Darwin's Birthday

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to either current events or, barring departure from this website, the posts from the fervent believers herein, those ardently on the offense for any idea in opposition of evolutionary theory.

Bring on the opposing ideas--scientific ideas, not claptrap like "Darwin was a proto-Nazi".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The reference, of course, was directed toward evolutionary biologists, not ID-er's. So fragile is the theory, it requires special protection from any and all dissention. It must needs our guardianship from any attack, whether from other legitimate scientific fields, or "others."
ID proponents are simply attempting to use plays out of the evolutionists' ...[text shortened]... as though they have given up on the whole 'shut them up with proof' idea. Sound familiar?

The theory of evolution is not "fragile" nor a belief. However the reason why cases have been taken to court is that people who believe that the theory of evolution conflicts with thier religion are attemting to discredit it through various means, none of them valid enough to stand up in court. If my sons school started puting on thier maths text books a statement saying that "mathematics is just a theory and is not proven" then I would take the school to court myself !
The issue is not whether the theory of evolution is correct but merely the quality of education that our children recieve.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The reference, of course, was directed toward evolutionary biologists, not ID-er's. So fragile is the theory, it requires special protection from any and all dissention. It must needs our guardianship from any attack, whether from other legitimate scientific fields, or "others."
ID proponents are simply attempting to use plays out of the evolutionists' ...[text shortened]... as though they have given up on the whole 'shut them up with proof' idea. Sound familiar?

Consider this: Throughout the twentieth century (an era of science and technology more so than any prior era), Americans were the world's leaders in development of technology, but often lagged behind their peers (sometimes far behind) in basic science. Why do we do so poorly in basic science? Perhaps, because only in America, do powerful cultural forces continue to question and challenge the fundamental principles of scientific methodology because religious leaders dislike the implications of scientific theory.

This perspective was put forth by a historian in my evening history class at a local college on Monday night. The historian has spent twenty-five years investigating this issue, and even embraced creationism for a time, so he has studied the issue from within the camp of "cultural conservatives," as well as from outside this camp.

In such a nation, perhaps the legal and political struggles against those advocating ID or Creationism is rooted not in the fragility of scientific theory. Perhaps, rather, it is rooted in the sense of obligation shared by all educators to fight for what is in the best interests of students.

The theory of natural selection is not fragile. No theory is. That is basic science. ID puts forth a hypothesis, on the other hand, that fails to meet the minimal standards for a scientific hypothesis. Inasmuch as it is not science, but is presented as such to woo the ignorant, perhaps it seems necessary to those whose fragile faith is challenged by the only plausible explanation that unifies the hundreds of thousands of discrete observations made in laboratories and field observations by professional researchers and grammar school students in a dozen branches of science over the past two centuries.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The reference, of course, was directed toward evolutionary biologists, not ID-er's. So fragile is the theory, it requires special protection from any and all dissention. It must needs our guardianship from any attack, whether from other legitimate scientific fields, or "others."
ID proponents are simply attempting to use plays out of the evolutionists' ...[text shortened]... as though they have given up on the whole 'shut them up with proof' idea. Sound familiar?

In an apparent attempt to be snide, you actually wrote the complete opposite of what you intended! I wonder if your irrationality on this issue is spreading to other parts of your brain.

Be honets. You don't know whether evolutionary theory is 'fragile' or not, because clearly you don't have the first clue about the subject. Instead of earnestly studying, you embrace any and all arguments that pit themselves against evolution, never bothering to consider the merit of the claim. You rush, eager as a child at a county fair, to hear sophists and hacks spin distorted fables. Veracity is of little consequence to you. You know what the universe really is, why it's here, where it's going. Just as your compatriots at BJU have realized, all that can come of questioning is heresy, right?

You beseech IDer's (no love loss between them and YEC's) to "simply [use] the science available from other fields." How ironic it is that, as with evolutionary biology, you plainly know nothing about these "other fields." We should not be surprised. No doubt they have also been subjected to your strict Biblical filter.

And how much more ironic is it that you demonize those parents who, unlike you, accepted their responsibility to preserve the quality of their childrens' education. For how many years, have YEC's, and now IDer's, labored to exploit the legal system in an effort to maintain or re-insert Bible lessons into our public schools' science classes? At a time when these psuedo-scientists enjoy perhaps the greatest sympathy in American politics since the 1950's, parents should be applauded for exposing the evangelistic ulterior motives of radical school board members.

