The headlines on Web reports of the Kansas State Board of Education’s Tuesday approval of evolution-friendly science standards reflected outsiders’ perceptions (and misperceptions) of this long-running issue in Kansas. Some examples:
– "Evolution returns to Kansas" (National Center for Science Education)
– "Kansas schools dump ‘intelligent design’" (Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada)
– "Darwin back on Kansas’ A list" (Los Angeles Times)
– "Conservatives lose latest Darwin battle in Kansas" (Reuters)
– "Kansas board supports evolution" (Wall Street Journal)
– "Evolution of science standards continues in Kansas" (CNN)
– "God, Darwin clash again in Kansas" (Times of India and Irish Times)
– "Darwin admitted back into Kansas schools" (DailyIndia.com)
– "Evolution comes to Kansas" (Cosmos, Australia)
– "God vs. evolution in Kansas . . . Again" (New York Times blog)
That last site, by the way, includes hundreds of blogger comments that add up to a dispiriting picture of what the world thinks of Kansas. (Samples: "Why do we still allow such moronic throwbacks to vote in national elections?" "Is their goal a state populated with Wal-Mart greeters?" "These are the people that brought us BTK, ‘In Cold Blood,’ Dorothy and Toto, the world’s largest ball of twine and wheat. Lots and lots of wheat. Need I say more?" "Kansas has schools?")
Whatever the state board does next, the damage is done.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
-
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JMWalker on Open thread 7/4
- Chas on Open thread 7/4
- Chas on Open thread 7/4
- JimJohnson on Open thread 7/4
- JimJohnson on Open thread 7/4
- JimJohnson on Open thread 7/4
- Chas on Open thread 7/4
- Nathaniel on Open thread 7/4
- writerdog on Unluckiest guy in Minnesota
- Heckler on Open thread 7/4
245 Comments
Ahhhh..they are just jealous that THEY don’t have the world’s largest ball of twine!
why should kansans give a damn what new york times readers think of our state?
people like that chose to look past great things in kansas like:Kansas’ rich history in pre-civil war battles and politics; brown v. board of education; Dwight Eisenhower; Kansas Basketball; Garmin Industries; etc. etc.
we can bitch and complain all we want about the BOA, but change has been made and that’s good.
get over it. plain and simple.
I’m going to get an unlisted name and wear a disguise until this blows over in,…. oh about 50 years!
Should we rename this state?
AHHH… Two Evolution threads, I’m gonna burst a blood vessel.
Nice to see that Kansas is gaining some respectability once again. This should drive the science deniers nuts because their perfect world consists of believing health problems are caused by demon possession and slaves have no souls.
You have bloggers like AreUCrazy, Political Mom etc and you ask why people see Kansas as a state where God doesnt live and the family trees have no forks?
“why should kansans give a damn what new york times readers think of our state?”
Because these are often the people deciding where to locate a business venture.
Ben - Like who?
last time I checked Garmin was one of the most successful companies in the world. and last time I checked Olathe was in Kansas.
and it seems that the BOE’s decision last year, bad I admit, about science standards didn’t stop KU Med center from expanding and improving themselves in Kansas.
So, what evidence again do you have that companies aren’t coming to Kansas because of some BOE decision?
capn - Garmin is but one company. I would think that our economic development goes beyond that.
Yes well
Let us hope we remain out of the dark closet THIS time.
Yes, let us once again embrace the narrow minded Stalinism of a fraudulent theory that depends on the rulings of activist judges to save its bacon. Some scientific method “Believe me or I’ll sue you.” What a joke.
Kansas liberals, as stupid ad authoritarian as they are in New York City (LA and other lands of fruits and nuts).
If liberalism is so good, why is it that it can’t stand critique? Why is it that every member of The Eagle’s editorial board is a lib? Why is it that The Eagle only has liberal entries on its blogs? Where is the balance.
Narrow minded thy name is Rhonda Holman.
Question for the day:
The Kansas Media - Stalinist or Hitlerian?
Angry ben?
You don’t seem happy among us enlightened folk.
Does anyone know of a “church lady” blog we can refer Ben to?
Ben I am glad to see there is one voice of reason on this subject. When arguments are limited to only one side then the idiots will reign. I think the demo could be very aptly named ’sheeples’ because they will follow blindly any subject or cause they think in ‘enlighting’ or ‘popular’. I’ve given up on getting them to think for themselves. Stay in there.
Randy STILL gets the prize for the best headline if the above is the best of the rest.
You go Randy!!!!!!!
Gentle Ben, if the BOE adopted standards that taught Lysenko’s theories on evolution then you’d be correct. Stalin rejected Darwinian theory. You know, it’s best to actually have a clue before you embarrass yourself. Why do evolution deniers work so hard to be misinformed about evolution?
Angry Ben and Fact Challenged Germie - Liberalism can easily stand up to all sort of criticism - we do it every day here in Kansas.
Remember, we are in the minority around here.
The funny thing is, those liberals among us like to us FACTS to support our debate points, not Rushisms and talking points from Bill O’Hannity.
But, carry on with your illusion.
Actually, we have the second largest ball of twine, not the largest.
ksgrim,I was born here, and when I was about 6, I decided that evolution was a more likely explanation for the universe than Santa Claus.I’ve looked at all that creationist horseshit and have yet to find anything that indicates I’m mistaken. I didn’t assume that view because I thought it was popular, I simply accepted the evidence.Now if you want to believe the world was created by magic, go right ahead and believe it! But when you tell me I’ve got to believe it, and you’re going to teach that crap to my kids in public schools, you better believe I’m going to fight you!
Interesting that one of the quotes critical of Kansas in Rhonda’s lead-in is:
“These are the people that brought us BTK,…”
Guess what Kansas newspaper STILL has a BTK link on their home page?
Hey, O&OLiar,
Remember when you said I was lying about Limbaugh saying that “young blacks have government helping them all their lives” until I linked you a transcript.
Then you said that Rush was just kidding?
Remember that?
Well, it looks like Rush is . . . uh . . . “kidding” again:
On the February 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh, responding to media coverage of Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman, stated “they’re dumping on this guy - Rex Grossman - for one reason, folks, and that’s because he is a white quarterback.” Limbaugh later insisted in conversation with a caller that, “they just want this guy not to do well ’cause he’s a white quarterback,” and that Grossman was “targeted for destruction.”
Hi CapnSh*thead. Couldn’t care less. So what’s that got to do with the topic?
Chasing me around the blog again, eh? Hmmm….
I’m glad to see this thread is evolving into name calling.
And we wonder why people make fun of Kansas.
Jeez, I don’t know there Outie, looks like Capn has a point. Why would Limbaugh be making a comment about Grossman like that? Hell, Grossman’s back up - Brian Griese - is also white, so why would the Bears target him for destruction?
It couldn’t be that the Lyin’ Pigboy is just making stuff up again, could it?
OK Capn, I did care enough to check it out. Hate to tell you this buddy, but it was tongue in cheek. Limbaugh does that all the time.
And the dorky Rush monitors on the left, don’t get it. Just like they didn’t get the jokes when they were in high school.
That is funny Capn. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
yes, Garmin is but one company - - - one company that is dominating the marketplace b/c of their innovative products.
listen, the point was made that cmopanies won’t come here b/c of evolution or something - my point is that kind of talk is just fear mongering.
You are wrong, Outie. Rush is an avowed racist.
Was he kidding when he told a black caller to “get the bone out of his nose?”
Was he kidding when he said that “he does not like balck people…..yada, yada, welfare?”
Was he kidding when he made the comments about Donovan McNabb?
Rush and his supporters will claim that he was just kidding when Rush is caught letting his racism cat out of the bag.
Rlago (RUcrazy) did the kansas.com message boards get boring when everyone left? So now you coming here?
How sad your life must be to get off on trolling for fun.
But back to the topic at hand…
If you think that companies don’t look at what Kansas has to offer before chosing where to locate, you’re insane. If they have a policy where they allow gay companions to sign up for benefits, they don’t want to come here and look like they are discriminating against part of their employees. They want to go where the great minds are, where there are things to do. Not where everyone is repressed.
Pmom what vast business experiences put you in the drivers seat on how corporate business decisions are made. The fact is that several small businesses are moving to the midwest from both coasts because of the quality of life in this area. Missouri is growing by leaps and bounds and the tax structure is a very big part of these decisions.
Believe it or not the bottom line is important to business owners not the sex life of their employees. For sheeple who spout the party line about ’stay out of our bedrooms’ you all seem to be grounded there.
I can see this is going to be a long one.
captain_poindexter, you had nothing after Ben posted about companies coming to KS. Did you ever stop to think that companies are the people who work in them? No workers, no company. More than one CEO might think twice, if he/she thought he’d have too few people to do the job. If those in NY or anywhere else see our state as the backwoods no-place that we continue to present by the actions of a God-gone-wild legislature, they have that right. And I agree with them.
“God doesnt live and the family trees have no forks”
No, I believe that would be Arkansas. ;) Is that your home state, R Lago?
“If liberalism is so good, why is it that it can’t stand critique?”
It really bites that we liberals have a place to voice our opinions among the populace, doesn’t it, Grumbling Ben?
“When arguments are limited to only one side then the idiots will reign.”
ksgrm, I seem to recall that you’ve had unlimited say on this blog, just as the liberals do. I guess it sucks to finally be the minority voice, huh? Oh, and refer to my comment to the pointy-headed guy at the top.
If you want your children to be taught that the world was created the way the Bible says it was, teach them at home. When they come home with an F in science, don’t blame the schools or the scientists or the liberals. The last time I checked, separation of church and state was still alive and well, until the thumpers drag us all back to the time of the Crusades. Bless your heart. :)
I think it’s hillarious you call us the sheeple when your people have been towing the party line/religious line forever.
Case in point, you’ll see many of us libs arguing between ourselves from time to time. You rarely see that from the neocons.
Well Germie, a lot of business owners look at the overall quality of life for their employees and they decide to locate elsewhere due to the far right attitudes that are prevalent in Kansas.
Ignore it if you choose, by not all business owners are Rush Limbaugh spouting conservatives like Golf Nut. When choosing a location, many business owners are far more open minded than some of the bigoted posters here on the blog.
That is why Memphis, TN, a relatively liberal city, is home to world headquarters for some major corporations.
Just for your info, Memphis was the home district for Harold Ford, who gave Bob Coker a run for his money in the TN Senatorial race in November 2008.
RD my children are raised and they were raised knowing that there are two THEORIES of how the world started. Not being little sheeple they were able to make decisions and all have university degrees and are very successful. The kids today are getting an homogenized view of this topic. What is there to be afraid of?
And there is that old separation of church and state statement. Show me that in the constitution.
I am a Christian and proud of it. That is who I am. I don’t impose my beliefs on you. I don’t expect anyone else to believe like I do just because I believe it. Can you say the same?
Jed I think you may have been spending to many days in that barnyard. Your anger issues are a little out there. I haven’t heard anyone here say they wanted to educate your children. That might be your children’s loss.
Is anyone here willing to come forth and admit they want creationism taught in public schools?If so, would you explain how separation of church and state come into play? I do not understand how creationism can be taught without advocating a religion.
Well WS when you show me any company that didn’t come to Kansas because of the evolution debate I’ll believe what you say. Until then it is just more liberal sheeple talk.
One other thing. I do listen to Rush and you show me where and when he said that disgusting statement about taking the bone out of someones nose.
Brian I am not now nor have I ever said creationism should be taught in our public schools. Parents who feel strongly about this will make sure their children get the instruction they need.
What I said was that they are both theories and unproven by any scientific standards. No link exists to justify moving evolution to the status of proven fact.
I didn’t bring up the church and state issue. But I do get tired of people who think they are so smart quote that as if it is true. I’m sure you know it isn’t.
Hey RD?
Grumbling Ben, I like that!
grammy the folks on YOUR side are the ones making the big push for this.
And it is in the constitution, or better, the complete lack of religion in it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I went to school in New York, and I was taught that there are several theories of how the world came into being. It certainly did not compromise my education, nor did it require me to learn about anyone’s specific religious beliefs. As with many things we were exposed to differing views. It taught us to think, discern, debate and formulate our own beliefs. It was a great foundation for college. If we truly eliminate anything that even hints at religion from schools we turn students into cultural morons - no great ancient writings, no mythology, better eliminate many famous landmarks, leave out some modern literature. We’re already lagging behind other countries in science and math, we can’t speak foreign languages, and we are becoming devoid of culture. Let’s eliminate the humanities lest we cross that line. Right- and maybe we should never leave the county either. What are evolutionists so afraid of? What harm is there in knowing not all people believe the same?
“Well WS when you show me any company that didn’t come to Kansas”
That is NOT what I said Germie, and you know it - you are blowing smoke up my ass and my ass is damned tired of it.
As for Rush, it is a well known quote from about 8-10 years ago. It may take a little research, since Rush does NOT archive his shows.
How convinient!
But I will look it up for you, ditto-heads that refuse to believe that Fatso is a lying bigot.
The problem is that it creates this slope, you allow religion to be injected into science, where it does not belong, then what?
You cannot simply tell me all this fuss is over a dang sticker that says it’s only a theory.
Don’t you think the religious folk who want this taught are going to teach their kids religious beliefs anyway?
Or is it just SO hard for them to try to explain to their kids why science teaches x and their preacher teaches y?
Whoops, sorry, it only took a MINUTE to prove the “bone in the nose” statement.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Now, are you going to apologize, Germie?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
Political mom, do you see a conflict here? No one is “establishing” a religion. People are supposed to have freedom to exercise the same…but I guess it’s ok to stop people from mentioning religion in school because Congress didn’t enact a law, activist judges did. They also aren’t supposed to prohibit or abridge free speech so why can only one theory even be mentioned? BTW- I’m not a Christian. I’m just amazed at the irony here.
“People are supposed to have freedom to exercise the same.”
If you allow Christians to promote their religion is schools that are paid for with my tax dollars, that I DEMAND that you also promote my religion, which is based on Native American spirituality.
Keep your goddamned Christianity out of the schools that I PAY for or allow ALL religions to have an equal say.
Are you ready for Islam to be taught in public schools?
Does that mean scientists don’t teach their kids their beliefs? Seriously, I really don’t think a simple statement that all people do not give credence to the theory of evolution is teaching ANY religious belief. It is just allowing that there is diversity of opinion.
Are you ready for Islam to be taught in public schools?
Actually I WAS taught a bit about it in school. And Native American as well along with many others as we studied the countries associated with them. Personally I am wiccan, so it’s not MY damn christianity. Incidentally creationists pay for the schools too. Of, and should we stop mentioning that the pilgrims came here seeking freedom of religion?
All that is freakin’ wonderful, but we are talking about a SCIENCE curriculm, not a history or comparitive religion class.
Scientists determine science curriculm, not religious bigots.
WS: I’d hate to see everything that I ever said portrayed in it’s least favorable light. I don’t know if Limbaugh is/was a racist. I’ve not heard him say anything racist, and I heard the McNabb quote.
I do know that he has changed the landscape of American politics for a generation. That is why humorless liberal Rush monitors listen to and record every word.
Did you know by common definition, you are a bigot? (Don’t flip out, I qualify too)
Well, Outie, listen to what Limbaugh had to say about Obama today and get back to me.
The man should be muzzled.
WS I always hate to do this to you because it unleashes your cursing and name calling but I did read your source. All of it.
“Nearly all the information available on this subject is anecdotal, with no documentation and no specifics mentioned other than that the alleged quote was something Limbaugh “once said” or uttered “as a young broadcaster in the 1970s.”
This comes from your evidence. Alleged, anecdotal, these mean there is NO evidence this ever happened and with twenty year span to look you should have come up with some concrete evidence. Kinda like evolution - not based on fact.
“Kinda like evolution - not based on fact.”
Hmmm, and evolution is not based on fact - you mean like the hundred years of evidence that THOUSANDS of scientists have produced.
Jeez, Germie, you are even more dense than I thought.
All that is freakin’ wonderful, but we are talking about a SCIENCE curriculm, not a history or comparitive religion class.
Scientists determine science curriculm, not religious bigots.
So, religious bigots should determine a HISTORY curriculum? Why should religion, however tangentially be allowed in ANY subject area? How can you be so closed minded, and just what are you so afraid of? I don’t think comparative religion is allowed in secular schools. It certainly wasn’t in mine. I am an evolutionist supported, but I have a big problem with double standards and stifling diversity and thought. Science began as a bastard field anyway, growing out of alchemy and medical theories based on religion.
ksgrm,
The last paragraph of my post you’re referring to was not directed toward you, but was directed to all in general. If it upsets you, I apologize.
Kids today are being taught science in school, which includes Darwin’s theory, among others, just as they have been taught over the past few generations. Creationism is not a science and certainly not a scientific theory. It can’t stand the test.
“And there is that old separation of church and state statement. Show me that in the constitution.”
Any of us who have read the Constitution know that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear there. But perhaps this will help.
***The usage of ’separation of church and state’ was first used in Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to seperate state and religion:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” ***
political_mom graciously posted the First Amendment, so I won’t repeat it.
“I am a Christian and proud of it. That is who I am. I don’t impose my beliefs on you. I don’t expect anyone else to believe like I do just because I believe it. Can you say the same?”
Yes, actually I can say the same. Many times over. I don’t believe I have ever once stated my religious or spiritual beliefs on this blog, although one or two have made close guesses. As for you, I’ve seen you here regularly doing just that–imposing your beliefs.
I care not whether you’re Christian. Whatever makes you happy, feel better about yourself, and leads you to treat people with decency is okay with me. I’m far from “anti-Christian.” I just choose not to personally buy into that particular religion with the same fervor you do.
RD thank you for that gracious post and I hope I don’t come off as imposing my beliefs on anyone.
My beliefs are set in stone for me and I do feel passionately in them. That said I know many scientists who are Christians and teach evolution. I believe there is a type of evolution based on climate changes, moisture changes, etc… Evolution is a theory and not established fact.
“Hmmm, and evolution is not based on fact - you mean like the hundred years of evidence that THOUSANDS of scientists have produced.”Posted by WS
I object to people like WS who makes blanket statements like they are fact when in fact they are fiction. That is imposing his belief system on me and I will refute this if I feel he is wrong.
“they are fact when in fact they are fiction.”
Name one, Germie.
Just name one.
WS even Darwin admitted that he could not find the link. It is referred to as the missing link. When that is found then it will no longer be called a theory.
This culture is positively SATURATED with christianity. There is no escaping it.
Can we at least keep the myticism outta the schools?
If your god thing is so powerful? Let him make a public appearance or two!
Germie, that HAVE found a link - a fossilized fish with WRISTS.
