Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, December 18, 2009

The Elephant in the Room: Challenging science dogma


It's the title of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer article by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). It's timely on a couple of different fronts. A short excerpt reads...
" In 2001, I offered a legislative amendment about teaching the subject of evolution. I caught more flak for this simple amendment than for almost anything else I championed in the Senate. What heresy did I propose? Here is the full text:

"Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

It was so radical a concept that, less than an hour after it's unveiling, liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy signed on to it. He said during the debate that my amendment's language was "completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them." My amendment passed 91-8. The next day, the High Priests of Darwinism went berserk. How dare the Senate suggest there is any controversy surrounding evolution? The amendment, they argued, was an attempt to bring God into the classroom.

Kennedy quickly recanted and vowed to have the amendment stricken from the reported language of the final bill. It wasn't."

I find it interesting to say the least that Kennedy changed his position so quickly. It was probably something like "Sorry Ted, no free thought here. Please criticize the amendment by Santorum and submit to our perverted brand of Groupthink" or similar. The article concludes on another relevant note....

"Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe. Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense - like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance, or the Environmental Protection Agency's informing us last week that man-made carbon dioxide - a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere - is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.

In some respects, the case for evolution is improving: We may indeed have evolved to the point where we can detect hot air of a different kind."


37 comments:

GCT said...

What Santorum conveniently left out is that the language was drafted by Phillip Johnson of the DI and was intended to open the door to introduce ID into the classroom, which is simply stealth creationism. I guess lying is OK if it's for Jesus?

There is no controversy in the scientific community as to whether evolution happened. It did. It's a fact. Deal with it. There are controversies as to specific details within the comprehensive theory of evolution, but no controversy as to whether it happened. Telling children that there's controversy over whether it happened or not is lying to them and opening the door for unscientific vultures like the DI to try to coerce the state into indoctrinating our youth with anti-scientific crap like what you believe.

Tracy said...

Thanks for the post JD, I found it interesting. I did not have any problem with what was written here, and do not know the whole story behind the bill.

GCT - Although very few really argue concerning survival of the fittest and change within the species there is tons of argument regarding change/evolution from one species to another. Although there are many in the scientific community who believe in cross species change/evolution, there are those who do not.

I have 3 sons all of whom have studied evolution in school and it was taught as if even cross species is the absolute truth. But in my own home we have discussions and I try to teach them to think critically (hey maybe I've just been too successful at that and this is why my 17yr old son is SO critical of everything I do!)

GCT said...

Ouch, more lies:

"Kennedy quickly recanted and vowed to have the amendment stricken from the reported language of the final bill. It wasn't."

Um, yeah it was. Santorum got similar language into the explanatory report of the committee, but it is not in the bill itself.

Tracy,
"GCT - Although very few really argue concerning survival of the fittest and change within the species there is tons of argument regarding change/evolution from one species to another."

No, there isn't. Common descent is not controversial. In fact, we have quite a bit of evidence to support it, from whale lineages, fossils, homology, actual observed instances, DNA, GAs, etc.

"Although there are many in the scientific community who believe in cross species change/evolution, there are those who do not."

There are creationists that base their rejection of it on their religious notions, not on the empirical evidence. The vast majority of biologists and evolutionary scientists will tell you that evolution happened (and still is happening).

"But in my own home we have discussions and I try to teach them to think critically (hey maybe I've just been too successful at that and this is why my 17yr old son is SO critical of everything I do!)"

Thinking critically by rejecting empirical evidence I presume? There's a difference between thinking critically and uncritically accepting or denying empirical truths based on your religious beliefs. Rejecting evolution because you believe what some religious people wrote thousands of years ago is not an example of critical thinking. This is like saying that rejecting gravity in favor of the idea that angels are holding us to the Earth is an example of critical thinking.