Consider the long and tarnished history of your philosophical snuggle toy.
First, the YEC's fought and lost the battle against evolution in the ivory towers of academia. They quickly chose to surrender that ground, instead comforting themselves in the thought that they still had control of America's school kids. Then evolution entered public schools' biology classes, as all elementray biology does once it convinces the scientific community. Outraged the fundies wooed the political parties to make evolution all go away through the power of legislation. In career politicians, they found a common mind; ideology before truth. But this road led inevitably to the Judiciary, and once again YECism suffered a humiliating defeat in the courtroom, this time in the US Supreme Court. Some chose to surrender the battle there, content to work only through unaccredited private schools and correspondence homeschooling programs.

Nevertheless, a few were not ready to throw in the towel. These few cleverly stripped YECism of almost all it's cumbersome absurdities, six-day creation, 10,000 year earth, a worldwide flood, and distilled only its the quintessential idea: a creator. They called it Intelligent Design and with this slimmed down cousin, they launched a massive PR campaign. They were confident that they had constructed a "court-proof" way to get Jesus back into American public schools. They peddled their snake oil in Ohio and Kansas, encouraging school boards to "teach the controversy." All the while, they relished the thought of another day in the courts. Then last Fall, they got their chance, when concerned parents in Pennsylvania picked up ID's soiled gauntlet. Yet again, the fundies were humiliated. Nearly all of their greatest champions, who weeks before had been so eager to parade for the cameras, signing books and challenging evolutionary biologists in debates, tucked tail and ran. This is the current state of YECism and ID.

The simple truth of the matter is that the only fight evolutionary biologists really ever wanted was in the halls of academia. Their only intention was to advance the state of human knowledge. It was the xian fundamentalists who ran to the politicians and the courts. Evolutionary biologists simply showed up. Well, you wanted the court battle, and you got it. Don't whine now when you discover that courts don't share your apathy for truth.

On a personal level, I must ask you. Why do you so shamelessly emasculate you reason? The plain answer is that you cannot resolve the evolution of life with the narrow reading of Genesis that you were taught. Freak, evolutionary theory has, for over roughly 140 years, sustained itself against the sharpest critique that we can muster: the merciless logic of science. In that time, it has not only survived the great intellectual trash heap, but it has also guided scientists to myriad insights concerning our natural world. Freak, if anything is 'fragile,' it is not the theory of evolution, rather it is your blind, stagnant faith that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.

Originally posted by telerion
On a personal level, I must ask you. Why do you so shamelessly emasculate you reason? The plain answer is that you cannot resolve the evolution of life with the narrow reading of Genesis that you were taught. Freak, evolutionary theory has, for over roughly 140 years, sustained itself against the sharpest critique that we can muster: the merciless logic ...[text shortened]... your blind, stagnant faith that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.

Wow, you wrote it as well as Chuck Norris could kick it. I have been wanting to say exactly that for weeks.

Good show.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by telerion
if anything is 'fragile,' it is not the theory of evolution, rather it is your blind, stagnant faith that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.

That's what I've been trying to say, but I did not construct this beautiful sentence.

Thanks telerion. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The theory of evolution is not "fragile" nor a belief. However the reason why cases have been taken to court is that people who believe that the theory of evolution conflicts with thier religion are attemting to discredit it through various means, none of them valid enough to stand up in court. If my sons school started puting on thier maths text books a ...[text shortened]... heory of evolution is correct but merely the quality of education that our children recieve.

Unfortunately, you are comparing apples with comquats. One is demonstrable and falsifible, while the other is neither. The true believers of evolutionary biology are taking the issue to the courts, but for reasons more dubious than the one you cited. Read on for further elaboration on this point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unfortunately, you are comparing apples with comquats. One is demonstrable and falsifible, while the other is neither. The true believers of evolutionary biology are taking the issue to the courts, but for reasons more dubious than the one you cited. Read on for further elaboration on this point.

Go on ...