Look it up and shut up.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.~~Proverbs 16:18 KJV
WS please publish that link.
“That said I know many scientists who are Christians and teach evolution.”
As I’m sure there are. Why not? I’ve never felt the need to take the Bible literally, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Maybe I got the idea from Inherit the Wind, but I always beleived that for someone who always was and always would be, a day could equal millions of years.
RD I won’t get in a scripture verse debate with you here but I will say that what I am doing isn’t because I am prideful but because I am not.
It would be much easier not to make waves.
Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, ..Teaching them to observe all things.
Fishapod….. it works this way Germie….. you open the Google… then you type in a word or two… then you look at the results…. then you READ the articles…. then you LEARN something…. then you shut the f*ck up…..
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/fishapod_fossil_suck.html
WS where in that story did you see a link to humans. I posted earlier that there are evolutions of different species to adapt to environmental changes.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0702_020702_snakehead.htmlWe have walking fish. They adapted to the changing water conditions around them.
This actually is adaptation and not evolution.
As I expected, you look at the facts but it does not fit your preconceived opinion, so you rejected it.
Screw yourself, Germie. There is no point in debating anything with you. Even with facts, you choose to be ignorant.
I should have known better.
Different thread, same old brilliant Lib debate tactics.
Jeez, Germie, you are even more dense than I thought
Scientists determine science curriculm, not religious bigots.
Look it up and shut up.
then you shut the f*ck up…..
Again, couldn’t keep up
Screw yourself, Germie.
“For both you and Germie - show me where I am wrong.”
And I am talking to you, Fleet.
WS ask any reputable scientist. Is evolution a theory or proven fact?
See what they say.
Good Night
As most INTELLIGENT human beings know, a scientific THEORY is supported by scientific evidence. It has to pass peer review and have documentation to support the premise.
Contrary to the less-than-intelligent opinion, it is not just a SCIENTIFIC WILD ASS GUESS.
Hey, I’m not the one who claimed pride.
I really wish the people who keep bitching that evolution is just a ‘theory’ and not a fact would actually look up what it means to be a scientific theory.Theory in science is not the same as having a theory about what happened to the missing sock in the laundry.
“In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
brian:
You’re conveying truth and making sense. Those two items are not welcome here.
But, I thank you!
brian:
You’re conveying truth and making sense. Those two items are not welcome here.
But, I thank you!
I just like to try to make some people’s head-squirrels run a little faster
I am just trying to make the squirrels in some people’s heads run a little faster
damn computer
DAMN COMPUTER, I say…
Listen to outlander–”you all are just too uncool to get the jokes.”
Because nobody epitomizes the swinging hip scene like Rush Limbaugh . . .
Next he’ll be telling us that nobody could lead a jazz band like Lawrence Welk.
You’re backing a thrice divorced racist with a drug problem. But if that’s “Christian” to you, then go for it.
OK geniuses… time for a lesson in linguistics… The Constitution says “estblishment of religion” That does NOT me founding some religious group… it means a religious establishment, in the same way as it would if you talked about a “drinking establishment” The Constitution recognized a variety of religious beliefs… And Congress shall make no law regarding the “establishment of religion” GOT IT NOW??? AND YES, THAT IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE… AND IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION….
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT GOD, OR CHURCH, OR JESUS CHRIST, OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT RELIGION IN THE CONSTITUTION… THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IS IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION… AND EVEN THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT MENTION GOD!!!
AND YES, IT DOES INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NO RELIGION AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE…
GET IT NOW??? SO GO PREACH THAT IN YOUR BIBLE THUMPING CHURCHES!!! AFTER ALL, IT IS PURE AMERICAN!!! OH, SORRY, YOU ALL ARENT REALLY AMERICANS ARE YOU?? YOU JUST PLAY AMERICANS AT ELECTION TIME!!
Thanks, Steven. :) Copy and paste says it so well. As long as they don’t have the next meet-up at the Eagle, I’ll be there. But the Eagle meet-ups have me jinxed. :(
Here’s one more to think on:
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” - Julius Caesar
Very good, Chas.! Thank you for clearing that up for those who may be able to read, but whose (or is that whoms?) comprehension level is low.
methinks it’s “whose” … :)
Chas, RD,I really don’t think you have to worry much longer about the christian radicals. Since they are denying their daughters the HPV vaccine, and god knows what other preventive measures, within a couple of generations they’ll be pretty much extinct. See? Evolution takes care of it’s own!
But, what they lack in quality shall be made up in quantity, for the survivng daughters shall be sexually productive, though not promiscuous. Remember the Quivers?
2 points:
1. I went to Catholic parochial schools in the 50’s. The way the whole evolution thing was addressed by the nuns was quite simple. In science class we were taught the prevailing science of the time. In religion class, we were taught that God was the Author and Creation of everything, and that He certainly could have chosen to create the universe via the Big Bang and evolution if He so desired. The question of how He did it was less important than the fact that ultimately He did it.
2. Until several years ago, I was very proud in all my travels to say I was from Kansas. People like Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum, and others were well known and respected by people I came into contact with. I am still proud to be a Kansan but with Fred Phelps, the BOE and other negative publicity I find myself having to defend my home state as I never did before. (BTK is no big thing, as every state has their own homicidal maniacs.)
RD–
That’s a great quote, but it’s not Caesar, nor is it Shakespeare’s Caesar.
Nobody seems to know quite where it came from . . .
Rhonda of EAGLE opinion fame: Yes, I believe evolution should continue to be taught in our high school biology classes. But to para-phrase that old saying, I will fight to the death to protect viability of our religious institutions. Regardless of beliefs, religious institutions give people meaning and comfort in a way not available elsewhere.
Also, I personally don’t like lumping the term “intelligent design” in with “creationism” in an attempt by right wing religious zealots to neutralize the term.
In my mind, intelligent design refers to the question of what happened at the time of the “big bang” some 12 to 13 billion years ago. Did an intelligence from a preceeding universe somehow span the big bang to send an “intelligent design plan” including “evolution” into our current universe? And will this primary intelligence be forwarded on through the next “big bang”?
Obviously Rhonda Holman — you nor anyone else knows the answer.
My point here is, left wing atheist/agnostics/anti-Christ types are just as dangerous as the right-wing Christian wackos who are out there daily spewing their vitrolic sermons.
I personally don’t want any part of either group.
Rhonda, you should have stayed in Halstead and not spent so much time in the writers’ habitats of New York and Chicago.
What’s wrong with giant balls of twine? And Kansas wheat, lots of wheat, the bread basket of the world. And, as a long time Kansan, I believe Kansas schools are the best in the world.
Rhonda, you should have stayed in Halstead and not spent so much time in the writers’ habitats of New York and Chicago.
What’s wrong with giant balls of twine? And Kansas wheat, lots of wheat, the bread basket of the world. And, as a long time Kansan, I believe Kansas schools are the best in the world.
According to the Wichita EAGLE blog police, I must be an “automated robot.” Sorry about the double posting.
Any libs on here AGAINST dropping the tax on food items (not including prepared)?
JWink, at least your posts are going through. Last night was a real b*tch. (And it’s doing it again today.)
In NYC, the Fashion Capital of the U.S., clothing items are tax free up to $200. That’s per purchase, I believe.
“Grumbling Ben, I like that!”
JR,
He reminds me of Snow White’s Grumpy. Never a nice thing to say about anyone or anything. I saw a video of a comedian/ventriloquist last night, with a dummy that made me thing of Grumpy Ben.
RD (and others interested), in the state of Minnesota, all clothing items are sold free of sales tax (IIRC, due to a bill passed some years ago to entice appropriate retailers to the Mall of America), irrespective of cost.
Aaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!
Frustation is taking hold. My last post was cut off.
Here’s the rest: The dummy was funnier.
VT, I wasn’t aware of that. I don’t do enough shopping in Minnesota, I guess. ;)
Thanks.
ksgrm,
Missing Link(s) for ya
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
“A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena”
True RD, and in science a theory has to be repeatable, observable and empirical. Darwinism, the idea of evolution throughout millions of years is NONE of those things. Therefore, the theory, while it should be taught, is simply not a scientific theory. Thus it does not merit being taught in the science classroom, hence it is not a scientific theory.
bggeek — you should read this
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Ksgrim,”Your anger issues are a little out there. I haven’t heard anyone here say they wanted to educate your children. That might be your children’s loss.”
Excuse me, but this whole issue came about because of christians on the state school board who voted to impose (through weaseling language, of course) their religious views on the schoolchildren of Kansas, or do you choose not to remember that far back?
kswolverine,
You attributed a post to me that was not mine. And you’re wrong about the rest, too.
Wanna try again?
Capn,
The quote was attributed to JC (that’s Julius Caesar for the reading impaired), but I won’t argue. I can’t ask him myself. ;)
Here’s another interesting one. I’m curious as to how it will be interpreted.
“It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.”
My bad RD and simply sayin im wrong about the REST, WAY 2 DEBATE!! In that case, let me say hands down you are a winner!!! Im glad thats solved.
I am wrong about the rest…..boy thanks for clearing that right up!
RD, I think Lincoln also said (paraphrasing here) that a coward is always willing to die for a cause but a brave man is willing to live for one.
kswolverine: “bggeek — you should read this”
The article is titled “Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptionsabout Evolution”
I’ll address those misconceptions.
1) Evolution has never been observed.
False.
Here is an example of a speciation event observed in nature. A new species of mosquito evolved unique to the London Underground.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10200079&dopt=Abstract
Here is an example of fruit fly speciation in the lab.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5292/abs/230289a0.html
In addition, this is listed as an argument that should NOT be used by Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
2) Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
False.
Again, an argument that should NOT be used according to AIG (you know who they are right?)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
The Earth is not a closed system; therefore the 2nd law is not violated. The Earth-Sun system obeys the 2nd law.
Does your refrigerator violate the 2nd law? If not, why not? And wouldn’t the same reason apply to evolution?
3) There are no transitional fossils.
False.
See my link in the earlier post
4) The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
False.
The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. That is addressed by the science of abiogenesis. Evolution cannot explain how life began but once there are self replicating entities which produce more copies of themselves than can survive evolution can take it from there.
Evolution does not proceed by random chance. Natural selection is a NON-random agent.
5) Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
This reveals a profound misunderstanding of science. Science is an inductive process. Induction is the derivation of general principals from specific instances.
It is incorrect to say an inductive argument is ever “proved.” No amount of supporting observations ever “proves” the argument but one or a small number of contradicting observations can certainly falsify it. For this reason it is not said that science is “provable” but that it is “falsifiable.”
Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests. This is why the theory is well supported and accepted and why creationist attacks are futile.
“in science a theory has to be repeatable, observable and empirical. Darwinism, the idea of evolution throughout millions of years is NONE of those things.” Kswolverine
A correction on your definition of scientific theory: it must be falsifiable rather than repeatable. Also, note that empirical means that the data supporting a theory must come from observation and/or experimentation.
The core principle from Darwin is that of evolution by natural selection. Summarized, traits that lead one individual to more successful in reproducing will be passed to the next generation, and eventually the entire population will have that trait.
This certainly is a falsifiable theory. It has been observed and the evidence for it is based on observation, and as much as possible, experimentation. Look up ‘Darwin and finches’, peppered moths. These are both examples of proven and not disputed micro-evolution.
Macroevolution, one species evolving into another is harder to test. This is where the ‘missing link’ ideas come into play. There is a fair amount of empirical data suggesting that macroevolution occurs (common cellular components, DNA, and proteins, geographically dispersed speciation, etc). But only limited evidence to unquestionably illustrate this to people without a good understanding of science.
Bggeek, looks like you got in a post while I was typing - good one too.
‘It is incorrect to say an inductive argument is ever “proved.” No amount of supporting observations ever “proves” the argument but one or a small number of contradicting observations can certainly falsify it. For this reason it is not said that science is “provable” but that it is “falsifiable.”’
I think this is one of the main reasons various debates, like evolution, will never die. For the average John Boy the concept of proven versus not falsified is too much.
kswolverine,
You’re welcome. :)
OH! You wanted a DEBATE! Why didn’t you say so. I thought you were simply making an off-handed statement.
THEORY:A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.American Heritage Dictionary
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”WordNet
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.American Heritage Science Dictionary
Your serve…
Don’t you love this irony?
Evolution - cannot be proven but could be falsifiedCreation - cannot be falsified but could be proven
I DO know the difference bewteen ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis.’
I didn’t spend all that time helping with my kids’ science fair projects for nothing.
1) “Evolution has never been observed. False. Here is an example of a speciation event observed in nature. A new species of mosquito evolved unique to the London Underground.”
Speciation happens. NO one that I am of aware of disputes that. If you read the article you would have understood this. Speciation IS observable and thus is science. However, as Enerst Mayr correctly points out there is a thing called homostasis. The plasticity of organisms if you will, the point where mutations start to have an overtly negative effect. In other words, homostasis says there is a LIMIT to the amount of variation a species can endure. THUS, the fact the species can change and fruit flies can evolve simply DOES NOT prove your claim. Also, please note you are defending Darwinism here; please refrain from using the coaxed term “evolution”
2)” Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.False.Again, an argument that should NOT be used according to AIG (you know who they are right?)”
Yes I am a support of Ken Ham and AIG ?. The 2nd law DOES apply when speaking about cosmic evolution and the origin of the universe. Darwinism attempts to explain where all life came from, thus it is a critical argument.
“3) There are no transitional fossils.False. See my link in the earlier post”
Again, did you read the article? They clearly address these “transitionals”
“4) The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. - False. The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. That is addressed by the science of abiogenesis”
Have you not read Darwin? Mayr? Dawkins? Simply by distancing “evolution” from the origin of life in no way invalidates the argument. Please address the issues before you foolishly proclaim a statement to be false.
“Evolution does not proceed by random chance. Natural selection is a NON-random agent.”
Circular reason here. “Evolution” does not happen by random chance. Therefore what is this non-random agent: time. Time becomes “God” in the “evolution” theory. It can achieve what SCIENCE has NOT been able to achieve or prove. IN FACT science tells today that it could not happen. The mathematical probability is too great. Perhaps you should read Lee Septner.
“For this reason it is not said that science is “provable” but that it is “falsifiable.” Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests.”
Again we are talking semantics. You have thrown in the word “evolution” in place of Darwinism. Please for future clarification refrain from making this error in the future. Darwinism is NOT falsifiable because it is an historical theory about what may have happened.
In short, what have we learned? That speciation occurs, no one doubts this. That species can adapt to their environment, again no one doubts this. However this idea that “pond scum” can evolve into a multi cellar complex being such as a human HAS NOT been proven. UNTIL science proves this one would be foolish to make utter claims such as: “Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests”
1) “Evolution has never been observed. False. Here is an example of a speciation event observed in nature. A new species of mosquito evolved unique to the London Underground.”
Speciation happens. NO one that I am of aware of disputes that. If you read the article you would have understood this. Speciation IS observable and thus is science. However, as Enerst Mayr correctly points out there is a thing called homostasis. The plasticity of organisms if you will, the point where mutations start to have an overtly negative effect. In other words, homostasis says there is a LIMIT to the amount of variation a species can endure. THUS, the fact the species can change and fruit flies can evolve simply DOES NOT prove your claim. Also, please note you are defending Darwinism here; please refrain from using the coaxed term “evolution”
2)” Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.False.Again, an argument that should NOT be used according to AIG (you know who they are right?)”
Yes I am a support of Ken Ham and AIG ?. The 2nd law DOES apply when speaking about cosmic evolution and the origin of the universe. Darwinism attempts to explain where all life came from, thus it is a critical argument.
“3) There are no transitional fossils.False. See my link in the earlier post”
Again, did you read the article? They clearly address these “transitionals”
“4) The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. - False. The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. That is addressed by the science of abiogenesis”
Have you not read Darwin? Mayr? Dawkins? Simply by distancing “evolution” from the origin of life in no way invalidates the argument. Please address the issues before you foolishly proclaim a statement to be false.
“Evolution does not proceed by random chance. Natural selection is a NON-random agent.”
Circular reason here. “Evolution” does not happen by random chance. Therefore what is this non-random agent: time. Time becomes “God” in the “evolution” theory. It can achieve what SCIENCE has NOT been able to achieve or prove. IN FACT science tells today that it could not happen. The mathematical probability is too great. Perhaps you should read Lee Septner.
“For this reason it is not said that science is “provable” but that it is “falsifiable.” Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests.”
Again we are talking semantics. You have thrown in the word “evolution” in place of Darwinism. Please for future clarification refrain from making this error in the future. Darwinism is NOT falsifiable because it is an historical theory about what may have happened.
In short, what have we learned? That speciation occurs, no one doubts this. That species can adapt to their environment, again no one doubts this. However this idea that “pond scum” can evolve into a multi cellar complex being such as a human HAS NOT been proven. UNTIL science proves this one would be foolish to make utter claims such as: “Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests”
Brian -
“A correction on your definition of scientific theory: it must be falsifiable rather than repeatable. Also, note that empirical means that the data supporting a theory must come from observation and/or experimentation.”
I was not attempting to define a scientific theory Brian. Merely pointing out traits of what science does.
“The core principle from Darwin is that of evolution by natural selection. Summarized, traits that lead one individual to more successful in reproducing will be passed to the next generation, and eventually the entire population will have that trait.”
I have no problem whatsoever teaching this in the science classroom. This is science. In fact, that is why the state board left such information in the classrooms years back. Have you read the Origin of Species? Darwin’s theory goes much deeper than just speciation.
“This certainly is a falsifiable theory. It has been observed and the evidence for it is based on observation, and as much as possible, experimentation. Look up ‘Darwin and finches’, peppered moths. These are both examples of proven and not disputed micro-evolution.”
Correct
“Macroevolution, one species evolving into another is harder to test.“
Again correct
“There is a fair amount of empirical data suggesting that macroevolution occurs (common cellular components, DNA, and proteins, geographically dispersed speciation, etc). But only limited evidence to unquestionably illustrate this to people without a good understanding of science.”
There is a fair amount of empirical data suggesting that macroevolution DOES NOT occur. But only limited evidence to unquestionably illustrate this to people without a good understanding of science.
Correction*
Brian, please note that macroevolution is simply not “one species evolving into another” as you put. This deals with evolution outside of the genus and family and such as found in Linnaues hierarchy classification system
Brian you are sadly mistaken again
“Evolution - cannot be proven but could be falsifiedCreation - cannot be falsified but could be proven”
Neither “evolution” nor creation can proven because neither are a scientific theory. HOPE that HELPS!