JD Curtis said...

there is tons of argument regarding change/evolution from one species to another

So what do they do? They manipulate the definition of the word "species"

"In 2004, Coyne and H. Allen Orr published a detailed book titled Speciation, in which they noted that biologists have not been able to agree on a definition of “species” because no single definition fits every case. For example, a definition applicable to living, sexually reproducing organisms might make no sense when applied to fossils or bacteria. In fact, there are more than 25 definitions of “species.” What definition is best?" Link

The vast majority of biologists and evolutionary scientists will tell you that evolution happened (and still is happening).

Perhaps "micro" evolution, but not macro.

GCT said...

"So what do they do? They manipulate the definition of the word "species""

This doesn't change the fundamental fact that we have lots of evidence that you and other creationists routinely ignore.

"Perhaps "micro" evolution, but not macro."

The vast majority of evolutionary scientists accept common descent. The few who dissent from this position are those that I've already mentioned - they hold their religious beliefs above the empirical evidence.

When the DI tried to do their "Dissent from Darwin" list, they had to get any scientist they could find, and even non-scientists, and still had to be deceitful in order to obtain less signatures than the amount of evolutionary scientists named "Steve." Of course, numbers don't tell the tale, but in this case they show that the vast majority reject creationism in favor of evolution....all of evolution.

Ginx said...

I love that people who deny evolution often speak of "micro vs macro evolution." All evolution is micro evolution, by the standard of denialists. Many microscopic changes over time yield the macroscopic changes we see plainly.

It's all back-pedaling. They realize evolution occurs, after 150 years of debate, but now they want to compartmentalize it to only occurring "in some cases." Once those cases are gone, they're stuck with the question of abiogenesis.

Oh God of the Gaps, how thine domain shrinks daily.

photogr said...

So my theoretical knowledgable friends, We are saying I actually evolved from a glob of muck millions of years ago. I don't buy it but if that did happen, Who or what was the catalyst that changed the molecular alterations to designate me as a Homo Sapiens species instead of a jelly fish in the oceans?

I have read that the form as we are now only popped up about 10,000 years ago. Where did we come from? What species did we evolve from? Why is it that in all the species of earth, we are the only ones that can create, build things, think scientifically, commnincate in many languages,fly, and reason in the abstract? Why can't the learned and supposed experienced scientist come up with the right answers? Is there a book that can give us the difinitive answers?

Ginx said...

Really? We're the only species that builds things, flies, and communicates? Seriously turn on Animal Planet for 30 minutes, please.

What animal did we evolve from? You think it's a huge leap from chimp to human because the only animal you mention is "jelly fish." Sure, we look nothing like a jelly fish, but we look nothing like a frog or a lizard or a rat or any number of other animals... then again we all have four limbs with digits, eyes, tongues, similar internal organs... so maybe if you lack the ability to see the similarities, you should see an optometrist.

We are saying I actually evolved from a glob of muck millions of years ago.

Yes. I'm sorry you seem offended by this idea, yet ennobled by the notion of being dirt which had life breathed into it a couple thousand years ago.

JD Curtis said...

I found this on another blog today that sums it up well.

"Virus becomes a virus in lab.

In nature, of course, virus become talking monkeys. Don't question, just believe."

Ha ha. Priceless.

JD Curtis said...

We're the only species that builds things, flies, and communicates? Seriously turn on Animal Planet for 30 minutes, please.

And just how is the Howler Monkey Space Shuttle Program coming along? I havent heard any updates as of late.

Reynold said...

"Well, maybe because Americans don't like being told what to believe.
 
Uh, has this guy no knowledge of the religious history of his own country?

Maybe because we have learned to be skeptical of "scientific" claims, particularly those at war with our common sense
 
Like people popping up fully formed from dirt, walking on water, talking animals, , invisible beings that affect the physical world around us,and rising from the dead?

- like the Darwinists' telling us for decades that we are just a slightly higher form of life than a bacterium that is here purely by chance,
 
Oh, THAT'S what he means by being against "common sense". What an idiot.

All he has to do is look at the bloody evidence, then maybe he can judge whether it's against "common sense" or not.