(I'm looking forward to more nonsense)

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Consider this: Throughout the twentieth century (an era of science and technology more so than any prior era), Americans were the world's leaders in development of technology, but often lagged behind their peers (sometimes far behind) in basic science. Why do we do so poorly in basic science? Perhaps, because only in America, do powerful cultural forces cont ...[text shortened]... chers and grammar school students in a dozen branches of science over the past two centuries.

Your first asesertion, that America lags behind other countries in basic science draws a conclusion based on a false premise. Do we lag behind other countries in math because (as proffered above) "cultural forces" distrust the same? Geography? World history, current affairs, etc.?
The second part of your first assertion, that the fundamental principles of scientific methodology are being challenged because of the implications of the findings is faulty, as well. The voice of dissention based strictly on the fundamental principles of scientific methodology is being drowned out by two groups of folks: those ID folks who are attacking the theory based on philosophical grounds (masquerading as science), and those fervent believers of evolution who lump all dissention as part of the wing-nut camp.
The non-affiliated group is not heard from, for obvious reasons. This does not discredit their position, it simply explains why it's not being heard in the midst of all the hyperbole.

Your overall post considers only two camps, which prevents the possibility for the truth to be revealed. Truth is only found when sought, to the exclusion of any other pre-supposition, of any outcome.

Given the inability for either of the "camps" to satisfactorily provide scientific answers to the questin of the origins of life--- not just to each other, but compared with an objective standard of measure--- perhaps the concession should be made that to accept either is a matter of faith.

As to your assertion that hundreds of thousands of discrete observations have been made in laboratories, you are referring to micro- not macro-evolution. But, you likely already knew this when you posted it. One wonders if this was meant to add to the discussion, or further muddy the waters.

Originally posted by telerion
In an apparent attempt to be snide, you actually wrote the complete opposite of what you intended! I wonder if your irrationality on this issue is spreading to other parts of your brain.

Be honets. You don't know whether evolutionary theory is 'fragile' or not, because clearly you don't have the first clue about the subject. Instead of earnestly stud ...[text shortened]... that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.

Beautiful! Can't recc this enough!

Originally posted by telerion
I wonder if your irrationality on this issue is spreading to other parts of your brain.

In an apparent attempt to be snide, you actually wrote the complete opposite of what you intended!
I will attempt to use smaller words and more simple concepts, since you seem to lag behind in the conversation. What I intended to convey, is that the same believer-ism the ID/YEC crowd is accused of, the evolutionists are lost in the throes of, as well.

Be honets. You don't know whether evolutionary theory is 'fragile' or not, because clearly you don't have the first clue about the subject.
I'll try to be honets. When the so-called experts of any field are in mad debate about fundamentals of the same, I doubt any amount of study and/or expertise would be sufficient proof of one's credentials. Regardless of my understanding/study/mastery of any field, where ever our paths diverge, my position is diminished in your view, and as such, dismissed. So much for intelluctual honesty, eh?
While you may think you know a great deal about a good many topics, you have little knowledge regarding any study I have done regarding any field. I have not entered into the nuts and bolts of the arguments herein relative to evolution, specifically because doing so yields nothing. The issues relevant to the topic have little to do with the trees and much to do with the forest. Why chase a rabbit that can't be caught?

Just as your compatriots at BJU have realized, all that can come of questioning is heresy, right?
Again, you have difficulty in keeping up with the conversations in which you appear to be involved. I have nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Jones University. I find their theology wanting, their application suspect.

How ironic it is that, as with evolutionary biology, you plainly know nothing about these "other fields."
Read my answer above, regarding what you 'know' about another's studies. Here's a field somewhat near and dear to your heart, statistics. Do your own study on this field and see what you come up with, as it relates to evolution.

And how much more ironic is it that you demonize those parents who, unlike you, accepted their responsibility to preserve the quality of their childrens' education.
Demonize? Whoa.


Then last Fall, they got their chance, when concerned parents in Pennsylvania picked up ID's soiled gauntlet.
You seem well-versed on the whole courtroom battlefront. Out of curiosity, was that case strictly a local parent undertaking, or was there anyone involved not directly related to "the children?"