Brian you are sadly mistaken again
“Evolution - cannot be proven but could be falsifiedCreation - cannot be falsified but could be proven”
Neither “evolution” nor creation can proven because neither are a scientific theory. HOPE that HELPS!
kswolverine,’I was not attempting to define a scientific theory Brian. Merely pointing out traits of what science does.’ Ok, no apology necessary. I just corrected your statement so none of the other readers of this blog would be confused.
‘There is a fair amount of empirical data suggesting that macroevolution DOES NOT occur.’ I listed some supporting examples, would you list a few refuting examples? If you can provide empirical evidence macroevolution does not occur, I would certainly concede your correctness.
kswolverine,’Brian, please note that macroevolution is simply not “one species evolving into another” as you put. This deals with evolution outside of the genus and family and such as found in Linnaues hierarchy classification system ‘
Sorry I did not explicitly spell out every possible divergence for you. For the sake of brevity I thought that statement would suffice to illustrate the concept to most of my readers.
Macroevolution does refer to changes above the species level. If you are familiar with Linnaues’ hierarchical classification system, then you must know it would be impossible for a species to change genus or family without changing into another species.
“Ok, no apology necessary.”
I wasnt apologizing. Just correcting you :)
“If you can provide empirical evidence macroevolution does not occur, I would certainly concede your correctness.”
I already did in earlier posts. Homostasis, lack of transistional fossils, statistics, etc. Perhaps this why the debate never gets anywhere, because ppl blindly refuse to look at the evidence others present.
Have a great day
“Ok, no apology necessary.”
I wasnt apologizing. Just correcting you :)
“If you can provide empirical evidence macroevolution does not occur, I would certainly concede your correctness.”
I already did in earlier posts. Homostasis, lack of transistional fossils, statistics, etc. Perhaps this why the debate never gets anywhere, because ppl blindly refuse to look at the evidence others present.
Have a great day
“Sorry I did not explicitly spell out every possible divergence for you. For the sake of brevity I thought that statement would suffice to illustrate the concept to most of my readers.”
The statement is misleading so I corrected you for the sake of the readers. Moreover, sooo you have your own following, lol!
“most of MY readers”
Is there a Brian fan club somewhere!
“Neither “evolution” nor creation can proven because neither are a scientific theory. HOPE that HELPS! ”
Ummmm, yeah.Thanks for that, buddy.
I would love to know what you do for a living kswolverine, for my own curiosity.Would you share? If you do, please do not provide any personally identifying information. I respect your anonymity and your right to stay that way.
“Ok, no apology necessary.”
I wasnt apologizing. Just correcting you :)
“If you can provide empirical evidence macroevolution does not occur, I would certainly concede your correctness.”
I already did in earlier posts. Homostasis, lack of transistional fossils, statistics, etc. Perhaps this why the debate never gets anywhere, because ppl blindly refuse to look at the evidence others present.
Have a great day
I’m raising my hand as a member of the brian fan club!
Brian -
“I would love to know what you do for a living kswolverine, for my own curiosity.Would you share? If you do, please do not provide any personally identifying information.”
Please, do not fall into the trap the people often do when losing a debate. That is to attack the person and not the arguement. Sadly this is often done. Please do not fall into this trap. I am a college graduate and I am in a business field of my choosing. Since you mentioned it, what about you? College educated? Do u have a job?
Thanks ksfarmgirl :)(blushes)
“The statement is misleading so I corrected you for the sake of the readers.”How was it misleading?
Reread: ‘Macroevolution does refer to changes above the species level. If you are familiar with Linnaues’ hierarchical classification system, then you must know it would be impossible for a species to change genus or family without changing into another species.’
“Speciation happens. NO one that I am of aware of disputes that.”
Then you agree with the theory of evolution. There is no barrier between micro and macro evolution.
“However, as Enerst Mayr correctly points out there is a thing called homostasis. The plasticity of organisms if you will, the point where mutations start to have an overtly negative effect. In other words, homostasis says there is a LIMIT to the amount of variation a species can endure. THUS, the fact the species can change and fruit flies can evolve simply DOES NOT prove your claim.”
Please show where this is pointed out by Mayr because I doubt it. I think you mean homeostasis btw.
Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, a very few are beneficial. There is no point in the history of a species where mutations “start to have an overtly negative effect”. There is no “limit” for the accumulation of harmful mutations because harmful mutations don’t accumulate, they are weeded out by natural selection (some exceptions apply but don’t affect the argument).
“Also, please note you are defending Darwinism here; please refrain from using the coaxed term “evolution””
Darwinism is simply the theory that natural selection is a mechanism to account for the observed evolution of organisms. Natural selection is only one mechanism; genetic drift is an example of another. The examples I provided did not specify the mechanism by which speciation occurred therefore I wasn’t “defending Darwinism.” Both examples could have been a result of genetic drift and founder effect and not because of natural selection (Darwinism). Please don’t conflate Darwinism with evolution.
“The 2nd law DOES apply when speaking about cosmic evolution and the origin of the universe.”
But evolution has nothing to do with either of these. Please don’t conflate biological evolution with big bang cosmology. They are unrelated except for the fact that they both occurred.
“Darwinism attempts to explain where all life came from, thus it is a critical argument.”
No it doesn’t attempt to explain that, how can it? There is no mechanism in evolution to account for the origin of life from non-life. A minimum requirement for evolution to operate is a population of imperfectly self-replicating entities where not all of them are able to reproduce due to environmental constraints. If you don’t have at least this, you can’t have evolution. The question of how that population of entities came to exist is a separate question, one that is addressed by abiogenesis and chemistry.
“Again, did you read the article? They clearly address these “transitionals””
I read the article. I don’t see where it addresses the hominid skulls I linked to.
“Have you not read Darwin? Mayr? Dawkins? Simply by distancing “evolution” from the origin of life in no way invalidates the argument. Please address the issues before you foolishly proclaim a statement to be false.”
I’ve read them all. The argument was that evolution says that life originated and proceeds by random chance. I pointed out that evolution does not address the origin of life (if you think it does please provide the mechanism from the theory which explains it) and does not assert that life proceeds by random chance because natural selection is, by definition, a non-random process. All of the authors you cited agree with this.
“Circular reason here. “Evolution” does not happen by random chance. Therefore what is this non-random agent: time.”
The non-random agent is natural selection. Natural selection posits that traits which confer an advantage to an organism will increase in frequency in subsequent generations whereas traits which confer a disadvantage will decrease in frequency in subsequent generations. The change in frequency of the traits is therefore non-random, the change is a function of the fitness of the traits (where fitness simply measures the adaptive advantage a trait confers in a given environment) and not a function of a random event. The rest of this paragraph was nonsensical.
“Again we are talking semantics. You have thrown in the word “evolution” in place of Darwinism. Please for future clarification refrain from making this error in the future. Darwinism is NOT falsifiable because it is an historical theory about what may have happened.”
Darwinism is one (but not the only) mechanism which drives evolution. However both Darwinism and evolution are falsifiable. “Common descent” is the aspect of the theory of evolution which relates to a one-time historical event. Common descent is falsifiable too. For future clarification please don’t conflate these terms, it only leads to confusion and poor arguments.
“However this idea that “pond scum” can evolve into a multi cellar complex being such as a human HAS NOT been proven. UNTIL science proves this one would be foolish to make utter claims such as: “Evolution is certainly falsifiable but it has not been falsified over the course of millions of observations and tests””
Again, when you talk about proven you misunderstand the nature of an inductive argument and therefore of science. Evolution has not been falsified by millions of observations and tests. This doesn’t “prove” evolution but it lends a tremendous amount of support to the idea. So much support that evolution universally considered to be a “theory” which is the highest status a scientific idea can achieve.
A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Evolution meets this definition and is therefore considered a theory.
“The statement is misleading so I corrected you for the sake of the readers.”How was it misleading?
In my post reread: ‘Macroevolution does refer to changes above the species level. If you are familiar with Linnaues’ hierarchical classification system, then you must know it would be impossible for a species to change genus or family without changing into another species.’
kswolverine,I get really annoyed when bloggers cannot debate on facts and resort to name calling and personal attacts. So, no, I will not be doing that.I just like to know how a person’s education, career, political leanings, and philosophies interrelate. Kind of a sociological study, I guess.
FYI, I have bachelor’s degrees in biology and accounting and work as a professional in a large manufacturing company in Wichita.
“I’m raising my hand as a member of the brian fan club!”
LOL, as I am sure there are many more on this blog who share your thoughts ksfarmgrrl. I feel the ppl on “his” is great. I feel much like David, surrounded by Lions in the Den. Yes a Biblical reference! I’m sure you all are loving this, foaming at mouths. Ready to attack!
“Please show where this is pointed out by Mayr because I doubt it. I think you mean homeostasis btw.”
A simply search on google will provided w examples of Mayr’s work. Yes there was a typo on the spelling, thanks for correction that.
“The examples I provided did not specify the mechanism by which speciation occurred therefore I wasn’t “defending Darwinism.” Both examples could have been a result of genetic drift and founder effect and not because of natural selection (Darwinism). Please don’t conflate Darwinism with evolution.”
You respond to my post about Darwinism where you gave examples of “evolution” Please keep your terms separate. Under that definition of “evolution” hardly ANYONE would have a problem with that, IF that was the definition.
“But evolution has nothing to do with either of these. Please don’t conflate biological evolution with big bang cosmology. They are unrelated except for the fact that they both occurred”.
You are mistaken. Have you read the origin of species? Have you read the Blind Watchmaker? “Evolution” IS related to those ideas.
“Darwinism attempts to explain where all life came from, thus it is a critical argument.”“No it doesn’t attempt to explain that, how can it?“
Again, have you read the origin of species?“I pointed out that evolution does not address the origin of life (if you think it does please provide the mechanism from the theory which explains it)”
By your vague definition of “evolution” NO ID/Creationist proponent would disagree.
“Darwinism is one (but not the only) mechanism which drives evolution.”
You are now substituting Darwinism with the term Natural Selection. Please use your terms correctly.
““Common descent” is the aspect of the theory of evolution which relates to a one-time historical event.”
Yes, a unrepeatable, unobservable, and by definition unempirical one time event
“Common descent is falsifiable too.”
Again, you are using “microevolution” as proof for macroevolution”
“A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
Correct
“Evolution meets this definition and is therefore considered a theory.”
Again, I told you not to misuse terms. You simply are using evidence of microevolution for to “prove”, validate, strengthen, your argument of Darwinism. Until you use correct terms, the debate will go nowhere.
“The statement is misleading so I corrected you for the sake of the readers.”How was it misleading?
Brain, buddy, your confusing posts. This was in regard to your early post regarding marcoevolution. It was extremely vague
Excellent posts kswolverine. I particularly appreciate your resistance to the use of the word “evolution” as a catch-all for everything from simple mutation in micro-organisms to the theory of common descent. It is my belief that if more people understood that Darwinism does not equal evolution, the debate would change. The issue is not about whether simple evolutionary changes occur, we know they do. We can observe them. It is whether these small changes could ever add up in time to massive changes. This where science is not being science, but speculation.
It is not to the advantage of Darwinists to be clear in this debate. Thus the intentionally muddy waters.
“A simply search on google will provided w examples of Mayr’s work. Yes there was a typo on the spelling, thanks for correction that. “
Apparently that is a hard word to spell because when I googled for it I misspelled it too. Anyway, I found some info this time but still nothing that supports your contention. I couldn’t find the definition of homeostasis as it applies to genetics (I have limited time to search at work though).
“You respond to my post about Darwinism where you gave examples of “evolution” Please keep your terms separate.”
Kswolverine, you asked for an example of transitional fossils, I showed them. You’re response to me was an article that listed 5 misconceptions of evolution (while there was a section on transitional fossils it didn’t deal with the fossils I posted). I responded to all 5 misconceptions listed in the article. I wasn’t responding to your post about Darwinism because there was no such post (to me anyway, I didn’t read all the posts to others). In any case, Darwinism and evolution are separate terms with separate meanings and I’m attempting to keep them separate.
“You are mistaken. Have you read the origin of species? Have you read the Blind Watchmaker? “Evolution” IS related to those ideas.”
Yes, the Origin of Species several times and the Blind Watchmaker once. Neither of those sources conflate biological evolution with big bang cosmology (especially Origins, it’s unbelievable to say that it does.) Feel free to prove me wrong.
“You are now substituting Darwinism with the term Natural Selection. Please use your terms correctly.”
I am using the term correctly according to the modern usage. It might have had a slightly different meaning in the past but I assume we’re talking about the theory of evolution as it’s understood now and if so we need to use the terms as they’re used now. From the dictionary:
“A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the NATURAL SELECTION of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory .”
From wikipedia:
“Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of NATURAL SELECTION, in comparison to more recent theories such as genetic drift and gene flow.”
“Yes, a unrepeatable, unobservable, and by definition unempirical one time event “
Untrue. One time events (including common descent) are empirically and repeatably testable. The sciences of forensics, archeology, history, and many others depend on this. Every discovery of a new species or fossil is a test of common descent. Every individual specimen can be repeatedly and independently tested by neutral observers.
“Again, you are using “microevolution” as proof for macroevolution””
No, when I mean common descent is falsifiable I mean just that. The theory that all life on Earth ultimately descends from one or a very few ancient organisms and that there is an unbroken chain of parent-child relationships between all living organisms and their last common ancestor is a falsifiable theory.
“Again, I told you not to misuse terms. You simply are using evidence of microevolution for to “prove”, validate, strengthen, your argument of Darwinism. Until you use correct terms, the debate will go nowhere.”
Microevolution is evidence of Darwinism (Natural Selection), I haven’t presented any evidence for common descent. I think yours are the terms that are confused.
I am using this definition of evolution from the dictonary:
“Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species”
Except I would add to it that there is more than one mechanism besides Natural Selection (which is the only one listed in the definition and which is usually meant today by “Darwinism”).
The theory of evolution is an overarching theory which includes the concept of common descent and modification of organisms via natural selection and many other concepts. So, if you want to say something about evolution it is usually best to specify which component of the theory you are addressing (is it common descent? Natural Selection? Speciation? Mutation? What?) This is what I have consistently tried to do in this discussion.
Small changes add up over the course of the four billion year history of life on this planet.
“A simply search on google will provided w examples of Mayr’s work. Yes there was a typo on the spelling, thanks for correction that. “
Apparently that is a hard word to spell because when I googled for it I misspelled it too. Anyway, I found some info this time but still nothing that supports your contention. I couldn’t find the definition of homeostasis as it applies to genetics (I have limited time to search at work though).
“You respond to my post about Darwinism where you gave examples of “evolution” Please keep your terms separate.”
Kswolverine, you asked for an example of transitional fossils, I showed them. You’re response to me was an article that listed 5 misconceptions of evolution (while there was a section on transitional fossils it didn’t deal with the fossils I posted). I responded to all 5 misconceptions listed in the article. I wasn’t responding to your post about Darwinism because there was no such post (to me anyway, I didn’t read all the posts to others). In any case, Darwinism and evolution are separate terms with separate meanings and I’m attempting to keep them separate.
“You are mistaken. Have you read the origin of species? Have you read the Blind Watchmaker? “Evolution” IS related to those ideas.”
Yes, the Origin of Species several times and the Blind Watchmaker once. Neither of those sources conflate biological evolution with big bang cosmology (especially Origins, it’s unbelievable to say that it does.) Feel free to prove me wrong.
“You are now substituting Darwinism with the term Natural Selection. Please use your terms correctly.”
I am using the term correctly according to the modern usage. It might have had a slightly different meaning in the past but I assume we’re talking about the theory of evolution as it’s understood now and if so we need to use the terms as they’re used now. From the dictionary:
“A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the NATURAL SELECTION of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory .”
From wikipedia:
“Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of NATURAL SELECTION, in comparison to more recent theories such as genetic drift and gene flow.”
“Yes, a unrepeatable, unobservable, and by definition unempirical one time event “
Untrue. One time events (including common descent) are empirically and repeatably testable. The sciences of forensics, archeology, history, and many others depend on this. Every discovery of a new species or fossil is a test of common descent. Every individual specimen can be repeatedly and independently tested by neutral observers.
“Again, you are using “microevolution” as proof for macroevolution””
No, when I mean common descent is falsifiable I mean just that. The theory that all life on Earth ultimately descends from one or a very few ancient organisms and that there is an unbroken chain of parent-child relationships between all living organisms and their last common ancestor is a falsifiable theory.
“Again, I told you not to misuse terms. You simply are using evidence of microevolution for to “prove”, validate, strengthen, your argument of Darwinism. Until you use correct terms, the debate will go nowhere.”
Microevolution is evidence of Darwinism (Natural Selection), I haven’t presented any evidence for common descent. I think yours are the terms that are confused.
I am using this definition of evolution from the dictonary:
“Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species”
Except I would add to it that there is more than one mechanism besides Natural Selection (which is the only one listed in the definition and which is usually meant today by “Darwinism”).
The theory of evolution is an overarching theory which includes the concept of common descent and modification of organisms via natural selection and many other concepts. So, if you want to say something about evolution it is usually best to specify which component of the theory you are addressing (is it common descent? Natural Selection? Speciation? Mutation? What?) This is what I have consistently tried to do in this discussion.
Sorry for the double post. Slow server.
I dunno, but I want FSM to be taught in schools.
Ramen, brethren. Ramen!
Um, was David thrown in the lions’ den? Daniel must be foaming over at his mouth…
“Untrue. One time events (including common descent) are empirically and repeatably testable. The sciences of forensics, archeology, history, and many others depend on this.”
The are some great books regarding the boundaries of science and what it entails. Kant’s Philosophy of Science comes to mind. A good read in which the a distinction between historical theories such as the ones you named and the empirical sciences such as physics, chemistry and geology. Perhaps you should read this for clarification between the two different branches and why they are not equal.
“Every discovery of a new species or fossil is a test of common descent. Every individual specimen can be repeatedly and independently tested by neutral observers.”
Are you serious? FIRST dogmatic statements like EVERY do not belong in science. To do so only begs the question and is the opposite of empirical. WOW, maybe you want to rethink this blunder!1. “Again, you are using “microevolution” as proof for macroevolution””“The theory that all life on Earth ultimately descends from one or a very few ancient organisms and that there is an unbroken chain of parent-child relationships between all living organisms and their last common ancestor is a falsifiable theory.”
Please provide examples of how this would be falsifiable.
“The issue is not about whether simple evolutionary changes occur, we know they do. We can observe them. It is whether these small changes could ever add up in time to massive changes. This where science is not being science, but speculation.”
Very well said outlander. You seem to articulate your points clearer than I. That is indeed where specualtion begins
Me thinks kswolverine doesn’t get it.
Post all the crap you can copy/paste from creationist sites you want, the fact of matter is that it’s still creationism. It’s not, nor has it ever been real science. The only “controversy” there is about evolution, micro- or macro-, is in the heads of the creationists.