Besides, how does he define "common sense" anyway? There's a lot of observations in science that go against "common sense":, quantum mechanics for one, and the fact that the earth goes around the sun was itself once considered against "common sense" because our senses told us otherwise.


What's this about "pure chance"? Any bloody biologist will tell you that there is a little something called NATURAL SELECTION involved also. If you just want "pure chance", play bloody bingo.

Another example of a legislator showing ignorance of science. That explains a lot.

Reynold said...

We're the only species that builds things, flies, and communicates? Seriously turn on Animal Planet for 30 minutes, please.
And just how is the Howler Monkey Space Shuttle Program coming along? I havent heard any updates as of late.
Army ants build structures out of their own bodies.

More scary shit:
Army Ants are masters of wholly-organic, living architecture. For the good of the colony, the ants will use their own living bodies to build any conceivable structure necessary, latching on to each other foot-to-foot to create protective walls and ceilings against the ravages of the weather, bridges to cross otherwise impassable spans, whatever happens to be needed. (Can they form themselves into a crude catapult mechanism and launch themselves at prey? Not yet.)

There is no other living thing in the entire world that does this.

And, they're blind.


Thanks for being facetious though. That really means a bloody lot.

SmartLX said...

JD, please define "species".

JD Curtis said...

Only ten entries into it and we already have our first "talkorigins" link from the Darwinists. Thanks Reyn.

GCT? I found this on the net. "On 13 June of this year the US Senate voted 91-8 in favor of an amendment to the comprehensive public education bill that defines "good science education" as preparing students "to distinguish data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science". The amendment further states that "where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Link

So who is correct here? Sen. Santorum and the above cited article or you?

JD, please define "species".

Look it up yourself. Earlier I mentioned coming across the fact that there are 25 different definitions of "species". This link however, lists 26 of them.

Reynold said...

Only ten entries into it and we already have our first "talkorigins" link from the Darwinists. Thanks Reyn.
 
Oh, I didn't know that you'd prefer to be ignorant...I keep forgetting that about you people for some reaon.

You keep seeing that there's no evidence for evolution, then when I give a link that has it, you:

a) make fun of it
b) ignore all the information in it

How fucking stupid is that?

What links would you actually bother to read? this, this?

Would you actually bother to do any research at all into the other side of this? If not, STFU.


Something else: What in hell is it with you people calling evolutionary biologists (and anyone who accepts the evidence for evolution) "Darwinists" anyway?

You do know that even though he came up with the theory that it's been modified since his time right? He didn't even know about genes.

Let me guess: It's to give a more cult-of-personality feel to it, right?

Why don't you IDiots just call physics "Einsteinism" then? If not, why not?

You accuse me of making up my own terms? Where the hell did "Darwinism" come from?

Sure, biologists admire the man, but shit, physicists admire Einstein too.

Ginx said...

Monkeys were in space before humans.

Check, and mate.

Ginx said...

In my "Meta-Monkey Theory," Monkeys evolved human beings in order to immortalize their greatness with space flight.

JD Curtis said...

When the DI tried to do their "Dissent from Darwin" list, they had to get any scientist they could find, and even non-scientists, and still had to be deceitful in order to obtain less signatures than the amount of evolutionary scientists named "Steve."

This so-called "Project Steve" is nothing but a specious, intellectually dodgy piece of agitprop for several reasons.

1. What is the price that signatories of "Project Steve" will face in their professional lives? Being targets of misinformation campaigns? Loss of tenure? Puh-leeze.

2. Since when is science decided by popular vote? Appeal to Authority anyone?

3. Only in recent years has Intelligent Design been discussed much and Darwinism wasnt widely accepted at first either.

"A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

Phillip E. Johnson

Reynold said...

JD Curtis
1. What is the price that signatories of "Project Steve" will face in their professional lives? Being targets of misinformation campaigns? Loss of tenure? Puh-leeze.
 
Not even IDiots face that so get off it. Instead of whinging and conspiracy theories, how's about some evidence for your side?

