Should a Critique of Evolution be Allowed?
R. Dean
A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
I read the book in it's entirety.
I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
Those who present only one view point do not allow
this.
R Brown
"R. Dean" <"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2....@newsfe15.iad...
that it is not science.
Since it is not science, it has no place in the science classroom.
I'm a high school science teacher. Would like to be schooled in the matter?
Let me know.
Disclaimer: I think we have just another creationist here folks trying
initiate a thread under the pretext as a reasonable, impartial, open-minded
type. Another of those I-wanna-test-my-faith types. Any bets?
>
Ralph
What do critiques of evolution have to do with ID. If ID can't stand on
its own then it certainly couldn't be an alternative to evolution. You
know that, Dean!
marks...@yahoo.com
Absolutely. but not in high schools.
You teach a novice in any subject the base on which he will build.
Once they understand the base then you get into more complex areas.
Once they appreciate the more complex , then you start into the
exceptions and arguments. Hopefully by that time they can actually
analyze the material and identify the flawed argument.
Sadly many high school teachers do not seem to understand their
subject material well.
If those criticisms were valid scientific cases, then it might be
appropriate for discussion , if the teacher has an explanation of why
the criticism is incorrect or a valid point but which does not falsify
the theory.
You certainly don't ask a novice to assess information and make up his
mind, what is he using to determine the good from the bad ?
Andrew
>
> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> If not, why not?
No, because it would then be revealed that much of what
has been presented in textbooks in this area has been in
fact only elaborate fantasy, falsehood and fraud; and thus
would result in much embarrassment to the distinguished
educators who have been so actively involved throughout
the years in presenting this hoax upon the students.
Cory Albrecht
>
> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
You say it was a "reasonable" critique, yet you don't say what it was. I
wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
What controversy? There is none, except for creationists who generally
don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
ignorant.
If there truly was a controversy then we would see significant
scientific research don't by the anti-evolutionists. Why is it that we
never see them doing any research, only bitching about their
misrepresentations of science?
osugeography
R. Dean asked:
Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
allowed to make up their own minds?
What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
had substantially the same rights as the whites?
What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
that women should not have the right to vote?
While you are at it, should students be presented with arguments,
given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
Holocaust?
What about giving equal time to those who claim that science is no
better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
man or woman in the street?
What about giving equal time to those who believe that the disease and
health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
population?
What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
You should get the idea, R. Dean.
How many of my topics above do you believe should be given equal time
in the classroom?
And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Tom McDonald
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution.
Don't suppose you'd be willing to share the title of the book and its
author, would you?
> Should any such
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> this.
What are the two sides? Are they both supported by scientific
evidence? Do they both have testable scientific theories?
If you think ID has the goods, do you think it has better explanatory
power than the theory of evolution?
Discuss.
R. Dean
my question. I asked whether Criticism of evolution should be allowed?
Ron Dean
>
> Discuss.
R. Dean
> On Apr 23, 6:22 pm, "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>> this.
>
> R. Dean asked:
> Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
> allowed to make up their own minds?
>
> What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
> antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
> had substantially the same rights as the whites?
>
It's imaginary and an absurdity.
>
> What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
> intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
> and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
> that women should not have the right to vote?
>
>
> While you are at it, should students be presented with arguments,
> given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
> Holocaust?
>
is undeniable.
>
> What about giving equal time to those who claim that science is no
> better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
> man or woman in the street?
>
>
> What about giving equal time to those who believe that the disease and
> health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
> drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
> population?
>
> What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
> the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
> knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
>
> What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
> can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
>
> You should get the idea, R. Dean.
>
point is equally absurd. I would rather someone explain why there
were no references to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.
>
> How many of my topics above do you believe should be given equal time
> in the classroom?
>
seems ridiculous to compare my question with something unreal and
imaginary. I.D. is being pushed into schools. This is our reality.
>
> And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>
The book was published 20008.
>
> Marvin Sebourn
> osugeo...@aol.com
R. Dean
is valid or not. Certainly, this is left up to those who subscribe
to evolution. Is, this fair?
if the teacher has an explanation of why
> the criticism is incorrect or a valid point but which does not falsify
> the theory.
>
That is a valid point.