“The are some great books regarding the boundaries of science and what it entails. Kant’s Philosophy of Science comes to mind. A good read in which the a distinction between historical theories such as the ones you named and the empirical sciences such as physics, chemistry and geology. Perhaps you should read this for clarification between the two different branches and why they are not equal.”
You keep suggesting that I should read stuff. I assure you I’m well read. From now on why don’t you just assume that I’ve read whatever you think I should have read and simply disagree with your interpretation of it.
Do you know who Popper is? He first proposed falsification as a criterion for demarcating science from non-science. Some accused him of excluding the historical sciences from his definition of science, he wrote the following passage to clear up that confusion:
“some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested… It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.”
Can we falsify the theory that a meteor was responsible for Barringer’s Crater in Arizona? Even though this was a one time historical event with no eye witness can’t we study it scientifically? Make hypotheses and test them? If not why not?
To deny that historical events are amenable to science would invalidate numerous fruitful braches of science.
“Are you serious? FIRST dogmatic statements like EVERY do not belong in science. To do so only begs the question and is the opposite of empirical. WOW, maybe you want to rethink this blunder!”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When a new species is discovered it must fit the pattern predicted by the theory of evolution or else that theory might be falsified. In this sense every new species (whether living or fossil) is a test of the theory. It’s really pretty straight forward I think.
“Please provide examples of how this would be falsifiable.”
1) Common descent is a result of an unbroken series of ancestor – descendant relationships. Such a series is mathematically defined as a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy has logically necessary properties which cannot be violated if the hierarchy is to exist. Therefore, it is trivially easy to falsify a nested hierarchy and by extension to falsify the theory of common descent. A fossil rabbit in the Precambrian strata would do it; so would a bird with the sonar system of a bat. The number of observations which could, in principle, falsify common descent is practically unlimited. That none of these potential falsifications have been found in millions of observations means that common descent has not been falsified and is well supported.
2) Common descent requires that all organisms share the same genetic code or else there would be no way to pass inheritance from one generation to the next. It would be trivially easy to falsify a universal genetic code simply by observing an organism that uses a code other than the universal one. That this falsification has not been observed in course of millions of observations means that common descent has not been falsified and is well supported.
3) Common descent requires a novel source of genetic variation. Had this source of novel genetic variation not been found common descent would have been falsified. It would have been trivially easy to observe that genes made perfect copies of themselves during replication. That this falsification has not been observed means that common descent has not been falsified and is well supported.
There are 29 more falsifications of common descent here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Good job Bggeek, but you are talking to a close-minded faith-head who is too scared to admit the obvious because it undermines the legitimacy of his religion.
When you start with the assumption that there is a God (or no God), you have already undermined your own ability to rationalize in any argument concerning religion.
So until KSwolverine is willing to give up his faith (in the creation myth not necessarily a God) in the face of evidence, there is no point discussing it with him.
“You keep suggesting that I should read stuff. I assure you I’m well read. From now on why don’t you just assume that I’ve read whatever you think I should have read and simply disagree with your interpretation of it.”
Never assume and never say EVERY or other absolutes. IF you would not make statements which reveal your ignorance then I would not question weather you have read various materials. For instance IF you have read the Origin you would know Darwin discussed and lamented how important is “evolution” from nonlife to life. Either you haven’t read this or you willingly refuse to admit.“Do you know who Popper is? He first proposed falsification as a criterion for demarcating science from non-science.”
Im sure then you are aware that Popper originally labeled Darwinism as unscientific claiming that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything therefore explains nothing. . I then am going to ASSUME then that you also know Popper recanted from this statement (Under great pressure) in a paper 1978 and took the view you described.. However, In 1983 Popper, while talking about natural selection, revealed that several biologists “formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.” Karl Popper - A Pocket Popper pg 242
I would ask if you have read this, but I think its obvious the answer is NO! HMMM once again you have proven WHY I question whether you have read several books.“To deny that historical events are amenable to science would invalidate numerous fruitful braches of science.”
I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly. Moreover, I am merely pointing out the distinction between historical theories and scientific theories. Perhaps this quote from two Princeton science professors will clarify the problem for you. Robert Kaita (principal research physicist) and Andrew Bocarsly (chemistry professor) –
“The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism…..The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences. Because Darwinism fails this criterion, it would have to join the young earth creationists and everybody else Darwinists would cast outside the pale of science.” Found in Doubts about Darwin by Thomas Woodward Pg 212-213
“Common descent is a result of an unbroken series of ancestor – descendant relationship….That none of these potential falsifications have been found in millions of observations means that common descent has not been falsified and is well supported.”
Perhaps you have NOT read anything from Gould or Eldrigde. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was formed to explain the LACK of transitional fossils. Also Richard Milton and many others have ample material showing where fossils HAVE been found out of “context” in the wrong strata.
“Common descent requires that all organisms share the same genetic code or else there would be no way to pass inheritance from one generation to the next.”
If anything this idea goes against Darwinism. Simply saying that dogs beget dogs and cats beget cats unlike Goldshimidts hopeful monster theory.
“Common descent requires a novel source of genetic variation. Had this source of novel genetic variation not been found common descent would have been falsified.”
Again NO one that I am aware of doubts that mutations. For that matter no one that I am aware of doubts common descent to an extent. The extent to which science has demonstrated, that speciation happens and organisms can “evolve”. The problems arise when your claims go PAST what science has told us. Just because organisms can adapt to their environment and change does not mean all creatures are derived from one common ancestor.
In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences. IF you don’t take my word for it perhaps you will take Ernest Mayr’s. He makes this distinction clear when he wrote: “I began to see that biology was quite a different kind of science from the physical sciences; it differed fundamentally in its subject matter, its history, its methods and its philosophy.” -This is Biology, preface pg 7
“So until KSwolverine is willing to give up his faith (in the creation myth not necessarily a God) in the face of evidence, there is no point discussing it with him.”
Hmmm people need to remember NEVER ASSUME, it only makes an A$$ out of you. Who says what I have faith in? Who says I am a creationist? OR that I believe in GOD?
“Good job Bggeek, but you are talking to a close-minded faith-head who is too scared to admit the obvious because it undermines the legitimacy of his religion.”
With this statement you could be referring to anyone, someone like Richard Dawkins or many other close-minded faith-head who is too scared to admit the obvious because it undermines the legitimacy of his religion
Life as we understand it is just very complicated chemistry.
Scientists get closer every day to the day when they will produce a new form of life.
THEN the matter will finally be settled.
kswolverine…………do you just enjoy talking s***? That’s basically what your posts are.
Nice argument Apophis!
“Nice argument Apophis!”
You always know who is winning a debate when all the other side can say what apophis said
THEN the matter will finally be settled.
I agree completely JR. I am not attempting to change anyones mind, only open them
kswolverine…………..if you think you are “winning a debate”, you are more deluded than your anti-evolution “logic”.
I guess here is how it is: kswolverine is right and hundreds of thousands reputable scientists are wrong about evolution. Yep, that’s it. To top it off, outlander backs him up……….that makes him even more correct. What a bunch of idiots.
There is no “controversy”, except in the minds of the creationists. Their “controversy” is that they are so trapped in the dogma of their religion, they cannot comprehend real science. Well, at least one day they too will become extinct. Darwin was right!
“I guess here is how it is: kswolverine is right and hundreds of thousands reputable scientists are wrong about evolution. Yep, that’s it. To top it off, outlander backs him up……….that makes him even more correct. What a bunch of idiots.”
Hmmmm AGAIN w the personal attacks, a classic sign of someone who no long can refute what you say, so they simple says its “s…” or you’re an “idiot”GREAT DEBATING SKILLS!!!
I wonder, are you not aware of the hundreds, even THOUSANDS of scientists reject Darwinism! Perhaps if you werent so closed minded and blinded by your religious dogma you would take the time to do a little research
kswolverine, your creationist quotes from the DI don’t impress me and I don’t agree with your interpretation of Mayr and Popper.
“Perhaps you have NOT read anything from Gould or Eldrigde. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was formed to explain the LACK of transitional fossils. Also Richard Milton and many others have ample material showing where fossils HAVE been found out of “context” in the wrong strata.”
Punctuated equilibrium is well accommodated by the theory of evolution and is addressed in the Origin of Species (although Darwin ended up speculating that evolution most often proceeded in large populations, he was wrong about that).
Occasionally fossils are found out of context. This is not unexpected when there are millions of fossils and there are many geological processes that can cause mixing of strata. That’s one reason I said specifically a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. It’s highly unlikely that any geological process would mix up the strata that bad. Feel free to post the links to the peer reviewed scientific papers on out of context fossils though. I would love to read them.
“If anything this idea goes against Darwinism. Simply saying that dogs beget dogs and cats beget cats unlike Goldshimidts hopeful monster theory.”
If this is your response I don’t think you understand my argument. A universal genetic code is a requirement of common descent because descendents must use the same code as their ancestors if they’re to express the same hereditary traits. If species were not related by common descent there would be no requirement for disparate species to use the same code. There would be no reason why each species or genus (or whatever level was the first kind) couldn’t use its own unique code. That is why observation of a genetic code other than the universal genetic code in an organism would falsify common descent.
I don’t know where you’re getting the dogs from dogs and hopeful monster stuff.
“Again NO one that I am aware of doubts that mutations. For that matter no one that I am aware of doubts common descent to an extent. The extent to which science has demonstrated, that speciation happens and organisms can “evolve”. The problems arise when your claims go PAST what science has told us. Just because organisms can adapt to their environment and change does not mean all creatures are derived from one common ancestor.”
Focus please. You asked for potential falsifications of common descent and I am providing them. If we assume that common descent from one ancestor was true then certain other things MUST be true. Failure to find those things would falsify common descent. This is a form of reasoning that follows the rule of logic called Modus Tollens.
if p then q; not q; therefore not p
where p is common descent and q are the logically necessary consequences of common descent that I’ve been listing (nested hierarchies, universal genetic code, novel source of genetic variation).
Do you agree that these are potential falsifications of common descent?
“Good job Bggeek, but you are talking to a close-minded faith-head who is too scared to admit the obvious because it undermines the legitimacy of his religion.”
Thank you Andrew. Of course you’re right and I have no illusions about changing kswolverines mind about anything. The value in these discussions isn’t in changing the minds of the participants it’s in informing the readers who are on the fence.
Nobody reading this should unquestioningly believe either me or mr. wolverine. The best that can happen is that somebody is spurred on to look into a particular topic on their own. I’ve learned quite a bit by following internet discussions on various topics. Not necessarily from the discussions themselves but because as a result of the discussion I went out and did some research into an idea I might not have considered before.
“kswolverine, your creationist quotes from the DI don’t impress me and I don’t agree with your interpretation of Mayr and Popper.”
You dont have to “agree” with it. There is nothing to agree with, IT IS FACT. IF you choose to ignore this like you have many other things I have posted I dont know what else I can say to help you.
“You dont have to “agree” with it. There is nothing to agree with, IT IS FACT. IF you choose to ignore this like you have many other things I have posted I dont know what else I can say to help you.”
It is argument by appeal to authority and it is irrelevant. Science isn’t scripture, it isn’t settled by quoting holy text, it’s settled by appeal to evidence. If we wanted to argue by appeal to authority we would do it right and appeal to the leading organizations of scientists today. To the extent that there is a consensus view of science and an “authority” to appeal to they are it.
Here are some examples.
“The Geological Society of America strongly supports teaching evolution and the directly related concept of deep time as part of science curricula. GSA opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution in any science classroom. The evolution of life on earth stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. During the past two centuries, research in geology, paleontology, and biology has produced an increasingly detailed and consistent picture of how life on Earth has evolved.Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be tested and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not science. Creationism, whether in its earlier form as creation “science” or its more recent guise of intelligent design, attempts to explain complicated phenomena of the natural world by invoking a creator or designer. Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested. It therefore has no place in a science curriculum.”
And from the National Academy of Sciences
“The origins and evolution of the Earth and living things are central themes in both the National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy. These ideas are considered to be critical to high-quality science education because evolutionary theory serves as the foundation for all areas of modern biology. The study of evolution also epitomizes how scientists gather evidence and construct explanations to account for phenomena that are not immediately visible or apparent.”
Would you accept those sources as authority and settle the matter? No? That you quote the DI and quotemine Mayr and Popper is irrelevant to me.
If you want to impress me then show me how Intelligent Design is falsifiable.
Do you agree that nested hierarchies, universal genetic code, and a novel source of genetic variation are all potential falsifications of common descent?
“If you want to impress me then show me how Intelligent Design is falsifiable.”
Poor Bggeek, I am not trying to change your mind or “impress” you with quotes, even THOUGH they are from PPL u quoted like Popper and someone who was called todays modern day Darwin. Please address the quotes the mention, NOT simply by saying I choose not to agree! This isnt grade school!
Im starting to wonder NOT ONLY if you read books but read what i wrote. ID and Darwinism are in the same boat. IF one is an histrocial theory both are historical theories. Second, why would you bring up creationism? WE ARE NOT TALKING about creationism. PLEASE refarin when your defending “evolution” to attacking creationism. Its a common failure made in the great debate. PERHAPS a book on debating would be in your best interest. I could recommend a few but alas I ASSUME you have ALREADY read them (HAHA)
“It is argument by appeal to authority and it is irrelevant.”
DO you disagree W MAYR that biology is not like the phyiscal sciences? DO you disagree w Popper that natural selection is a tautology? DO you disagree w the 2 princeton scientists? IF SO, WHY? DETAILED explanations, not just I DISAGREE. IF YOU CHOOSE not to respond to them YET AGAIN I will have to conclude that YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE
Absent religion, no one would believe in creationism. It is only religion that seeks to challenge evolution. It is only religion that claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Without religion, there would be no conversation debating the legitimacy of the scientific theory of evolution.
WSCLARK - “Absent religion, no one would believe in creationism. It is only religion that seeks to challenge evolution. It is only religion that claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Without religion, there would be no conversation debating the legitimacy of the scientific theory of evolution.”
“The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism…..”
NUFF said
Here’s an idea………………everyone stop engaging the kswolverine, whomever he/she is. Engaging in conversation only reinforces their “wedge” strategy.
You’re probably right, Apophis, but I could not resist…..
I will try to be good.
Apophis,
This is my first engagement with wolverine so I’m not tired of it yet. Eventually I’ll tire of it but I do think it’s enlightening to read the exchange.
The thing to take away from it is the consistant creationist strategy of debating philosophy and not evidence. As long as they stick to philosophy they have their precious quotes, which fits nicely with the biblical form of arguing, and they can avoid all the messy “evidence” which doesn’t go away no matter who is quoted.
“Please address the quotes the mention, NOT simply by saying I choose not to agree! This isnt grade school!”
Again the retreat to philosophy. If you couldn’t quote anybody in your posts you would have no argument. Fine, I’ll deal with it in my next post but first some other issues.
I did not quote Popper to prove the principal of falsificationism, I was just making sure you were familiar with him. Quoting somebody doesn’t prove anything, even if he’s the guy who came up with the idea (just like quoting Darwin doesn’t prove evolution), it’s nice for background and to define some terms but it’s not proof of anything.
I accept, as an unproven axiom, that falsifiability is a requirement for a scientific theory. There are no non-axiomatic systems of belief in the world, everything requires some initial assumptions. For me, falsifiability as a demarcation between science and non-science is an initial assumption.
I accept this assumption because I believe that the useful thing about science is that it allows us to make predictions about the natural world. The ability to predict the behavior of mass and energy under various conditions is what has allowed us to build a fantastic technological civilization. And a prediction, by its very nature, must be capable of being either true or false (IOW there is no such thing as a prediction which can ONLY be true. If there were it wouldn’t be called a prediction, it would be called a logical deduction). Saying a theory is unfalsifiable is another way of saying it makes no testable predictions which, to me, says it’s not science.
Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, science is essentially an inductive argument and inductive arguments are not considered “provable” but they are “falsifiable”. Therefore, to show that a scientific theory is falsifiable is to show that it is a valid induction which makes testable predictions.
There are an essentially unlimited number of non-falsifiable theories. Anyone on the planet can day dream a non-falsifiable theory (usually by invoking the supernatural). And there is nothing that can be used to determine the truth status of one non-falsifiable theory over any other theory because we can only distinguish between competing theories by showing which ones are wrong through empirical tests and observations. So as a practical matter, non-falsifiable theories must be discarded from consideration, simply because there is no way to ever distinguish between them. This is why I accept falsificationism as a criterion for science even if it cannot be rigorously proven from first principles.
See? I made that entire argument without quoting anybody.
“ID and Darwinism are in the same boat. IF one is an histrocial theory both are historical theories.”
No they are not in the same boat. One is falsifiable and the other isn’t, that is what distinguishes which boat they’re in. The fact that they are both historical theories is irrelevant. One is a falsifiable historical theory and the other is a non-falsifiable historical theory.
“Second, why would you bring up creationism? WE ARE NOT TALKING about creationism. PLEASE refarin when your defending “evolution” to attacking creationism.”
Yes we are talking about creationism and you are the one who brought it up when you brought up ID being on equal epistemological footing as evolution. Intelligent design is still creationism even if it doesn’t put the word in its name. What does it mean to design something but not to create it? Designed objects don’t exist until they are built (created). I can design things all day long but until I go out to my workshop and actually build them they’re not real. Since species are real they must have been created in addition to designed (if they were designed that is). There is no decoupling the two.
Interestingly, classical creation science is indeed a falsifiable theory (and one that’s been falsified), intelligent design is the attempt to remove falsifiability from creationism, and ironically making it less of a science,
My defense of evolution is separate from my criticism of creationism. I’ve presented potential falsifications of the theory of common descent in order to demonstrate that it is indeed a scientific theory and I’ve criticized ID for its lack of potential falsifications. These are two separate points that I have no trouble distinguishing between.
Ok, the quotes.
First your Princeton scientists. I don’t care. Robert Kaita is a fellow at the Discovery Institute and he’s a nuclear physicist. If I want to know the status of the theory of evolution as it is currently believed by contemporary scientists I’ll use the official statements from their professional societies (which have tens of thousands of members who actually practice the science in question). I posted a sample of those statements above; you had nothing to say about them.
Second Popper. You said:
“However, In 1983 Popper, while talking about natural selection, revealed that several biologists “formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.” Karl Popper - A Pocket Popper pg 242”
I don’t own and haven’t read “A Pocket Popper” *gasp*. But from what I understand it is a collection of Popper’s writings, not original writings. Thus, the book may have been published in 1983 but I strongly suspect the Popper quote was from 1976 which he later recanted.