Consider the long and tarnished history of your philosophical snuggle toy. First, the YEC's fought and lost the battle against evolution in the ivory towers of academia.
My philosophical snuggle toy? I told your mom to never use our pet names in public. Now that the cat's out of the bag...
YEC/ID and any other political-minded group of people belong in the same camp (different subset) as the fervent believers of evolution. Incidentally, I am in none of the subsets, and abstain from the entire camping motif.
The fact that there was an ivory tower at some point, does that mean you are conceding there may be an ivory tower now?
Ussher, Newton, etc., who posited the age of the earth based on geneaology were obviously misguided. The same holds true for those who read the Bible on its surface, with little or no regard for submitting themselves in humility to its teachings. They get the ridicule they deserve for their stubborn arrogance, should they refuse to relent of their positions once exposed to the truth. However, if not revealed in their lifetimes, they just become a laughingstock (on their divergent positions) to future generations.
This particular field of science will be tomorrow's YEC/ID. The handwriting is on the wall.

The simple truth of the matter is that the only fight evolutionary biologists really ever wanted was in the halls of academia.
Tell that to E. Scott, et al.

On a personal level, I must ask you. Why do you so shamelessly emasculate you reason? The plain answer is that you cannot resolve the evolution of life with the narrow reading of Genesis that you were taught.
On a personal level you must ask a question that you must answer? Thanks for letting me in on the conversation. It was good to have been here. The narrow reading of Genesis that I was taught? I understand you have a perception of reality that prohibits anyone from experiencing anything you did not, but there is a great big world outside of your padded four walls. You, as demonstrated, have no idea what another has studied, been taught, discovered, ate, thought, and etc. Moreover, you have no idea what the Bible teaches in Genesis regarding creation. As far as reconciling Genesis with evolution, you have it exactly backwards. ALL fields of study which in priority descend from theology, must reconcile themselves to the Bible. 'Guess that means we better have our best and brightest in the primary field, doesn't it?

Freak, if anything is 'fragile,' it is not the theory of evolution, rather it is your blind, stagnant faith that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.
Spoken like a true believer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your first asesertion, that America lags behind other countries in basic science draws a conclusion based on a false premise. Do we lag behind other countries in math because (as proffered above) "cultural forces" distrust the same? Geography? World history, current affairs, etc.?
The second part of your first assertion, that the fundamental principle ...[text shortened]... d it. One wonders if this was meant to add to the discussion, or further muddy the waters.

Micro and macro-evolution are not terms in the evolutionists handbook. Only you fundy christians use them. Stop trying to muddy the waters with your idiotic claptrap and take your beating like a man.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In an apparent attempt to be snide, you actually wrote the complete opposite of what you intended!
I will attempt to use smaller words and more simple concepts, since you seem to lag behind in the conversation. What I intended to convey, is that the same believer-ism the ID/YEC crowd is accused of, the evolutionists are lost in the throes of, as ...[text shortened]... ossil under pressure of human inquiry.[/b]
Spoken like a true believer.[/b]

How ironic it is that, as with evolutionary biology, you plainly know nothing about these "other fields."
Read my answer above, regarding what you 'know' about another's studies. Here's a field somewhat near and dear to your heart, statistics. Do your own study on this field and see what you come up with, as it relates to evolution.


Anyone with a clear, unbiased, understanding of statistics will understand that evolution not only can, but must occur in a dynamic environment. Only fundy christians try to pervert statistics to "prove" their point using dubious logic and misrepresentation. it's been said many times before, but there is nothing that cannot be perverted and exploited by evil people for evil means. Evolution is based in statistics.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Micro and macro-evolution are not terms in the evolutionists handbook. Only you fundy christians use them. Stop trying to muddy the waters with your idiotic claptrap and take your beating like a man.

Check again, bud. Your views are archaic at best. From one of your own greatest water muddiers:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Anyone with a clear, unbiased, understanding of statistics will understand that evolution not only can, but must occur in a dynamic environment. Only fundy christians try to pervert statistics to "prove" their point using dubious logic and misrepresentation. it's been said many times before, but there is nothing that cannot be perverted and exploited by evil people for evil means. Evolution is based in statistics.
Uh-huh. Whatever you say. When you actually study the same, perhaps you'll realize that you could easily exchange "fundy christians" with "fundy evolutionists" and the meaning remains intact.