afraid of, isn't it? I say again, if you are really so right and invincible, I really don't know what you are so afraid of.
"Society as a whole has accepted it"? Every US poll I've seen says the majority of people are open to other views being taught. They apparently don't accept it as rigidly as you do.
You say at one point in your post, "I let time and the scientific community decide what is right" then you talk about "the value of thinking for yourself". Do you really think you are doing both of those things??
I certainly haven't been arguing that my viewpoint be taught exclusively, I would not be comfortable with that idea at all, from my reading of the history of science, I have seen the perils of teaching science from one perspective alone...so I haven't been nearly as dogmatic as you have been.
303 - Greg
Steve> And we do it because we both believe our
Steve> belief system to be the correct one!
Too true. It's obvious we'll never agree, so why continue arguing?
One thing I've been curious about all along, though, is what changed your mind. When did you turn from an atheist evolutionist to a Christian creationist, and why? Did it coincide with any major life events, eg. fallling in love, a near-death experience? What happened, man?
304 - Duane
AbE says: ID points out holes and gaps in evolutionary “theory”.
For the millionth time, ID does no such thing. ID is a parasitic movement -- it's not a theory. ID bloodsuckers latch onto real scientists, find out what the problems are at the cutting edge of research, then parrot what they've been told by scientists, as if they could have figured this stuff out on their own. What a great joke. Then the scientifically disgruntled guys like ABe come along: Oh lordy --
Against
Believers in
Evolution
who pretends to be confronting scientists with the tough questions. It's all part of the ploy. IDers have yet to produce a single scientific idea on their own, in spite of the substantial funding they receive from religious dogmatists. They are scientifically impotent. They have zippo. All they can do is suck blood off the body scientific.
Parasites.
305 - pia
Amazing Duane--so elementary, yet so evasive
Wish that I had a good prize to award you, but I only have the Seinfeld Prize for much talk about nothing, and this certainly calls for something better!!!!!!!!!!!
306 - Greg
I think Duane deserves the Aristotle Award for Logic and Reason.
This is too much fun.
Greg> "I let time and the scientific community
Greg> decide what is right"
...
Greg> "the value of thinking for yourself"
Steve> Do you really think you are doing both of
Steve> those things??
Yup. I was talking about thinking for yourself on day-to-day issues, issues that science (for the most part) can't/hasn't reached conclusions on. Issues like (sensitive readers may want to turn away here):
- whether I should have sex/oral sex with a woman (or man, for that matter), and whether I should use contraception while I'm doing it;
- whether I should treat women as my intellectual equals (or superiors, even);
- whether I should masturbate if I feel like it;
- whether I should go buy a case of my favourite beer and drink the whole thing in one night;
- what I should do with my spare time on any given Sunday;
- what I can eat on any given day of the week/year;
- whether a bat is a bird or a mammal, and whether I should make soup or a kebab out of one.
I suspect your church, and the Taliban, is a little more DOGMATIC about such issues.
I have a couple more questions to add to the list of un-answered ones.
How much time do you spend in church teaching the theory of evolution?
The same amount of time as you spend talking about Genesis?
Have you ever invited an atheist evolutionist into your church to explain the theory of evolution? If not, why not?
307 - Steve
Greg,
To my knowledge, the churches I've been involved with have never had anyone speak on the issue of the creation/evolution conflict from either side. I would expect if we did, we would have speakers from different sides of the debate because I don't think any one opinion on the issue is dominant in the churches I've been involved with. Which is what I would expect of schools, after all, they are using public money! I always say, if you are going to eat at the public trough, be prepared for questions and objections. That's a part of what a democracy is all about.
Re. day to day issues, I can't recall any teaching that has come up on eating bats, or what I can eat on a given day of the year, whether women are intellectually superior or not, or what we do with our spare time on a Sunday (Sunday is not the only day one can attend church these days, lots of churches have more than one service in a week). As far as the other issues go, I feel sorry for anyone whose life is so boring, that they have to drink themselves silly...after all, not only does it reduce your muscle coordination and make you more liable for nasty falls, but around people it also hampers your judgment and makes it more likely you'll make big mistakes you would never do in your right mind. Both my parents had drinking problems of different types, and I have to say, it was rarely amusing or entertaining. They were lovely people mostly when they were sober. My dad ultimately died of schirrosis (sorry about the spelling) of the liver. Nothing wrong with a drink or two, although I abstain myself because I can't stand the taste or smell of it.