Even if that’s not true and Popper said that in 1983 it sounds to me like he’s saying that some biologists incorrectly formulate the theory of natural selection such that it is a tautology NOT that the theory of natural selection is a tautology. It sounds like he is pointing out the mistake of some biologists.
Even if it’s true that Popper said that in 1983 (and I really don’t think it is) AND he was talking about natural selection itself and not a misformulation of the theory then he was wrong (yes, anybody can be wrong. And realizing he was wrong is probably why he changed his mind). Here is Gould’s response to the tautology argument.
“My defense of Darwin is neither startling, novel, nor profound. I merely assert that Darwin was justified in analogizing natural selection with animal breeding. In artificial selection, a breeder’s desire represents a “change of environment” for a population. In this new environment, certain traits are superior a priori; (they surive and spread by our breeder’s choice, but this is a result of their fitness, not a definition of it). In nature, Darwinian evolution is also a response to changing environments. Now, the key point: certain morphological, physiological and behvioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer’s criterion of good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. It got colder before the wooly mammoth evolved its shaggy coat.”
In my own words natural selection is not a tautology because the premise that there are no criteria for fitness independent of survival is false. Instead, the fittest organisms are the ones whose physical characteristics are most advantageous to the environment in which they find themselves. And that advantage conferred by those characteristics (their fitness) can be assessed a priori, we don’t have to wait to see who leaves the most offspring as the tautology charge suggests.
Third Mayr. You said:
“In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences. IF you don’t take my word for it perhaps you will take Ernest Mayr’s. He makes this distinction clear when he wrote: “I began to see that biology was quite a different kind of science from the physical sciences; it differed fundamentally in its subject matter, its history, its methods and its philosophy”
Now, before I respond to this I would like you to clarify what you think it means. I agree that there are certain characteristic differences between the physical sciences and the biological sciences. I never said otherwise, what I said was that the biological and historical sciences ARE sciences in the sense that they are empirically and repeatably testable by independent neutral observers.
Please say SPECIFICALLY what your argument is about the scientific nature of biology and SPECIFICALLY what you think Mayr means when he said the above. For this quote I have the surrounding context and I don’t think Mayr means what you want him to mean, I don’t think he supports your argument but I want to be sure because what you said above was just vague enough…
kswolverine,
Do you agree that nested hierarchies, universal genetic code, and a novel source of genetic variation are all potential falsifications of common descent?
“Again the retreat to philosophy. If you couldn’t quote anybody in your posts you would have no argument. Fine, I’ll deal with it in my next post but first some other issues.”
LOL, I haven’t quoted anyone until 2 posts ago. WHERE do you get this philosophy stuff?“I did not quote Popper to prove the principal of falsificationism, I was just making sure you were familiar with him.”
Thats great. As my posts have clearly demonstrated my knowledge of Popper and many other scientists seems superior to your own. At the very least you have shown great ignorance of many authors and ideas.When two layman (im ASSUMING you haven’t published any scientific works, feel free to correct me) engage in a debate using experts in the fields helps validate arguments. As I already pointed out I didnt even quote people until a few posts ago. IN FACT, YOU brought up info from talk origins; you mentioned the Popper quote and I enlightened you regarding his stance on Darwinism. Moreover, your reference to websites and authors has been more than mine. Hence, once again your ignorance has been openly shown.
“See? I made that entire argument without quoting anybody.”
WOW, as I have already pointed out your ignorance is bliss :)“No they are not in the same boat. One is falsifiable and the other isn’t, that is what distinguishes which boat they’re in. The fact that they are both historical theories is irrelevant. One is a falsifiable historical theory and the other is a non-falsifiable historical theory.”
Wow, great so instead of I don’t agree, I get “One is a falsifiable historical theory and the other is a non-falsifiable historical theory” Really??!! Thanks for ummmm opinion about that. That clarifies everything. Perhaps if you would be so bold as to indulge us as to WHY that is, in other words MAKE AN ARGUMENT, then PERHAPS we would be able to get somewhere. Unlike our current situation of me making my case and you simply saying afraid not. I disagree you. I cant prove or show WHY your wrong, but you’re WRONG!
‘What does it mean to design something but not to create it? Designed objects don’t exist until they are built (created). I can design things all day long but until I go out to my workshop and actually build them they’re not real.”
WOW, (I keep having to use this word when I read geek) so, who is talking philosophy? So before you built, lets say a watch, those parts ARE NOT real. Hmmmm, and yet IM the one who is taking this conversation into the philosophical world? For those reading these posts take notes.
“Since species are real they must have been created in addition to designed (if they were designed that is). There is no decoupling the two.”
I have NO idea what you are trying to say. Species are real, thanks for the observation.
“Interestingly, classical creation science is indeed a falsifiable theory (and one that’s been falsified),”
Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics. I made this point in the beginning and have even brought in several experts who strengthen the validity of my argument. Darwinists and ID proponents alike. This is how a debate works.
“intelligent design is the attempt to remove falsifiability from creationism, and ironically making it less of a science,”
Really, that is your interpretation of intelligent design? WOW, http://www.discovery.org perhaps you should read about ID.
“Discovery Institute’s mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute’s own publications and Internet website….Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of “Cascadia.”
Didn’t see anything in there mentioning removing falsibfiability from creationism.
“My defense of evolution is separate from my criticism of creationism. I’ve presented potential falsifications of the theory of common descent in order to demonstrate that it is indeed a scientific theory and I’ve criticized ID for its lack of potential falsifications. These are two separate points that I have no trouble distinguishing between.”
For starters, a quote from you a few posts ago ( ill save room here and not repeat the diatribe, readers can simply scroll up) attempted show why “evolution” is science and in the next paragraph attacked creationism. Thus once again you are wrong. Your defense of “evolution” has NOT been separate from your criticism of creationism. Moreover, we are discussing the validity of “evolution” or Darwinism. Why mention creationism at all?
I’m not much for long winded arguements.
Wolverine? If you deny evolution, you invoke god.
I invite you to prove the existence of god.
“Do you agree that nested hierarchies, universal genetic code, and a novel source of genetic variation are all potential falsifications of common descent?”
I believe common descent is an historical theory, as is all 5 parts of Darwinism. IF by falsifcation you mean refute or defeat as the same manner as SCIENCE theories are measured in the phyiscal sciences, such as physics and chemistry, then no. There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory. That is what separates historical theories from the physical sciences.
Long story short–scientists get to determine what is science. Period.
If you don’t like it, become a scientist and change science.
It’s the easiest thing in the world. Just show it empirically, and they’ll believe you.
If you can’t, then sit down and STFU.
Ok, the quotes.“First your Princeton scientists. I don’t care.”
Fantastic argument! I DON’T CARE! Brilliant
“Robert Kaita is a fellow at the Discovery Institute and he’s a nuclear physicist.”
Im sorry, did I not say he was a physicist? AM I missing something or are you pointing out the obvious.
“If I want to know the status of the theory of evolution as it is currently believed by contemporary scientists I’ll use the official statements from their professional societies (which have tens of thousands of members who actually practice the science in question)”
Ugggh, AGAIN it is YOU who mercilessly brings in quotes. .
“ I posted a sample of those statements above; you had nothing to say about them.”
You have repeatedly used the “agrument” I don’t agree. Or I DON’T CARE, lol. Forgive me if I ask for further clarification of your opinion.
“I don’t own and haven’t read “A Pocket Popper” *gasp*”
No reason to admit that, we all can tell :) Apparently many books I have mentioned you have not read. Hence why I question whether you have read various writings.
“But from what I understand it is a collection of Popper’s writings, not original writings.”
This is true, never said otherwise.
“Thus, the book may have been published in 1983 but I strongly suspect the Popper quote was from 1976 which he later recanted.”
WOW, no make that a double WOW. So, let me get this straight you suspect, rather, STRONGLY suspect the quote was from 76. Its frustrating to keep having to explain debate tactics. When making statements have EVIDENCE to support it! Especially when you are challenging the authority of the publisher. Hmmm whom to believe, the publisher who said the paper was from 1983 or some geek who claims its FROM 1976?
“Even if that’s not true and Popper said that in 1983 it sounds to me like he’s saying that some biologists incorrectly formulate the theory of natural selection such that it is a tautology NOT that the theory of natural selection is a tautology. It sounds like he is pointing out the mistake of some biologists.”
You can freely choose to read into it anything you like. I merely present the information, what you infer or decide to accept is ultimately on you. I choose to think that had Popper wished to say incorrectly formulate the theory of natural selection he would have said so.
Gould- “These traits confer fitness by an engineer’s criterion of good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. It got colder before the wooly mammoth evolved its shaggy coat.”
Fitness and Survival of the fittest can only be determined after the fact. Which species of Galapago finches has the most fitness? One criteria for fitness is the ability to adapt to their environment. Those who survive are the most fit. Who are the most fit, those who survive. Hence the tautology argument.
“In my own words natural selection is not a tautology because the premise that there are no criteria for fitness independent of survival is false. Instead, the fittest organisms are the ones whose physical characteristics are most advantageous to the environment in which they find themselves.”
How does one decide which “characteristics are most advantageous to the environment”. How could one scientifically quantify the measurement of this?
“Now, before I respond to this I would like you to clarify what you think it means. I agree that there are certain characteristic differences between the physical sciences and the biological sciences.”
Certain characteristics may be a bit of an understatement but I shall let it pass. Simply what I said before about there being a great difference between historical theories and physical science theories.
“Please say SPECIFICALLY what your argument is about the scientific nature of biology and SPECIFICALLY what you think Mayr means when he said the above.”
I believe Mayr meant specific what he said.
“For this quote I have the surrounding context and I don’t think Mayr means what you want him to mean,”
LOL, I too have the surrounding context, I OWN THE BOOK!
“I don’t think he supports your argument but I want to be sure because what you said above was just vague enough”
Im confused. I argue that “evolution” is an historical theory unlike the physical sciences. I quote Ernest Mayr who confirms this, period! I already mentioned assuming, it makes an A$$ out of you. Im daring to go out on a limb here, and suggest that you are inferring I am labeling Mayr a creationist of some sorts. Hmm, no I cant say that I am. Please, next time save yourself the embarrassment, don’t ASSUME.
“In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences. IF you don’t take my word for it perhaps you will take Ernest Mayr’s. He makes this distinction clear when he wrote: “I began to see that biology was quite a different kind of science from the physical sciences; it differed fundamentally in its subject matter, its history, its methods and its philosophy.” -This is Biology, preface pg 7 “
Don’t assume, ask, what exactly is not clear here?
kswolverine is following in the great scholarly tradition of Connie Morris, Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin, Iris VanMeter, Ken Willard, and John Bacon.
They also set themselves up as knowing more about science than the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who opposed their actions.
Kswolverine must be John Calvert of the ID/Creationism Network.
Again, to engage these nutcases is to play into their hands. They want to engage anyone in debating an alleged “controversy”. Read the DI “Wedge” strategy: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Yeah Apophis, I’ve read the wedge strategy. It’s a difficult high wire act when you try to put forward a non-religous face to the general public so that you don’t get laughed out of court while still needing to appeal to your religous base in their language because you need funding. It trips them up everytime.
I’ll have a response to kswolverine later today but I assure you I’m moving into the “wrapping it up phase”.
I see the responses here to the kswolverine’s arguments have deteriorated to; “You aren’t a scientist, you aren’t qualified to question our quasi-religion, STFU.”
You know, the “shouting down” debating approach you see so often demonstrated by the libs here.
The so-called “wedge strategy” is published on Discovery Institutes website. http://www.discovery.org/ It’s not like it’s a secret.
You can’t accomplish the goal of exposing the fallacies of Darwinism if you don’t have a plan.
Outlander
Please prove the existence of God.
Here I mean. NOT in my kids school.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=450
And here is Discovery Institutes refuting of the resulting near hysteric reaction to the “Wedge” document.
You’re doing a good job bggeek. Many of your questions go unanswered, many of your debate points ignored. I’m learning! Only those who don’t allow facts to get in the way of their obsessions will continue with unsupported arguments.
You may be able to change the mind of someone who is convinced of an idea but never one whose mind is obsessed with an idea. Me thinks you are up against those who won’t give up their obsessions.
outie………..no one claimed the “Wedge document” is currently a state secret. It was, at the time it was hatched, a secret among the creationist sect. Also, you cares what response DI publicized after their document was leaked. Fact of the matter, the entire ID movement is a crock.
Bggeek, I do have to admit you have done well against this ks wolverine person. I personally wouldn’t have wasted my time on his/her kind, but that’s just me. Their ID crap was never going to be taught in the schools anyway. It clearly violates the Establishment Clause, verified by the Dover, PA ruling.
Playing politics with textbooks is a time tested method of skewing impressionable minds right-ward.
Consider for example history textbooks that gloss over terrorism against African-Americans post-Civil War (at least 200 lynchings a year, often photographed with grinning racist crackers clearly identified).
How many textbooks discuss the simple fact that Helen Keller was an avowed socialist? That the US supported narco-terrorism (opium) against China, forcing it to import addictive drugs despite Chinese law forbidding it? That Eisenhower helped overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossagedh in Iran to install a KING (the Shah)? That we overthrew at about the same time the election in Lebanon because it went to Muslims and instead installed a minority Christian gov’t? That unionism was the driving factor for the rise in the wages and benefits of the middle class in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s?
As long a local school boards pick the textbooks, you can be assured that a bland, powderized and deodorized version of reality will be taught.
And we wonder why kids don’t take an interest in school.
Maybe it’s because they know BS when they hear it . . .
And outslander, calling it “shouting down” doesn’t change the fact.
Scientific consensus gets to put its view forward.
Bullsh*t quibbles don’t.
Interestingly, Capn, the choice of textbooks by local boards is often done from a dwindling number of options, or so I’m told. The options from which the choice is made represent those which have found favor with the State Boards of Texas; Florida; and California. Apparently, these three states have state-wide textbook approvals, done at the state level; and given the size of the markets these states represent, there is a real issue on content of any texts, especially when the sensibilities of the elected or appointed officials of any of these states are offended.
“Outlander
Please prove the existence of God.
Here I mean. NOT in my kids school.”
“The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism…..”
NUFF SAID
KSwolverine knows more about natural selection than the scientific community does.
Funny thing though.
He’s not published in any peer-reviewed journals.
Why?
Because they don’t print unsubstantiated crap . . .
“IN FACT, YOU brought up info from talk origins; you mentioned the Popper quote and I enlightened you regarding his stance on Darwinism. Moreover, your reference to websites and authors has been more than mine. Hence, once again your ignorance has been openly shown.”
You do understand that it’s necessary to link to other sites in order to provide evidence? I can’t draw you a fossil and post it on this site. I linked to peer reviewed scientific papers and an extremely comprehensive summary of the best evidence for common descent written by a professional biologist and copiously referenced to primary scientific literature. This stuff is called evidence; it’s the stuff you haven’t responded to. It’s the stuff that, if you are really interested in talking about the evidence for evolution, you should be reading and dealing with. You aren’t, you’re quoting your Princeton friends and Mayr as they wax about the philosophical status of various sciences. Interesting perhaps, but not exactly dealing with the evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The only philosopher I brought up was Popper and I patiently and comprehensively explained WHY I accept his opinion without trying to bludgeon you with the force of his authority.
>“See? I made that entire argument without quoting anybody.”
WOW, as I have already pointed out your ignorance is bliss :)”
It’s interesting and telling that you responded to my little quip at the end of a three paragraph argument but not the argument itself and then you later insist that I need to MAKE an argument, as if I just hadn’t. Let’s keep this simple:1) Do you agree that falsifiability is a necessary property of a scientific theory?2) Do you agree that unfalsifiable theories do not make testable predictions and that there is no way to distinguish the validity of such theories?3) Do you agree with my arguments for why I answer points 1 and 2 in the positive?
“Wow, great so instead of I don’t agree, I get “One is a falsifiable historical theory and the other is a non-falsifiable historical theory” Really??!! Thanks for ummmm opinion about that. That clarifies everything. Perhaps if you would be so bold as to indulge us as to WHY that is, in other words MAKE AN ARGUMENT”
Your histrionics are noted. I posted a clear argument for why I accept that falsifiability is a criterion for a scientific theory. I posted a clear argument for why the theory of common descent is falsifiable (and I linked to many more such arguments from the primary scientific literature). I have asserted that ID is unfalsifiable because it is compatible with every conceivable observation or test. If you disagree with this I’ve invited you to explain how ID might be falsified.
“WOW, (I keep having to use this word when I read geek) so, who is talking philosophy? So before you built, lets say a watch, those parts ARE NOT real. Hmmmm, and yet IM the one who is taking this conversation into the philosophical world? For those reading these posts take notes.”
Are you unable to follow the conversation? You asked me why I brought up creationism. I said I didn’t, I said that you brought it up when you asserted that ID and evolution are on equal epistemological footing. In order to back up my claim it was necessary to make the argument that creationism is a logical consequence of ID. I did that above, quite clearly I think. Your objection misses the point. The watch parts need to be designed and created also.
“I have NO idea what you are trying to say. Species are real, thanks for the observation. “
I’m saying that if species were designed they must have been created also. This is such a simple concept that I can’t believe I have to step you through the elementary logic but I guess I do.
Design – To conceive or fashion in the mind
Create – To cause to exist
1. (D . ~C) -> ~E = If species are designed (D) and species are not created (~C) then species don’t exist (~E)
2. E = species exist (from observation)
3. ~(D . ~C) = Modus Tollens from 1. and 2.
4. (~D v C) = De Morgans Theorem from 3.
5. D = Species are designed (this is the fundamental theorem of ID)
6. C = Disjunctive Syllogism from 4. and 5. Species are created.
If species are designed and they exist then they were created. This constitutes the formal proof of my argument that creationism is a logically necessary component of ID.
“Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics. I made this point in the beginning and have even brought in several experts who strengthen the validity of my argument. Darwinists and ID proponents alike. This is how a debate works.”
Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion. To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT. Mayr does not say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable, he says they are not reductionist like the physical sciences. Once again NO SUPPORT for you.
And I brought in my own expert (Popper) who clearly gives his opinion that historical sciences are testable (falsifiable). Not satisfied with an argument from authority I pointed out several historical sciences that depend on falsifiablity for their success. I also asked if the theory that a meteor was responsible for Barringer’s Crater in Arizona is a falsifiable historical theory. No response from you.
Let me try this. Is the theory that OJ Simpson murdered Nichole Brown and Ronald Goldman falsifiable? It is a historical theory because it could only have happened once in the past and there were no eye witnesses. (hint: yes it is, the Juice could have been in Moscow when they were murdered).
Your argument that the historical sciences are unfalsifiable (”cannot be invalidated” as you said) stands unsupported and refuted.