The problem with the ID people can best be summarized by the fifth cartoon from the bottom.

2. Since when is science decided by popular vote? Appeal to Authority anyone?
 
Then what was up with the Disco tute publishing a list of scientists who disagreed with evolution? At least the "Project Steve" sample had scientists from the relevent disciplines involved. The Discovery people had people from all sorts of non-relevent fields sign it. Guess what? That is "argument from authority".

3. Only in recent years has Intelligent Design been discussed much and Darwinism wasnt widely accepted at first either.
 
According to the Wedge Document your side should have done their research by now. They haven't. Those fools skipped out on the very first step: Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication! Guess what they say about the importance of Phase I?

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.

Whoops.


Unlike "Darwinism" or, as actual scientists call it, evolution, the ID people have published b-f- all when it comes to providing actual evidence for their theories, despite repeated promises that they would. Read the link and what it contains above.


At least Darwin himself in his Origins book gave examples of, and tests/predictions of his theory right off the bat.

Johnson is a bullshit artist. Why?

The un-named "chinese paleontologist" says something that's easily shown to be completely wrong about the That quote implies that "dissenters from darwin" will face the same kind of "persecution" that those in china face when they go against the gov't. No ID person has lost their job or gone to jail or gotten killed becuase of their beliefs.

SmartLX said...

No, JD, I want to know what you think a species is, and more specifically how you propose to tell two similar species apart.

The supposedly contentious issue is the occurrence of what biologists a century ago might have called "macro-evolution", but is now simply known as speciation.

Before even trying to present examples of observed or otherwise obvious speciation, I would like to make sure that you will actually consider the species involved to be separate. Otherwise you are free to respond that any given split is an instance of "micro-evolution".

photogr said...

Ginx:

"Monkeys were in space before humans." Really! Who put them there?

I should see an optometrist? Really! I am not the one walking blindly.

"Seriously turn on Animal Planet for 30 minutes, please." I watch it frequently. I have yet to see animals communicating as humans do. I have yet to see animals building complex road ways and cities. I have yet to see animals creating flying machines or space craft. I have yet to see animals creat complex equations to sove a physics or math problem. Animals did not come up with the equation E-Mc2. Mankind seems to be the only ones with such complex abilities. That is why I fail to agree on your evolutionary theory.

Granted the DNA is similar but the genetic codes are quite different as I have been told an read. So what made our composition so different than animals? Any body know of a book that has the answers?

I had listed a few questions in hopes of answers from the esteemed ( loose term) theoretical knoledgable bloggers on this site ( no reflection on you JD & GCT). No one seems to have the answers. Perhaps that is the answer.

All any one can go on is pure speculation and theory that is unproven or verified by scientist that have no positive conclusive proof. Just speculation is all that we have to go on or do we?

Many do believe we were evolved from a glob of muck. Many do believe in divine creation. I am a believer of the latter. Some one or some thing more powerful that us mortals can comprehend got the whole evolutionary process started eons ago, and I didn't say 6,000 years ago. That Person was involved in the evoultion process from the start. Wouldn't you all agree?

I don't mind if you disagree. You have the right to have your beliefs and so do I. That was the way we were created.

photogr said...

OOPPS! I meant to say the way were were evolved.

JD Curtis said...

You know what Reynold? I did go to "pandasthumb.org" recently. I found it to be a typical internet cesspool of the lowest class. It's basic argument was CONSENSUS and little else. I wouldnt argue that because your (non-theistic, functional) religion only constitutes between 2% and 3% of the population that it is automatically wrong. Why should they?

Reynold said...

"Consensus and little else"? You must be kidding me...

Have you actually read through any of their more technical stuff? Look on the right hand sidebar for the appropriate links to the articles:

blood clotting

research news

Irreducible-complexity

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review

I found it to be a typical internet cesspool of the lowest class.
 
Now I know you're bs'ing me. There's no profanity, violence, sex, etc. there, but you call it that?

Why? Because they dare go against your precious beliefs? Tough. Scientists go where the evidence is.