Re. sex with others, well, we do have teaching on the dangers of that, as does our govt. here in Canada..seeing as it's misuse can often have so many disastrous consequences, I think it would be crazy to be silent about it. Re. masturbation, I've only heard one teaching on that in ten years, and that it's ok, within limits. It's suddenly dawned on me that I think you're confusing Christianity as a whole with Roman Catholicism and/or Islam...they are not quite the same thing (in the latter case..WAY different). But that's a whole other story.
308 - pia
Excuse me Steve, I believe that on Tuesday or Wednesday you told me that a hurricane in America wasn't important; we're not the center of the earth. I agreed with you but said whenever there is a disaster wherever that place is.
What I am trying to say is that we are a country in deep mourning for many reasons that are beyond your scope of understanding obviously.
This last comment had nothing to do with my post--I stopped trying to keep this on track several days ago.
You can keep your wonderful Christian mentality--you've more than proven during this thread that if you're a true Christian, I'm happy I'm not.
If you want to talk about the dangers of alochol find yourself another place; if you want to talk about sex etc same thing
And I do believe that you owe me an apology for your comment on the hurricane, but don't waste your time sending me one. That one comment proved that you have no understanding of true Christianity, compassion or human decency.
I'm in a horrible mood and don't want to begin cursing you so stay away please
If I remember my post it was on Intelligent Design as an infringement on the separation of church and state.
It was a good post but it's a bit irrelevant today
309 - Greg
Yeah, sorry Pia. I agree that this argument has gone off topic, and has become irrelevant at this stage.
I just take exception to being compared to the Taliban, that's all.
310 - Steve
Yes, Pia,
You are in a horrible mood, and I think it is clouding your judgment...no offense taken.
311 - pia
My judgement? When you said in some comment that America is not the center of the universe.
You didn't find the hurricane significant, and that speaks more about your character than I could ever say.
I really didn't have the heart for this thread since Tuesday morning. I let it get off topic.
That would have been poor judgement had I given a damn then. Yesterday I repeated your comment about America and repeated parts of your last comment and told you that they were totally extranous (again) to my argument
I have no patience nor respect for anybody who can minimize any disaster, and your comment about the hurricane stayed with me as an example of a callous, self centered person who considers himself to be a good Christian.
312 - Steve
Now you are really reading into what I said, I suspect because we have different worldviews to begin with. I guess that's par for the course. I didn't say the hurricane wasn't significant, my point was I saw no reason why I should put my life on hold for it, that's all. I also said my heart goes out to the families etc. which you amazingly managed to completely ignore...but anyway, I know it's been an awful week or two down there, so no offence taken.
It actually does have some bearing on our argument, about the limitations of science (in this case, when faced with natural disasters) but that does have bearing on the discussion about your article, i.e. what are the limitations of science re. origins. I really think we could save more people, discover more new things and able to harness them with fewer negative outcomes if science was a little more humble in it's approach to everything. It seems like science is more anxious to push boundaries without having a clear idea of where it's going. Certainly, some of the stuff that is allowed in our foods is ridiculous (e.g. genetically modified foods, etc.). I think increasingly, science is becoming more and more like a bull in a china shop, hence people are starting to have doubts about science's ability to keep itself in check. Hence things like the one in your article, which is only one area in a much bigger debate.
313 - pia
Please tell me that your comment is a joke, please.
When I said I didn't have the heart for this discussion did you think I was talking about a geographical location?
it's the people I care about and have spent the past two weeks donating money for, getting supplies for, and trying to rearrange my life so that I can go and volunteer as I do have certain skills they need and unfortunately will need for years.
I made that remark (I believe--can't remember) before the levees broke--at least a day before Condi Rice went to a Broadway play.
I'm not a scientist; never claimed to be. I just somehow understood that the US had never seen something so tragic as this--and I live in Manhattan--and am not in a good mood-tomorrow? 9/11?
oh right it happened in New York so it didn't impact on your life.
Well it changed mine in more ways than you could possibly imagine.
Just when I thought I could get through this month and the next when I had a personal family tragedy, Katrina happened.
And I'm not ashamed to say that I have spent much of the past two weeks in tears.
Only answered this comment because I found it to be personally insulting, and a good place to take out my anger.