“Really, that is your interpretation of intelligent design? WOW, http://www.discovery.org perhaps you should read about ID.”
Yes it is my interpretation; I don’t assert it to be anything else. What ID means to the IDists is notoriously hard to pin down. William Dembski once said “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory”
Now that I’ve quoted a philosopher I must be right, right? Isn’t that how it works? What if I quoted a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”
What if I quoted an earlier version of that VERY SAME TEXTBOOK, Of Pandas and People: “Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
Uh-oh, did I just prove that Intelligent Design is just reworked Creationism? [/sarcasm]
“Moreover, we are discussing the validity of “evolution” or Darwinism. Why mention creationism at all?”
Because you brought up creationism when you brought up ID (as I proved above).
With any complex theoretical construct, one can find seeming contradictions and logical weak points.
Consider Einstein’s theory which concludes that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light for instance. This seems to be in contradiction with the “big bang” theory in which matter apparently did travel faster than the speed of light.
This does not mean that either the big bang or Einstein’s theory has no merit. It simply means that questions remain which haven’t been solved yet.
Again, science gets to write science. Ignorant yahoos from small towns in Kansas don’t.
I’m going to try to keep this shorter because it’s getting out of hand.
“Ugggh, AGAIN it is YOU who mercilessly brings in quotes.”
I brought in those quotes to show you how to make a correct appeal to authority (i.e. you don’t get to only quote authorities that agree with you. The National Academy of Sciences carries more weight than your Princeton non-biologists when discussing biology.)
“WOW, no make that a double WOW. So, let me get this straight you suspect, rather, STRONGLY suspect the quote was from 76. Its frustrating to keep having to explain debate tactics. When making statements have EVIDENCE to support it! Especially when you are challenging the authority of the publisher. Hmmm whom to believe, the publisher who said the paper was from 1983 or some geek who claims its FROM 1976?”
I admitted I didn’t have the EVIDENCE which is why I presented my argument in case I was wrong about when the paper was written. What’s wrong with that? “I don’t believe this but if I’m wrong here is how I would respond” seems perfectly fine to me.
As for challenging the authority of the publisher I’m not. I believe whatever the publisher says. I just don’t believe you. The publisher says the book is a collection of Popper writings and it was published in 1983. That doesn’t mean the writings are from 1983. Are you saying that Popper wrote a paper JUST FOR THIS BOOK? And in that paper he said that natural selection is a tautology? I don’t believe that but I could be wrong, if I am see my response in my earlier post.
“I choose to think that had Popper wished to say incorrectly formulate the theory of natural selection he would have said so.”
And I choose to think that had Popper wished to say that natural selection was a tautology he would have said that. And not said that SOME biologists formulate natural selection as a tautology. That clearly indicates he believes at least some if not most biologists DON’T formulate natural selection as a tautology.
“Which species of Galapago finches has the most fitness?”
This question indicates that you do not understand the concept. Fitness is not measured between species inhabiting different environmental or geographical niches. Fitness is the capability of an individual of a certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
A better question would be to take two finches of the same species living in the same ecological niche and ask which one is more fit.
“How could one scientifically quantify the measurement of this?”
This is a good question. We could quantify the thickness and insulative properties of a wooly mammoth coat. If one wooly mammoth has a coat twice as thick as a second wooly mammoth we could estimate the relative fitness of the first to the second (we might say the relative fitness = 2.0 if they lived in a cold environment or 0.5 if they lived in a warm environment.). This estimate would be a scientific prediction which we could then experimentally tested by measuring the average number of surviving progeny of the first mammoth to that of the second mammoth in the next generation.
“Im confused. I argue that “evolution” is an historical theory unlike the physical sciences. I quote Ernest Mayr who confirms this, period!”
No, Mayr says that BIOLOGY is a historical theory. Biology includs more than just evolution, are you read to throw out all of Biology? Mayr doesn’t say that historical theories are unfalsifiable or that they’re not science. He says that historical theories are not reductionist like physical theories but he explicitly says that historical theories can still be systematically analyzed.
You do understand that it’s necessary to link to other sites in order to provide evidence?”
Geek, buddy, DID YOU NOT READ MY POST. I said the same thing too you. It appears you loved my argument because you are using what I told you!
This stuff is called evidence; it’s the stuff you haven’t responded to.”
Geek, again you are confused. I have repeatedly pointed out that the difference with historical theories and scientific theories. You keep referring to 29 links for common descent. The problem IS NOT with the EVIDENCE! The problem is with the DARWINIAN inference that evidence of microevolution, evidence of speciation, supports the dogmatic idea that all organisms share a common ancestor. Im not sure how much clearer I can make this. IF you do not see the difference then perhaps you need to reevaluate your own personal biases.
“It’s interesting and telling that you responded to my little quip at the end of a three paragraph argument but not the argument itself and then you later insist that I need to MAKE an argument, as if I just hadn’t. “
Simply saying, I don’t agree. Its not falsifable is not an argument.
“Let’s keep this simple:”
Please
“Do you agree that falsifiability is a necessary property of a scientific theory?”
I think it is important
“2) Do you agree that unfalsifiable theories do not make testable predictions and that there is no way to distinguish the validity of such theories?”
It all depends on your what you consider unfalsifiable. One can make a claim about the atmosphere here on earth millions of years ago. IS there any quantified way to measure the atmosphere millions of years ago with an experiment today? NO. The strata can be examined, fossils can be reviewed, other inferences can be made. Can the question be answered? IT all depends on what the valadity of the evidence one is willingly to accept. Kant, Popper and many other men much smarter than I have spent years debating over the validity of science including how theories can be falsified.
“3) Do you agree with my arguments for why I answer points 1 and 2 in the positive?”
I understand why you believe you answered those first two in the positive
“I posted a clear argument for why I accept that falsifiability is a criterion for a scientific theory.”
Read above. You again are missing the point. When did I ever question the falsifiability of a scientific theory? I did challenge, NOT weather historical theories can be falisfied, but weather the can measured and tested like the phyiscal science. Perhaps this clears up your confusion.
“I have asserted that ID is unfalsifiable because it is compatible with every conceivable observation or test. If you disagree with this I’ve invited you to explain how ID might be falsified.”
I have already SAID ID is an historical theory. Therefore it is in the same boat as Darwinism. Unlike you, I don’t pressume some historical theories to be scientific while others not.
“Are you unable to follow the conversation? You asked me why I brought up creationism. I said I didn’t, I said that you brought it up when you asserted that ID and evolution are on equal epistemological footing. In order to back up my claim it was necessary to make the argument that creationism is a logical consequence of ID. I did that above, quite clearly I think. Your objection misses the point.”
In my posts I never brought up ID or creationism until it was brought up. HENCE you brought it up. You claim creationism is a logical consequence of ID, I AGREE! The only problem is your refusal to admit that Darwinism and ID are in the same boat. You have already confirmed that Darwinism is an historical theory. MY quote of the two scientists demonstrates this wonderfully. You have YET to address this quote yet again, merely to say I DON’T CARE! Thus I conclude you have concede the point and CANNOT refute that Darwinism and ID are in the same boat.
“Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion.”
Perhaps GEEK you need to reread the quote :)
“The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences. Because Darwinism fails this criterion, it would have to join the young earth creationists and everybody else Darwinists would cast outside the pale of science.”
“To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”
Not true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation)—Price’s equation is, importantly, a tautology. It is a statement of mathematical fact between certain variables, and its value lies in the insight gained by assigning certain values encountered in evolutionary genetics to the variables. For example, the statement “if every pair of birds has two offspring, then among ten pairs of birds there will be twenty offspring” is a tautology. It doesn’t really impart any new information about birds so much as it organizes our concepts about birds and their offspring.”
So how does this prove quantitative mathematical support for Darwinism? Please do tell. 10 birds have 2 offspring each. Thus there are 20 birds. This undoubtedly confirms DARWINISM? Again the problem is not that genetic changes in the structure of an organism. The problem revolves around to the EXTENT of those changes. I fail to see how this equation refutes anything the two scientists said.
“Mayr does not say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable, he says they are not reductionist like the physical sciences. Once again NO SUPPORT for you.”
Mine - “In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences. IF you don’t take my word for it perhaps you will take Ernest Mayr’s. He makes this distinction clear when he wrote: “I began to see that biology was quite a different kind of science from the physical sciences; it differed fundamentally in its subject matter, its history, its methods and its philosophy.” -This is Biology, preface pg 7 “
WHERE EXACTLY do I” say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable???? PLEASE quit making erroneous inferences.
Snore . . . yawn . . . hrmmpfh . . . yawn . . . snore . . .
Obsess about it all you want, KSWolf.
You lose. We win.
Get over it.
“This question indicates that you do not understand the concept. Fitness is not measured between species inhabiting different environmental or geographical niches. Fitness is the capability of an individual of a certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation.”
Geek you are confusing MEASURING fitness with attributes that affect fitness
“In my own words natural selection is not a tautology because the premise that there are no criteria for fitness independent of survival is false. Instead, the fittest organisms are the ones whose physical characteristics are most advantageous to the environment in which they find themselves.”
Geek you are once again confused. You are confusing the attributes which help enable fitness in an organism with the measurement of those attributes. There are several factors which influence fitness, including adaption, geographical distribution and isolation, ecological factors, social factors, etc However, as evolutionist Mark Ridley discloses, there are only THREE ways to measure fitness
“There are three methods for measuring fitness:1. • Measure the relative survival of the genotypes within a generation. Kettlewell’s mark-recapture experiment with the peppered moth is an example.”
Survival. The quantified way of measuring fitness.“2 • Measure changes in gene frequencies between generations. We then substitute the measurements into the formula that expresses fitness in terms of gene frequencies in successive generations.”
This is a novel idea. Very intuitive. I have learned about some formulas they have used because of this debate. Basically you measure the genes and traits which get passed on. This is done by economists to gauge a certain business industry. Such calculations are used by companies and investors to gauge the success rate of a business. In this analogy of the business world, money is the life of a business. Death would equal no money. Ultimately, fitness is determined by which companies thrive and which fail. You can have a company with novel idea and great business organization and structure but fail. The point is the success or “fitness” is ultimately measured in the survival rate or in the business world the amount of dollars. Granted, other factors contribute the success of a business besides money, like contribution to society, quality of work environment, novel ideas, etc but in this less than perfect analogy money is the life. Without it there is death. Thus money is the ultimate quantified way to measure success. Someone can say such and such a business was beneficial to the economy or had a vital impact on society. However, the ONLY quantified way to measure this is the almighty dollar.• Measure deviations from the Hardy- Weinberg ratios - this is used in estimating fitness in the case of sickle cell anemia.”
Hence the term estimating. The estimate which characters are advantageous in sickle cell anemia and attempt to isolate them, in order to cure the disease. IF THEY COULD quantify which traits are advantageous then there would be no point in doing the tests. The fact that they test to find out which ONES are beneficial to the survival of the disease exemplifies this difference.
There are only three ways to measure fitness. ONLY one of those ways is quantified. The other two are very insightful and even useful. There is even a great prediction value in them. However, there is no way to determine the ACTUAL success rate of fitness until it ACTUAL happens. Hence, the future can be predicted with some success by using methods 2 and 3 but the actual success is determined by 1. Notice trying to quantify the results in part 2. The data is imputed into the formula and the results are which organisms are more fit in a given environment. Just as you can predict which businesses will thrive and which will suffer loses the ONLY QUANTIFIED results will ultimately be decided by MONEY (LIFE) .
In other words you can never be a 100% sure because the future survival of organisms has yet to be determined. You can only MAKE statements about the past simply because the results ARE ALREADY KNOWN. Time, ultimately will reveal the future and reveal which organisms are the fittest. In the case of the wholly mammoth, we know it was fit to survive the cold conditions which ensued. However had the climate changed from very cold to very hot the mammoths fur would not have been advantageous. We can take an organism today and try to isolate the fittest. We can say that if organism has attributes A, B, and C then they will be more apt to survive in a specific environment. The only QUANTIFIED way though to measure this fitness is with survival.
In short, the 2 and 3 theories are useful and even predictive. Yet in the end the results are inferences which are not quantified. Just as the differences between historical theories and scientific theories the differences between survival and prediction is results. Quantified results.
“You lose. We win.”
Great debating skills! Thanks
“The problem IS NOT with the EVIDENCE! The problem is with the DARWINIAN inference that evidence of microevolution, evidence of speciation, supports the dogmatic idea that all organisms share a common ancestor. Im not sure how much clearer I can make this.”
Almost none of that EVIDENCE deals with speciation. It is all directly on point for the theory of common descent. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it. You refuse to deal with it.
“I did challenge, NOT weather historical theories can be falisfied, but weather the can measured and tested like the phyiscal science. Perhaps this clears up your confusion.”
But as I’ve gone to great lengths to point out testability and falsifiablilty are two sides of the same coin. If you question whether historical sciences are testable you are questioning whether they are falsifiable. Comparing them to the physical sciences is only a distraction. They are different than physical sciences but no less testable.
“It all depends on your what you consider unfalsifiable. One can make a claim about the atmosphere here on earth millions of years ago. IS there any quantified way to measure the atmosphere millions of years ago with an experiment today? NO.”
Well yes, they did it for the Martian atmosphere by measuring trapped gas particles in the minerals of the meteor from Antarctica. But if I grant that it can’t be done then the composition of the atmosphere millions of years ago is not a scientific theory, it would just be speculation.
“In my posts I never brought up ID or creationism until it was brought up.”
Search the thread. The first reference to ID in our conversation was in the middle of the quote by your Princeton boys. After that I responded to it and so here we are.
>“Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion.”
Perhaps GEEK you need to reread the quote :)”
You disingenuously omitted the first part of the quote this time (you know, the part about conflating science and religion?) to make my response less effective. This is not an honest debating tactic.
“The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism”
Please stick to honest debating tactics or I’ll begin to believe you’ve never read a book on the subject.
“So how does this prove quantitative mathematical support for Darwinism?”
You are right, I admit my error on this one. I am constructing my responses haphazardly as I am at work. Forget the Price equation. Try this one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
“Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
“WHERE EXACTLY do I” say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable???? PLEASE quit making erroneous inferences. ”
You are here arguing that Evolution is NOT science BECAUSE it is historical in nature (as supported by the Mayr quote which I omit to save space.) I think my inference is pretty solid.
“In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences. IF you don’t take my word for it perhaps you will take Ernest Mayr’s. He makes this distinction clear when he wrote:…”
I’ll try 2 keep this short as I too am at work and I we have already had several lengthy posts taking up much of this
“It is all directly on point for the theory of common descent. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it. You refuse to deal with it”
There’s nothing to deal. As I said in the last post. The question isn’t over the evidence. RATHER ur inference of the evidence.
“Comparing them to the physical sciences is only a distraction. They are different than physical sciences but no less testable.”
I have tired to make this abudantly clear. Rather than waste blog space, simply reread past posts.
“Search the thread. The first reference to ID in our conversation was in the middle of the quote by your Princeton boys. After that I responded to it and so here we are”
Your response to the “evolution thread WAS BEFORE my Princeton scientists quote. I’ll let the readers decide.
“You disingenuously omitted the first part of the quote this time (you know, the part about conflating science and religion?) to make my response less effective. This is not an honest debating tactic.”
HARDLY, I simply cut the quote for space. You simply choose to focus on the first part, thus I EMPAHSISED the later to clarify your misunderstanding. :)
“Please stick to honest debating tactics or I’ll begin to believe you’ve never read a book on the subject.”
Again empty inferences. IF anything I could point a finger on your debating tactics. But this is becoming irksome.“You are right, I admit my error on this one.”
Thank you. I wonder if you even READ the price equation or simply googled for the first thing you came across since you are constructing your responses haphazardly
Forget the Price equation. Try this one:
Are you serious. How many bites of the apple do you get?! I will address this tonight when I have more time.
“You are here arguing that Evolution is NOT science BECAUSE it is historical in nature (as supported by the Mayr quote which I omit to save space.) I think my inference is pretty solid.”
What exactly is your inference?
INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM: A Threat to Society – Not Just BiologyBy Dr. Marshall Berman
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is a reincarnation of a 200-year-old idea that goes back to William Paley. That theologian wrote that the existence of a watch is tantamount to the existence of a watchmaker, since natural forces could not have created a watch. By analogy, he claimed that complex living things should require direct, divine intervention by a creator. That argument – as science – has been demolished by two centuries of scientific progress.
This essay discusses the plans and intentions of the “modern” ID leaders, frequently in their own words. Many ID advocates believe they are doing “God’s work.” But in doing so, consciously or unconsciously, they are jeopardizing the nature of science itself, our education system, and even our form of government. They do not understand that the cause many of them promote would, if successful, terminate many of the freedoms that they and we currently enjoy.
It is time for those who cherish our republic and our freedom to take a strong stand against those who would prefer a theocracy, not in Iran or Afghanistan, but in the United States.
ID’s World View & Future Plans
About a dozen years ago, Phillip Johnson, the acknowledged father of the ID movement, resurrected Intelligent Design and assembled a group of people to introduce these ideas into society. The primary seat of ID is the Center for Science and Culture (CSC, which is amply funded by and housed at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington). Its Web site (http://www.discover y.org) states that “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Two well-known proponents are Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University and William A. Dembski of Baylor University.
The ID movement initially focuses on disproving evolution and allowing for the possibility of an unspecified designer in science (perhaps God, perhaps aliens from outer space). They claim that scientists have a naturalistic bias and that ID is scientific and not religious, despite the fact that it does not provide any description of the designer, nor any mechanistic model by which the design was effectuated. At best, this is disingenuous, as we will see from their own words.
This movement attempts to distance itself from its close relative, Genesis-based Creation Science. The goal of the creationists is to provide scientific support for the literal truth of the stories in Genesis. But at least they have a model: Genesis. And they are honest about their religious basis. Unfortunately for them, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Genesis account is not a scientifically valid theory for cosmology, geology, physics, or biology.