I notice that you failed to counter or even mention most of the points I raised in my previous post ex)the lack of research done by ID people, even according to their own schedule as shown by "The Wedge Document".

Ginx said...

Why can't Christians take a joke? Jesus died for your sins, not your sense of humor.

photogr said...

Ginx:

" Jesus died for your sins, not your sense of humor."


I have to agree with you.

Take care.

JD Curtis said...

I just read the main body of the article there Reynold. I'll check out the other links.

I want to know what you think a species is, and more specifically how you propose to tell two similar species apart

I saw this posted yesterday.

The biological species concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942. Here it is, as first formulated, and quoted in Douglas J. Futuyma's EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1998): "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". The "reproductive isolation" can be genetic (non-fertility), geographic, or behavioral; there is NO criteria that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. There is NO criteria that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids). This is so common, that biologists actually use a different formulation of Mayr's definition: they say, "If two populations can NOT interbreed, they are NOT the same species." That is a very different statement.

JD Curtis said...

RELATED TOPIC: Are there any punctualists here? I heard that Richard Dawkins wasnt a big fan of it calling the theory "an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of Neo-Darwinism theory". Is it widely accepted among the followers of St Darwin of the Galapagos at this time? I really don't know.

Reynold said...

Sigh...again with the bullshit about us treating the man as if he were a saint...all the bs to try to make evolution look like a religion.

I asked once before: Do physicists call themselves "Einsteinians"? No. Do people who dislike them even call them that? No.

So kindly stop this brainless ID habit of calling biologists "darwinists" and similar crap like that.

It's brainless and childish.

SmartLX said...

Thank you JD. Now, Scientific American, February 1989, page 22:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred (hybridising) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." Emphasis mine.

This is an example of speciation and therefore macro-evolution, apparently by the mechanism of polyploidy. Yes? No?

GCT said...

Photogr,
"So my theoretical knowledgable friends, We are saying I actually evolved from a glob of muck millions of years ago."

Billions actually.

"I don't buy it but if that did happen, Who or what was the catalyst that changed the molecular alterations to designate me as a Homo Sapiens species instead of a jelly fish in the oceans?"

Simply put, it's random mutation plus natural selection. Note that the selection part is not a random process.

"I have read that the form as we are now only popped up about 10,000 years ago."

Modern Homo Sapiens appear about 195,000 years ago.

"Where did we come from? What species did we evolve from?"

A common ancestor with other apes. The link above gives a pretty good progression all the way back to about 5 million years ago.

"Why is it that in all the species of earth, we are the only ones that can create, build things, think scientifically, commnincate in many languages,fly, and reason in the abstract?"

That's simply not so. We have a higher level of intelligence than other animals, but other animals exhibit moral behavior, the ability to communicate, fly, reasoning in the abstract (mirror experiments), etc. And, don't fall into the trap of thinking that we are more evolved than other animals. We aren't. All animals are just as evolved as all other animals.

"Why can't the learned and supposed experienced scientist come up with the right answers? Is there a book that can give us the difinitive answers?"

We are coming up with the answers, it's just a slow process of examining the empirical data. And, there are tons of books. I would suggest looking at the links that Reynold has provided though.

"Mankind seems to be the only ones with such complex abilities."

There are other traits that are unique to certain animals. It doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.

"Granted the DNA is similar but the genetic codes are quite different as I have been told an read."

98% similar to chimpanzees. And, we happen to know the exact spot where a chromosomal fusion event occurred, which is why we have one less chromosomal pair than chimpanzees.

"No one seems to have the answers. Perhaps that is the answer."

Actually, there are lots of answers out there...you need to follow the links provided to get them though.

"All any one can go on is pure speculation and theory that is unproven or verified by scientist that have no positive conclusive proof."

It's not pure speculation. A theory is a well-tested series of hypotheses that have no been disproved and are well supported. Gravity is a theory, as is evolution. Theories are built on facts. Common descent is as close to a fact as just about anything else in science. This is not speculation and it is built on tons of facts and evidence.