But the ID movement has a much larger goal than simply discrediting evolution. Phillip Johnson and other ID proponents have formulated a strategic plan they call the “Wedge.” Evolution is only the initial target of the Wedge’s edge, to be followed by an attack on all of science, and ultimately by profound changes in our society, culture, and government. They wish to change much more than the content of science; they want to change the process of doing science, and with it the entire character of American society. Here are their own words, excerpted from their plan, the “Wedge Strategy” (http://www.antievolu tion.org/features/wedge.html):
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism1 and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Governing Goals
• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Twenty Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
The above quotes clearly demonstrate that Intelligent Design’s claim to be non-religious is false. It is also obvious that the ID movement has aims far beyond countering evolution in its intent to return society to the “idyllic” and “moral” culture that prevailed in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. Most importantly, the preservation of many freedoms, including the freedom to choose any religion, is not consistent with ID philosophy and goals. The writings of the leading senior fellows make this nostalgia for the Dark Ages frighteningly clear:
“From the sixth century up to the Enlightenment it is safe to say that the West was thoroughly imbued with Christian ideals and that Western intellectual elites were overwhelmingly Christian. False ideas that undermined the very foundations of the Christian faith (e.g., denying the resurrection or the Trinity) were swiftly challenged and uprooted. Since the enlightenment, however, we have not so much lacked the means to combat false ideas as the will and clarity.” (William A. Dembski & Jay Wesley Richards, Unapologetic Apologetics, Intervarsity Press, 2001, p. 20.) The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong. Indeed entire fields of inquiry, especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design. (William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Intervarsity Press, 1999, p. 224.)
John Mark Reynolds is a CSC fellow on the faculty at Biola University (listed by Access Research Network as an ID College, http://www.arn.org/college.htm). He writes, “Torrey Honors Institute (at Biola) is at war with the modern culture. Torrey does not want to ‘get along’ with materialism, secularism, naturalism, post-modernism, radical feminism, or spiritualism. We want to win over every facet of the culture, from the arts to the sciences, for the Kingdom of Christ.” (J.M. Reynolds, “Origin of Torrey,” Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University
ID’s Current Strategies & Tactics
The Intelligent Design movement has already targeted several states in an attempt to alter the K-12 science standards. They have presented an array of arguments that are meant to appear “fair and balanced” but actually mask their true intentions. They want the definition of science altered to accommodate divine agency. They do not accept the essence of science; the foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.
Here are some common tactics, many of which have already been employed in New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, and many other states:
• Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
Given the reactionary and theocratic nature underlying ID, one might think that most Americans would not lend much credence to the movement. But, in fact, ID has been spreading rapidly at both the state and national levels. The Discovery Institute now has state subsidiaries in Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio. These subsidiaries began with the establishment of the Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) in Kansas, which has now branched out into New Mexico. New Mexico now has its own ID Web site: http://www.nmidnet.org/. The Kansas IDnet site is at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/. IDnet also helped establish another state subsidiary in Ohio, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), http://www. sciohio.org/.
ID advocates now sit on state and local boards, in state houses, and in seats of the U.S. Congress. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a strong opponent of evolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is an ID advocate with close ties to CSC fellows. He introduced language in the U.S. Senate’s No Child Left Behind Act language that sanctioned teaching the “controversy” surrounding evolution; it passed the Senate by a preliminary vote of 91 to 8.A primary author of that Senate language was Phillip Johnson! That language does not appear in the final NCLB act, but survived in the committee report. Furthermore, the law itself contains prohibitions against the federal government “mandating … academic achievement standards…” (NCLB, page 55). Santorum has also criticized President John F. Kennedy for his belief in the separation of Church and State (see Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, April 25, 2003, p. A04). Other Senators and Congressmen are openly or clandestinely supportive of ID’s claims. Antievolution rhetoric and actions are the wedge to moving the U.S. toward a theocracy. Underestimating the power and influence of the ID movement would be a grave mistake.
The ID movement wants to bypass scientific peer review and go directly into public school science classrooms. But ID includes no theory other than “The Designer Did It.” No scientific article promoting ID has ever been published in any mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Nevertheless, they argue that it is legitimate science. To the ID supporters, supernatural interventions should be part of science. They want the scientific community to accept miracles as part of the scientific method, the exact antithesis of natural explanations of natural phenomena. But as we have seen, their objections to evolution are merely the “wedge” to ultimately completely overhaul all science, and eventually our culture. That is the real threat. Recognizing the threat is only the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents, and citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop strong, unequivocal science standards, to ensure high-quality textbooks, to improve science education at all levels, and to engage in politics as the need arises.
Dr. Marshall Berman
Past Vice President, New Mexico State Board of Education
Sandia National Laboratories manager, retired
Founder and Past President, Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education (CESE)
Past President, New Mexico Academy of Science
Executive Director, retired, Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC
Past University of New Mexico-Sandia Distinguished Professor of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/02/dembski_doesnt_understand_scie.php
“HARDLY, I simply cut the quote for space. You simply choose to focus on the first part, thus I EMPAHSISED the later to clarify your misunderstanding. :)”
There were TWO parts to the quote. I addressed both of them in sequence. When you responded you copied my first response but followed it by the SECOND part of the quote, then accused me of not reading carefully.
This is extremely disingenuous. There cannot be a debate if these are the tactics.
“There were TWO parts to the quote. I addressed both of them in sequence. When you responded you copied my first response but followed it by the SECOND part of the quote, then accused me of not reading carefully.
This is extremely disingenuous. There cannot be a debate if these are the tactics.”
AGAIN the quote is there for everyone TO SEE! How is this disingenuous? What did I gain by only posting half the quote? You still have YET to answer the question.
The entire QUOTE, to please the GEEK:
“The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism…..The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences. Because Darwinism fails this criterion, it would have to join the young earth creationists and everybody else Darwinists would cast outside the pale of science.” Found in Doubts about Darwin by Thomas Woodward Pg 212-213″
You claim:
“Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion.”
I NEVER SAID the said anything about unfasl or historical sciences. AGAIN you are confused.
To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”
GEEK “You are right, I admit my error on this one.”
SO where is your rebuttal to this quote?
Hello everyone. I don’t have the time necessary to stay abreast of everythin posted here.
This is what Wikipedia says about positivism:
Positivism is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as the first true sociologist) in the middle of the 19th century that stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.
Natural selection is a sociology theory. As I have noted earlier, it started when warriors felt they were empowered to procreate at higher levels than the men whom they defeated, and commoners.
It was a philosophic construct.
Some writers here have discussed the importance of scientific-research falsification. This idea was promulgated successfully by Karl Popper, who was a philosopher who NEVER PERFORMED ANY BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS.
Some of the bloggers here do not understand that bioscience represents philosphy, and really sociologic philosophy.
Darwin was clearly a sociologist. Read his journal of the voyage of the Beagle.
As I said before, Darwin’s idea, which wasn’t actually his, but borrowed, which predated scientific understanding, could either be A MIRACLE of insight lacking scientific information, or implausibly LUCKY, or ERROR that “soshy” people glommed onto and promoted.
So, what IS IT? Let’s have a DEBATE. The people who say, “Science has PROVED that humans descended from blue-green algae,” have nothing close to a decent proof. They have PREJUDICE AGAINST GOD”. Sorry, but prejudice is not proof.
Herbert Marcuse advanced the construct that an ideology had to silence a prevailing ideology to allow fairness to prevail. He was a polemicist. His idea worked, as the Soviet Union proved. Oops.
The competition of ideas is REAL DEMOCRACY.
The proposition that children shoud be taught one construct, exclusively, is an Ideologic proposition. If 7, or 8 American citizens (members of the Supreme Court) decide what “science education” must be for 50 million children, against the wishes of 20 million parents, how many of you get that this is anti-democratic?Take your calculators out and DO THE MATH.
Take all 1800 National Academy of Sciences “experts” against 20,000,000 parents. Want DEMOCRACY? Do the math. ONE vote against more than ONE THOUSAND votes prevails? In a democratic nation?
Again,
This society is absoulutely saturated with CHristianity.
I am GRATEFUL that at least in school my kid can escape it.
“Some of the bloggers here do not understand that bioscience represents philosphy, and really sociologic philosophy.”
Very well said. GREAT POINTS
I knew it was a matter of time before heartlander chimed in with his crap on this thread.
Who cares what 20,000,000 parents might think or say. 20,000,000 ignorant and superstitious parents doesn’t make them correct. Besides, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution forbids what they think they want. Too bad, so sad.
Can you imagine an anti-science “doctor” like heartlander treating you and your loved ones? To me, that is truly a scary thought.
kswolverine and heartlander, I wish I could say it as well.
I also wish the WE editors would read, really read, this thread. I think there would be a chance, no doubt a small one, that they would come away with an understanding of the issues, and finally realize what the real debate is about, and that it is not about religion vs science.
outlander……………..but, it IS about your religion vs. science………….no more, no less. You and your ilk want to establish a theocracy in this country. That can never will be allowed, NEVER.
Here is the entire exchange. Quotes are in sequence and labeled with a number; they are sublabeled with a letter if they were from the same post. Posts 1 and 3 are from wolverine. Post 2 is from me.
******
1. “Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics. I made this point in the beginning and have even brought in several experts who strengthen the validity of my argument. Darwinists and ID proponents alike. This is how a debate works.”
2a. “Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics. I made this point in the beginning and have even brought in several experts who strengthen the validity of my argument. Darwinists and ID proponents alike. This is how a debate works.”
2b. Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion. To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”
3a. “Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion.”
3b. Perhaps GEEK you need to reread the quote :)
3c. “The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences. Because Darwinism fails this criterion, it would have to join the young earth creationists and everybody else Darwinists would cast outside the pale of science.”
3d. “To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”
3e…
******
You’re protestations to the contrary you did make a claim of unfalsifiablity in post 1. You are trying to claim historical sciences are not falsifiable in the same way as physical sciences. Why you want to make this point is beyond me because it gets you nothing. None of the arguments for demarcation by falsifiability rely on HOW something is falsified, just whether it is falsifiable. But the key point is that you DID bring up the issue and this whole exchange in question started when I responded to the issue you brought up.
So please, when you say “In short, Darwinism or what you keep referring to as “evolution” does not belong in the science classroom. It is not like the physical, hard sciences” and you say “Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics.” you are clearly making an argument with regard to the falsifiability of historical sciences. How about no more questions like “What exactly is your inference?” and no more shocked incredulity like “WHERE EXACTLY do I” say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable???? PLEASE quit making erroneous inferences.”
My post 2b is a response to your post 1. in which you claim you’ve posted support from experts in regard to your argument that historical sciences are not falsifiable in the same manner as physical science. The gist of my response is that your experts DO NOT ADDRESS the falsifiability status of the historical sciences one way or the other.
2b. tackles the first of your experts, the Princeton group. The quote had two sections and so my response had two points. The first section of your quote had to do with Darwinists conflating religion and science and not falsifiability. The second part of your quote had to do with quantitative mathematics and not falsifiability.
You responded to 2b. is in all of the posts labeled 3. and this is where the disingenuousness comes in.
You reposted my first objection as 3a. you then accused me of not reading carefully in 3b and In 3c you provided the quote I supposedly didn’t read carefully. EXCEPT IT’S MISSING THE FIRST PART THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO WITH 3a!!!! Because the quote in 3c. doesn’t say anything about religion and science it makes it look like my 3a. quote was irrelevant and nonsensical, like I wasn’t reading carefully as you asserted. You then go on in 3d and 3e to deal with the second part of my quote.
This is what I’m upset about. You can’t clip a post from me, omit the context that it’s in reference to, and then accuse me of not reading carefully!
You then later, when you’re trying to squirm out of it, posted the entire quote as if it had been there all along. Including the missing piece that 3a. is in reference to. “”The confrontation has thus been turned by Darwinists into one between Science and Religion. This explains their recurring tendency, for example, to make all challenges to Darwinism equal to young earth creationism. They can then invoke physics and chemistry to discredit a young earth and, by implication, anything that questions Darwinism…..”
I had a very complementary post typed up to you because I thought what you wrote about measuring fitness and the business analogy was very good. But perhaps Apophis is right and I owe him an apology for dragging this out for so long.
“You reposted my first objection as 3a. you then accused me of not reading carefully in 3b and In 3c you provided the quote I supposedly didn’t read carefully. EXCEPT IT’S MISSING THE FIRST PART THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO WITH 3a!!!! Because the quote in 3c. doesn’t say anything about religion and science it makes it look like my 3a. quote was irrelevant and nonsensical, like I wasn’t reading carefully as you asserted. You then go on in 3d and 3e to deal with the second part of my quote.”
This is what I’m upset about. You can’t clip a post from me, omit the context that it’s in reference to, and then accuse me of not reading carefully!”
My original post
“Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion.”
Perhaps GEEK you need to reread the quote :)
“The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences. Because Darwinism fails this criterion, it would have to join the young earth creationists and everybody else Darwinists would cast outside the pale of science.”
YOU CLAIM “Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences,”
AS I CLEARLY addressed you I NEVER MADE the claim that my Princenton “buddies” every said anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences. I am sorry you are offended that I left off the first part part of the quote. I did it to save room and because it WAS NOT relevant to your post. If you felt I misrepesnted your post, I do apologize.
“I had a very complementary post typed up to you because I thought what you wrote about measuring fitness and the business analogy was very good. But perhaps Apophis is right and I owe him an apology for dragging this out for so long.”
It appears to me you are looking for an excuse to exit the debate. Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew or perhaps you’re frustrated. OPEN DEBATE is the only way we will ever get anywhere. Im sorry you choose not to continue. I think the readers can examine all the posts and learn from it.
There is nothing to dabate………. this is Science vs. Religion…….. do we want Democracy (our Republic) or a Theocracy?
heartlander said, “Take all 1800 National Academy of Sciences “experts” against 20,000,000 parents. Want DEMOCRACY? Do the math. ONE vote against more than ONE THOUSAND votes prevails? In a democratic nation?”
Shame on you. Christofascists like you rail against “relative morality” but when it comes to deciding what should be taught to kids, to hell with the *facts* - teach whatever the (im)moral majority thinks is Gospel!
Most Harvard grads don’t know that it takes the earth one year to go around the sun, either. More and more US adults claim that astrology is scientific - like Michael Behe, ID guru. But you’d have falsehoods taught because . . . the majority is always right?
kswolverine stated, “OPEN DEBATE is the only way we will ever get anywhere.”
Check out a peer-reviewed scientific journal sometime - like Nature. That’s where the OPEN SCIENTIFIC DEBATES occur.
Asking scientifically-illiterate bystanders to judge science is like asking a blind man to referee in the NFL or asking a deaf man to judge American Idol.
“Take all 1800 National Academy of Sciences “experts” against 20,000,000 parents. Want DEMOCRACY? Do the math. ONE vote against more than ONE THOUSAND votes prevails? In a democratic nation?”
Science by a show of hands? That is flatly stupid on its face.
Here is the difficulty in talking to you:
You said: “AS I CLEARLY addressed you I NEVER MADE the claim that my Princenton “buddies” every said anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences.”
But you also said: “Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics. I made this point in the beginning and have even brought in several experts who strengthen the validity of my argument. Darwinists and ID proponents alike.”
“invalidated” means falsified. If your experts lend you support they MUST say something about HOW historical theories can or cannot be falsified. All the experts you have quoted in this thread are: Popper, Princeton, and Mayr. When you made the claim about “brought in several experts” I decided to address each of the experts you brought in to show they did not make any statement about the status of historical sciences with regard to falsifiability. Do you see now why I am addressing the Princeton quote wrt to falsifiability? I have showed that all of your experts don’t address the falsifiable status of historical sciences wrt physical sciences. A claim you put forward.
And it’s difficult to discern exactly what you are saying about the status of historical sciences.
1. You said: “Again we are talking semantics. You have thrown in the word “evolution” in place of Darwinism. Please for future clarification refrain from making this error in the future. Darwinism is NOT falsifiable because it is an historical theory about what may have happened.”
Here, in the last sentence, you are clearly saying that historical theories are unfalsifiable.
2. You said: “I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly. Moreover, I am merely pointing out the distinction between historical theories and scientific theories. Perhaps this quote from two Princeton science professors will clarify the problem for you..”
Then you said that there is a difference between historical and scientific (physical?) theories but that the difference is NOT in testability (which means it’s not falsiability which must mean that historical theories are falsifiable in some sense in contradiction to 1.)
3. Then later: “IF by falsifcation you mean refute or defeat as the same manner as SCIENCE theories are measured in the phyiscal sciences, such as physics and chemistry, then no. There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory. That is what separates historical theories from the physical sciences.” (in reference to whether common descent is falsifiable or not).
But here you say that what separates historical science from physical science IS the lack of testability of the former. This is an assertion that historical sciences are unfalsifiable because theories can only be falsified through tests, that’s what falsifiability means. Not testable = unfalsifiable. You are making the following logical argument:
a. F -> P = if a science is a falsifiable science (F) then it is defeatable in the same manner as physical sciences (P) “IF by falsifcation you mean refute or defeat as the same manner as SCIENCE theories are measured in the phyiscal sciences, such as physics and chemistry,”
b. P -> T = if a science is a physical science (P) then it is a testable science (T) “That is what separates historical theories from the physical sciences.” i.e. physical sciences have testability, historical sciences don’t.
c. ~T = historical science is not a testable science (~T) “There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory.”
d. ~P = historical science is not a physical science (Modus Tollens from b. and c.)
e. ~F = historical science is not a falsifiable science (Modus Tollens from a. and d.)
The logical conclusion of your argument is that historical sciences are unfalsifiable.
4. You said: “When did I ever question the falsifiability of a scientific theory? I did challenge, NOT weather historical theories can be falisfied, but weather the can measured and tested like the phyiscal science..”
Well, actually you asserted that they couldn’t be tested at all (which leads logically to the assertion that they are not falsifiable). In any case saying that historical sciences are tested in different ways than physical sciences is a distinction without a difference. To be science a theory must be falsifiable, it doesn’t matter how.
I focused quite a bit of response on your point 3. Clearly trying to show why you were making an argument that historical sciences are unfalsifiable and for that I got ridiculed with stuff like “WHERE EXACTLY do I” say the historical sciences are unfalsifiable???? PLEASE quit making erroneous inferences.” Your points 1. and 3. stand in stark contradiction to 2. and 4. Perhaps you can understand my confusion about exactly what you’re saying?
“It appears to me you are looking for an excuse to exit the debate.”
Yes, see above. When you decide which side of the debate you are taking let me know.
“Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew or perhaps you’re frustrated.”
Um, no.
““invalidated” means falsified. If your experts lend you support they MUST say something about HOW historical theories can or cannot be falsified.”
Poor Geek, trying to save face are you? I said: “Historical theories cannot be invalidated in the same manner as theories in chemistry and physics.”
I then quote Mayr which CONFRIMED that “evolution” (WHICH IS A PART OF BIOLOGY) is not like the physical sciences. Furthermore, my Princeton “buddies” clarified the misconception that Dawinism is like theories found in chemistry and physics. Hence, my argument still stands. HISTORICAL theories are not the same as theories in the Physical sciences. NICE TRY, glad to see you haven’t given up yet!“I decided to address each of the experts you brought in to show they did not make any statement about the status of historical sciences with regard to falsifiability.”