"That Person was involved in the evoultion process from the start. Wouldn't you all agree?"

No, I wouldn't. The evidence does not rule out some unseen hand that guided evolution so that humans would eventually emerge, but we have no evidence for that position. Without evidence for that position, I see no rational way to believe that it is true (otherwise one could substitute unicorns in for god and still be rational).

GCT said...

JD,
"So who is correct here? Sen. Santorum and the above cited article or you?"

I am, along with the article I cited. As I explained, Santorum is claiming that his language is part of the bill - it is not. Go ahead and look at the bill. The link I provided tells you how to do it.

"This so-called "Project Steve" is nothing but a specious, intellectually dodgy piece of agitprop for several reasons."

Actually, it's a response to the specious, intellectually dodge piece of agitprop that the DI put out with their list, in order to show not only how stupid the DI list is but why it fails even on the front it was supposed to work on.

"1. What is the price that signatories of "Project Steve" will face in their professional lives? Being targets of misinformation campaigns? Loss of tenure? Puh-leeze."

Propaganda, as Reynold points out. And, what's worse is that the statement that they asked people to sign is rather vague and uninteresting. The only reason people don't sign it is because the DI then changes the meaning to act as if it means people are dissenting from evolution.

"2. Since when is science decided by popular vote? Appeal to Authority anyone?"

Science is decided by the evidence. Evolution has it, ID does not. Still, you're missing the point. The DI puts out a list as if that means something and then when Project Steve comes out to show how stupid the DI list is, you use this argument? Why not use it for the DI list as well?

Also, you seem to not understand the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Appealing to incorrect authority is actually what it is. A list doesn't prove anything, but we should listen to what the vast majority of experts in the relevant field have to say, and those experts are in support of evolution, based on the mountains of evidence in support of the theory and the papers that are being continuously published all the time. Where is the ID research? Where is the ID evidence?

"3. Only in recent years has Intelligent Design been discussed much and Darwinism wasnt widely accepted at first either."

Bzzt. Wrong again. ID was first started by William Paley back before Darwin. Evolution replaced ID as the superior idea. Besides, the ID arguments are simply warmed-over creationist (YEC) arguments. They need to get some new material.

"I wouldnt argue that because your (non-theistic, functional) religion only constitutes between 2% and 3% of the population that it is automatically wrong. Why should they?"

Actually, some of the writers at Panda's Thumb are Xians. But, you are confusing the idea of consensus of the evidence and outright belief, as well as continuing to assert that atheism is synonymous with evolution (it isn't) and is a religion in itself (again, it isn't). Simply putting up a definition of religion that doesn't fit atheism and then claiming that you are right is not going to work.

JD Curtis said...

This is an example of speciation and therefore macro-evolution, apparently by the mechanism of polyploidy. Yes? No?

No. A polyploidy is a single genetic event. Not macro evolution.

(Re: Project Steve) to show not only how stupid the DI list is but why it fails even on the front it was supposed to work on.

This might have at least a kernel of truth to it if you could point out a single design theorist who is going around claiming that ID is the prevailing position held by a majority of scientists...but to my knowledge, they arent and it isnt thus they attack a strawman.

The only reason people don't sign it is because the DI then changes the meaning to act as if it means people are dissenting from evolution

No. It's because those that argue "evolution" are slick at changing definitions/meanings of terms. Charles Darwin wrote down his theories for all to read and there's little if any ambiguity as to what he meant.

Bzzt. Wrong again. ID was first started by William Paley back before Darwin.

Your continued ability to demonstrate your ignorance is amusing.

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

There are those that argue that there are teleological arguments older than Cicero, going back to the ancient Greeks. And you can't blame Cicero for having his judgement clouded by Christianity.

My overall point was that teleological arguments seem to have made a resurgance in recent years. I don't remember hearing them while in college or high school.