You addressed the experts rather poorly I might add. In fact as the readers can stroll up and find you admit hastily putting comments together and that you were wrong, horribly wrong, when you mentioned the price equation. YET AGAIN you are mistaken GEEK.
“Do you see now why I am addressing the Princeton quote wrt to falsifiability?”
No, the point that has been made is that the historical sciences are different from the physical sciences.
“Here, in the last sentence, you are clearly saying that historical theories are unfalsifiable.”
Correct. As I have said all along Darwinism is not like the physical sciences. THIS DOESNT mean it CANNOT be tested at ALL, but rather CANNOT BE TESTED IN the same manner as theories in the physical sciences. WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYR quote and Scientists quote amply shows
I said: “I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly. Moreover, I am merely pointing out the distinction between historical theories and scientific theories.”
GEEK: “Then you said that there is a difference between historical and scientific (physical?) theories but that the difference is NOT in testability (which means it’s not falsiability which must mean that historical theories are falsifiable in some sense in contradiction to 1.)”
GO BACK AND READ IT AGAIN. I DID NOT SAY, “the difference is NOT in testability”, as you erroneously proclaim. Rather, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG, historical theories are not like scientific theories. I am not arguing that historical theories DO NOT have merit or that inferences are not important. OLNY that the method of measurement, the validity of the theories CANNOT be tested similar to those methods used in the physical sciences or scientific theories. AGAIN IT IS YOU has continuously misrepresented what I have wrote. AND YET you attempted to accuse ME of doing this to you. WOW, WOW, WOW.
“But here you say that what separates historical science from physical science IS the lack of testability of the former. This is an assertion that historical sciences are unfalsifiable because theories can only be falsified through tests, that’s what falsifiability means. Not testable = unfalsifiable.”
AGAIN GEEK you are confused. PERHAPS you need to go back and read my post regarding fitness. The one you claimed “I had a very complementary post typed up to you because I thought what you wrote about measuring fitness and the business analogy was very good”The manner in which we can deduce fitness is akin to the differnce between historical theories and scientific theories.
Hence my last paragraph from the post you claimed “I had a very complementary post typed up to you because I thought what you wrote about measuring fitness and the business analogy was very good”
“In short, the 2 and 3 theories are useful and even predictive. Yet in the end the results are inferences which are not quantified. Just as the differences between historical theories and scientific theories the differences between survival and prediction is results. Quantified results.”
“Perhaps you can understand my confusion about exactly what you’re saying?”
No, I have tried to make this has simply as can for you GEEK. You seem to want to interpret things in your own manner too much. This got you into trouble w the Popper quote, with the Price Equation, and now with my posts. Perhaps you need to step back and think about what you are typing before you post :)
I said: “Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew or perhaps you’re frustrated.”Geek: “Um, no.”
I’m glad you came back GEEK. KEEP TRYING!
NOTE
“Here, in the last sentence, you are clearly saying that historical theories are unfalsifiable.”
Correct. As I have said all along Darwinism is not like the physical sciences. THIS DOESNT mean it CANNOT be tested at ALL, but rather CANNOT BE TESTED IN the same manner as theories in the physical sciences. WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYR quote and Scientists quote amply shows
Just to clarify any future misunderstanding, historical theories are unfalsifable WHEN they critiqued and measured by the same manner in which scientific or physical scientific theories are measured. My original statement is correct. However, this statement could be misconstrued. Hence hopefully this well help the GEEK
NOTE
“Here, in the last sentence, you are clearly saying that historical theories are unfalsifiable.”
Correct. As I have said all along Darwinism is not like the physical sciences. THIS DOESNT mean it CANNOT be tested at ALL, but rather CANNOT BE TESTED IN the same manner as theories in the physical sciences. WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYR quote and Scientists quote amply shows
Just to clarify any future misunderstanding, historical theories are unfalsifable WHEN they critiqued and measured by the same manner in which scientific or physical scientific theories are measured. My original statement is correct. However, this statement could be misconstrued. Hence hopefully this well help the GEEK
“I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly.”
“There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory.”
Goodbye.
“I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly.”
“There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory.”
Geek - “Goodbye.”
GEEK, where you going buddy?! I understand its frustrating to be shown to be wrong time and time again. But don’t quit!!! I fail to see how those arguments conflict. Do you STILL NOT realize the differnce between historical theories and scientific theories?
I would recommend several books but im sure you have already read them, lol
“GEEK, where you going buddy?! I understand its frustrating to be shown to be wrong time and time again. But don’t quit!!! I fail to see how those arguments conflict. Do you STILL NOT realize the differnce between historical theories and scientific theories?
I would recommend several books but im sure you have already read them, lol”
You have my sympathies, Geek, for dealing with this intellectually dishonest individual.
It’s real simple.
“I am not saying historical theories CANNOT be tested. Hardly.”
The “kind” of testing is irrelevant. As long as it can be tested, it can by definition be falsified. That’s science.
“There is NO CLEAR CUT definitive test(s) you could do that could prove an historical theory.”
If that is true, a “historical” science can not be tested, in which case by the way the entire basis of any historical/forensic science collapses (e.g. crime scene investigation). If these arguments do not conflict, then they’re irrelevant. They don’t matter. Because if something is falsifiable, it’s testable. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not testable.
Beating your chest in your delusion that you are winning this argument because Bggeek is refusing to waste any more time on an argument that is irrelevant and self contradictory is not winning. And exaggerating a single admitted mistake as being “horribly wrong” is simply dispicable, not to mention pathetic.
Your errors, and your self contradiction, are much worse.
Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back, bub.
“Maybe this analogy will help. Take the JFK assassination. This is an historical event. There are several theories about what will happened in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963. DOES THIS MEAN there is no way to tell which theories are more credible than others? NO we can examine the evidence and then infer which theory is more credible. However, claiming that we can quantify the result with some experiment in the same manner theories in the physical sciences are critiqued is simply ignorance of the limitations of science.”
“You have my sympathies, Geek, for dealing with this intellectually dishonest individual.”
Hmmm, can one hold another blogger accountable for libel online. PLEASE SIR DO NOT make false accusations
The kid doesn’t know when his ass has been kicked.
Sad.
Keep voting Republican though.
We don’t want you . . .
“And exaggerating a single admitted mistake as being “horribly wrong” is simply dispicable, not to mention pathetic.”
A single admitted mistake can not be horribly wrong? Not to say I don’t make mistakes. However, I never once question somebody, attempted to denounce their quote and point in argument, by using an irrelevant piece of information.
GEEK- “Your Princeton buddies don’t say anything about the unfalsifiability of historical sciences, they accuse “Darwinists” of conflating science and religion. To the extent that they address the unfalsifiablitly of evolution they say it’s because it’s not a quantitative mathematical science (also untrue, google for the Price equation). So they give you NO SUPPORT.”
HE CLAIMED this equation disproved my quote. “NO SUPPORT”. I stand by what I said. It was wrong, horribly wrong.
This is the difference. I immediately admitted when I was wrong. You are incapable of seeing you are wrong much less admitting it, even though it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The mistake was trivial. I knew of the Price equation and offered it up without thoroughly reading the article. I immediately accepted correction. But you have completely ignored my amended argument. Here I’ll post it again.
“The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena. If Darwinism wishes to have the better claim for being science, it would have to be based on a restricted definition that mandates quantitative mathematical arguments as in the physical sciences.”
This is untrue. If you would READ the article titled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” (you know, the one that you keep saying infers macroevolution from speciation so that you can justify not reading to yourself but in fact does no such thing) you would see this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
“Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
Goodbye again. Don’t make me keep embarrassing you, let me go.
“This is untrue. If you would READ the article titled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” (you know, the one that you keep saying infers macroevolution from speciation so that you can justify not reading to yourself but in fact does no such thing) you would see this”
GEEK, buddy. How many blunders can one man make? Are you going for the record? I assume you have actually read bout Markovain this time, and not simply googled it, .lol. From your link:
“Markovian systems appear extensively in physics, particularly statistical mechanics, whenever probabilities are used to represent unknown or unmodelled details of the system, if it can be assumed that the dynamics are time-invariant, and that no relevant history need be considered which is not already included in the state description.”
DID YOU READ THAT GEEK. TIME-INVARIANT. You do understand that invariant means constant. CHANGELESS. Hmmm, I could have sworn that “evolution” involved change, lol.Again, no relevant history need be considered not in the description. Considering we have already established Darwinism is an historical theory this seemingly argues AGAINST your point that this model somehow shows credence to “evolution”
Link: “Markov chains also have many applications in biological modelling, particularly population processes, which are useful in modelling processes that are (at least) analogous to biological populations. The Leslie matrix is one such example, though some of its entries are not probabilities (they may be greater than 1). Another important example is the modeling of cell shape in dividing sheets of epithelial cells. The distribution of shapes — predominantly hexagonal — was a long standing mystery until it was explained by a simple Markov Model, where a cell’s state is its number of sides. Empirical evidence from frogs, fruitflies, and hydra further suggests that the stationary distribution of cell shape is exhibited by almost all multicellular animals.”
Biological modeling, particularly population process. The modeling of cell shape dividing sheets of epithelial cells. Empirical evidence from frogs, fruitflies, and hydra further suggests that the stationary distribution of cell shape is exhibited by almost all multicellular animals. AND THIS IS YOUR mathematical evidence for “evolution.” Forgive me if im wrong, but I have yet to hear of ANYONE who denies that populations can vary, that cells can divide and ell shape distribution. THIS, GEEK, is your mathematical EVIDENCE for Darwinism or what u keep referring to as “evolution”. Excuse me but LMAO. Please GEEK how many more times must I shred you feeble arguments?
“Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual.”
Agreed. I am not aware of anyone that would doubt this
“Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.”
Again NESTED HIERARCHIES. To the extent that science has shown us, BELOW the family level :)
“Goodbye again. Don’t make me keep embarrassing you, let me go”.
GEEK, buddy, I think its evident who KEEPS getting embarrassed. Perhaps if you took the time to READ your examples before you post them you would save yourself the embarrassment.
“DID YOU READ THAT GEEK. TIME-INVARIANT. You do understand that invariant means constant. CHANGELESS. Hmmm, I could have sworn that “evolution” involved change, lol.”
Jesus you’re an idiot.
“Jesus you’re an idiot.”
Another stellar debating tactic. YOU’RE AN IDIOT!
GAME-SET-MATCH!
bg, you gave it a waaay better try than many would have been capable of giving. I admire your patience! Stick around and discuss with those who are capable of reading, reasoning, and learning — the adults who aren’t possessed. :o)
Yes, congratulations on your tremendous victory. I don’t know how you managed to deny all the evidence I presented but you did, I’m at a loss. Well played.
You should immediately gather all the arguments you used in this thread and publish them in the Journal of Intelligent Design (you know, that place where all the ID research is published). Darwinism will shortly be at it knees.
…I also wish the WE editors would read, really read, this thread. I think there would be a chance, no doubt a small one, that they would come away with an understanding of the issues, and finally realize what the real debate is about, and that it is not about religion vs science.Posted by: outlander | February 19, 2007 at 05:14 PM
LOL
2 comments.
First, even heartlander doubts that “real science” takes place on paper. Much less a blog. And much, much less a “real debate” here, in this god awful format. LOL
Second, “religion v. science” advice offered to WE editors from the guy who insists he (and by some kind of goofy extension his experience can be generalized to that of all humankind) has to decide whom he’s attracted to sexually, girls or boys, every time the wind changes directions (or whenever).
You got to love these Kansans who apparently relish being as blinded by religion as a 20th century Arab or a 15th century Dominican from Seville.
As always Linda, thank you. I appreciate your encouragement.
You know, these blog comments are really terrible for conversation. They don’t number or permalink the posts and they don’t allow tags for formatting and quoting. Those big dense posts would go down so much better with a little formatting. It’s the same in the forums, shame.
“This is the difference. I immediately admitted when I was wrong.”
No you didnt. I had to throughly destroy your “evidence” piece by piece. ONLY when I showed you up for bringing up pointless unrelated jargon did u admit it.
“You are incapable of seeing you are wrong much less admitting it, even though it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
PLEASE, do tell. When was this done? Wrong about what? Dont make empty statements and not back them up.
You want an encore? Fine.
“PLEASE, do tell. When was this done? Wrong about what? Dont make empty statements and not back them up.”
When were you wrong? When you said Darwinism was unfalsifiable because it was a historical and then said historical sciences were not unfalsifiable. I proved it with a logical argument. One of those premises has to be wrong.
Let it go.
You know, these blog comments are really terrible for conversation. They don’t number or permalink the posts and they don’t allow tags for formatting and quoting. Those big dense posts would go down so much better with a little formatting. It’s the same in the forums, shame.Posted by: Bggeek | February 20, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Couldn’t agree more.
In fact, this format is far more useful to muddying water (ie, “teaching the controversy”) than it is to clarifying it.
If anyone reading along who is interested in this topic and still has some lingering quesitons, or is unclear about some of the arguments that got muddy in the middle of this thing then please let me know. I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
“When were you wrong? When you said Darwinism was unfalsifiable because it was a historical and then said historical sciences were not unfalsifiable.”
I NEVER made such a claim. PLEASE dont make statements you can not back up. I have totally destroyed you in this debate. NOW you have resorted to myth, to LYING!
“I proved it with a logical argument. One of those premises has to be wrong.”
YOU ARE CONFUSED GEEK. I tried to explain it to you. I even showed you the post you claimed WAS GOOD, lol. ARE you saying you now dont admit that. THE lies are building here GEEK. Those reading take notes
Here, in the last sentence, you are clearly saying that historical theories are unfalsifiable.”
Correct. As I have said all along Darwinism is not like the physical sciences. THIS DOESNT mean it CANNOT be tested at ALL, but rather CANNOT BE TESTED IN the same manner as theories in the physical sciences. WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYR quote and Scientists quote amply shows
Just to clarify any future misunderstanding, historical theories are unfalsifable WHEN they critiqued and measured by the same manner in which scientific or physical scientific theories are measured. My original statement is correct. However, this statement could be misconstrued. Hence hopefully this well help the GEEK
MINE: “The only QUANTIFIED way though to measure this fitness is with survival….In short, the 2 and 3 theories are useful and even predictive. Yet in the end the results are inferences which are not quantified. JUST AS the differences between historical theories and scientific theories the differences between survival and prediction is results. QUANTIFIED results.” (empahsis mine)
WHAT EXACTLY DONT YOU UNDERSTAND GEEK?
kswolverine, it’s over.
“kswolverine, it’s over.”
You’re finally right about something. You tried your best kid, dont beat yourself up. Although I must say you have some nerve. The fact that you got royally hammered and then claim that ANYONE w questions should come to YOU for answers when your ignorance has been repeatedly shown amazes me!
kswolverine- I dont agree with your views about darwinism and such. Evolution is science and should be taught. However, that notwithstanding I do understand what you are saying. I think its clear to everyone whos misrepresenting quotes on here. Its sad that Geek would sink to such levels when if he simply kept with an honest debate he would be better off.
kswolverine…………..it IS over.
Actually it was over before it started. Your convoluted arguments proved NOTHING other than you are an “intelligent design” apologist. It other words you are a creationist. There is not a controversy about evolution to discuss. That is in your narrow, creationist mind.
I heard last night one of the local BOE candidates who supports ID got her ass handed to her when she suggested that this alleged “controversy” be taught in a science class. Sorry, that isn’t going to happen. Instead of wasting electrons and space on the WE server, try actually reading the Dover decision. Your ID voodooism was sent packing.
Bggeek…………..it did a great job parrying this moron’s thrusts, but I did advise you to not engage his/her type. Hell, they’ll declare victory with a sword embedded in their bellies. To top it off, they’ll claim their god will strike us down. Don’t engage these RW “Christian” nutjobs!
“kswolverine- I dont agree with your views about darwinism and such. Evolution is science and should be taught. However, that notwithstanding I do understand what you are saying. I think its clear to everyone whos misrepresenting quotes on here. Its sad that Geek would sink to such levels when if he simply kept with an honest debate he would be better off.”
It IS clear. It’s not Geek who is misrepresenting the quotes or the sources. In fact, it is clear that kswolverine’s argument is flatly self contradictory, and that he is refusing to respond to Geek’s link to Talk Origins for what it is, a summary of the science regarding nested hierarchies, particularly since the link referenced primary literature. His self congratulatory and childish theatrics aside, it is clear that he is ignoring the evidence presented with such irrelevancies as:
“DID YOU READ THAT GEEK. TIME-INVARIANT. You do understand that invariant means constant. CHANGELESS. Hmmm, I could have sworn that “evolution” involved change, lol.”
Nested heirarchies are not dependent upon perfect “time-invariance”. Examination of the genetic code of various organisims either provides evidence of such hiearchies, and therefore common descent, or they don’t.
They do.
By the way, I second Geek’s opinion of kswolverine.
kswolf illustrates the conservative “deny ’till you die” approach to this blog. He thinks if he just says the same crap over and over sooner or later it will be believable.
How’s that workin’ for ya?
“Its sad that Geek would sink to such levels when if he simply kept with an honest debate he would be better off.”
Thanks Holmes, it appears there are SOME HONEST evolutionists on here. Im confident with what I wrote and the debate that took place. Of course, no one’s mind is going to change because of this blog, however I hope that some will read the evidence presented and closely examine the debating style used by both parties. As you pointed out, it is SAD that Geek had to resort to such tactics. You can always tell who is winning a debate when all a side can say is “you’re an idiot” or “I dont care”. Very telling.
This is getting very irksome repeating this and perhaps it has to do w dogmatic ppl refusing to open their mind. As I have said all along, I only wish to open minds, not change them. It appears Mycroft Holmes understands this.
“It IS clear. It’s not Geek who is misrepresenting the quotes or the sources.” Geek’s misunderstanding on Popper, Mayr, the 2 scientists, the Origin has been made clear in past posts :)
“In fact, it is clear that kswolverine’s argument is flatly self contradictory, and that he is refusing to respond to Geek’s link to Talk Origins for what it is, a summary of the science regarding nested hierarchies”
Again, past posts made this clear. THE PROBLEM has NEVER been w the evidence only the INFERENCE of this evidence. NO ONE that I AM AWARE of doubts nested hieracrchies or common descent to the EXTENT its been SCEINTIFICALLY demonstrated. Hence, this is why I continually pointed out the differences between historcial theories and scientific theories. Thus your claim that I failed to address these is wrong.
“Examination of the genetic code of various organisims either provides evidence of such hiearchies, and therefore common descent, or they don’t”
READ ABOVE. PERHAPS IF PPL OPEN their minds this debate will get somewhere. ITS GREAT that ppl like HOLMES are willingly to admit as much