When I stated "I wouldnt argue that because your (non-theistic, functional) religion only constitutes between 2% and 3% of the population that it is automatically wrong. Why should they?" I was merely stating that their argument from authority was just that. Here is the link I was referring to.

some of the writers at Panda's Thumb are Xians

Some Christians believe in macro evolution.

continuing to assert that atheism is synonymous with evolution

I wouldnt like to paint all atheists with a broad brush, but I'm curious, could you provide an example of those atheists that don't believe in macro evolution?

Simply putting up a definition of religion that doesn't fit atheism and then claiming that you are right is not going to work.

Then please ask Merriam Webster to retract their dictionary definition and let me know how you make out.

JD Curtis said...

Scientists go where the evidence is

I almost forgot about this little gem. Reynold? Since you seem so convinced that evolution is a FACT please tell me.. Are the predictive models put forward by evolutionary biologists...

A. As accurate as the hard sciences
B. As accurate as those advanced by the social sciences, or
C. Rarely rise to the much lower threshold of the social sciences?

Since you seem so convinced, this should be easy for you.

SmartLX said...

A polyploidy is a single genetic event. Not macro evolution.

I see, you define macro-evolution as a certain extent of accumulated change over time regardless of whether speciation has occurred, which in this case you don't deny has done. So much for picking on definitions of "species".

That makes me wonder. Even if I were to present other examples of speciation, like the different species of Faeroe Island house mouse which appeared within 250 years of the original animals' introduction to the island by humans, would that be macro- enough for you? Or are you content to accept diversification within Biblical "kinds", in which case a falsifying example would have to be an instance of genusation or even more?

GCT said...

JD,
"This might have at least a kernel of truth to it if you could point out a single design theorist who is going around claiming that ID is the prevailing position held by a majority of scientists...but to my knowledge, they arent and it isnt thus they attack a strawman."

How funny. The DI is trying to claim that controvery exists and a growing number of scientists are skeptical of Darwin, but their list is just fine, because it's their list, while the Steve list is stupid and all that because it's the list you don't agree with. Whatever.

"No. It's because those that argue "evolution" are slick at changing definitions/meanings of terms."

Right from the Meyer playbook, yet it's the DI that put out a list with an ambiguous statement and then tried to claim that all the signatories were evolution deniers and supporters of ID. They've since backed away from that, but you know how it goes.

"Charles Darwin wrote down his theories for all to read and there's little if any ambiguity as to what he meant."

Um, you do realize that the science has progressed since Darwin, right? Science is not like the Bible.

"Your continued ability to demonstrate your ignorance is amusing."

I'm actually well aware of the teleological arguments from Aristotle, which technically would be the earlier design arguments. This actually hurts your assertion, however, in that you're claiming the design argument is recent, while we know that it's much older. We also know that evolution replaced the design argument because it fit the evidence better. You're basically arguing for a flat, Earth.

"I wouldnt like to paint all atheists with a broad brush, but I'm curious, could you provide an example of those atheists that don't believe in macro evolution?"

Atheists (perhaps all of them) accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we find on the planet. Even if every single atheist accepts evolution, however, it does not mean that atheism is synonymous with evolution, especially since you admit that some Xians also accept evolution. You have to work on keeping your stories straight here.

"Then please ask Merriam Webster to retract their dictionary definition and let me know how you make out."

Sigh. The fault lies in your inability to understand the written definition, as I pointed out to you.

"A. As accurate as the hard sciences
B. As accurate as those advanced by the social sciences, or
C. Rarely rise to the much lower threshold of the social sciences?"

A. And as evidence I put forward Tiktallik, the chromosomal fusion in the human genetic make-up, anti-biotics, etc. But, hey, if you are so convinced evolution is wrong, stop taking medicine.

Reynold said...

Hey JD, I know damned well that I've posted the link to where evolution has had several predictions tested out.

Try reading through it for a change.

You keep challenging me saying that it should be "easy" for me to present such things if evolution is true, but each time I do, you ignore it.


What would you define as a "hard science"? Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, etc?