>
> You certainly don't ask a novice to assess information and make up his
> mind, what is he using to determine the good from the bad ?
>
School are suppose to teach students to think critically. If only one
side is presented, how can this accomplish the objective?
>
R. Dean
> R. Dean wrote, on 10-04-23 07:22 PM:
>>
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>
> You say it was a "reasonable" critique, yet you don't say what it was. I
> wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
> critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
> could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
> evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
>
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>
> What controversy? There is none, except for creationists who generally
> don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
> hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
> ignorant.
>
Can you give a few examples to justify your accusation of Discovery
Institute? You can hardly claim that an independent, dispassionate and
impartial agency makes the judgment.
>
> If there truly was a controversy then we would see significant
> scientific research don't by the anti-evolutionists. Why is it that we
> never see them doing any research, only bitching about their
> misrepresentations of science?
>
It takes financial grants etc to do research.
R. Dean
Dave Oldridge
@newsfe15.iad:
>
> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
The trouble with ID critiques of evolution is that they are all too often
the same specious critiques that the creationists have been spouting and
that have long been refuted. The only thing missing is the interspersed
Bible quotes.
> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
Lying to children in school has always been part of the creationist
agenda. This is just another incarnation of the same old Henry Morris
lie, only with the preaching removed from the stuff that's issued for
public consumption. Essentially, the gambit consists of making up lies
that are DESIGNED to deceive the ignorant, including untutored school
children.
> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> this.
School science courses are not about presenting creationist lies. If the
creationists want a critique of evolution presented, they need to provide
a scientifically valid one, not just the pack of carefully crafted lies
they are currently distributing.
And make no mistake, ID is simply creatio0nism in drag.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
R. Dean
> "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2.58708
> @newsfe15.iad:
>
>>
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> The trouble with ID critiques of evolution is that they are all too often
> the same specious critiques that the creationists have been spouting and
> that have long been refuted.
>
>
The only thing missing is the interspersed
> Bible quotes.
>
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>
> Lying to children in school has always been part of the creationist
> agenda.
>
This is just another incarnation of the same old Henry Morris
> lie, only with the preaching removed from the stuff that's issued for
> public consumption. Essentially, the gambit consists of making up lies
> that are DESIGNED to deceive the ignorant, including untutored school
> children.
>
>
>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>> this.
>
> School science courses are not about presenting creationist lies. If the
> creationists want a critique of evolution presented, they need to provide
> a scientifically valid one, not just the pack of carefully crafted lies
> they are currently distributing.
>
I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
attempted to do so.
Burkhard
No, that would be pretty pointless. Evolution is a natural process
that happens whether we prove of it or not. Different of course with
the Theory of f evolution, that is man made would be fair game to
criticism. The next question would be where and when in the
curriculum. You don't e.g. teach Goedel's incompleteness theorem to
primary school children learning how to count, even though it
expresses clear limitations to arithmetic. Depends how much prior
knowledge you need to understand the criticism, how complex it is etc.
All rather hypothetical since there is no scientifically valid
criticism of the basic of the theory that are taught at school.
Burkhard
It is called a "reductio ad absurdum": it shows the flaws in your
argument because all these other doctrines _could- with equal
justification require to be taught if your argument were accepted.
>
> > And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>
> >
> The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
> The book was published 20008.
>
2007, as a matter of fact. and yes, I would strongly object against
teaching this at school, since it is riddled with elemental mistakes,
"misunderstandings" and statements plainly contradicted by empirical
findings.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>I read the book in it's entirety.
>I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>reasonable critiques of evolution.
How did they show that they were reasonable. How did they show that
their alternative was valid?
>Should any such
>criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
Depends on what the book said and why. It would certainly be wrong to
nitpick for a page or two and then jump to the conclusion that ID must
be right when there is no supporting evidence for ID ever presented.
>If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>of the controversy,
There is no scientific controversy at the level that would be discussed
in an intro biology class. What would there be to present?
> and allowed to make up their own
>minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>Those who present only one view point do not allow
>this.
I would be quite happy to present both sides.
Here is the evidence for evolution -- many days.
Here is the evidence for ID/Creationism -- absolutely nothing.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Your question makes erroneous assumptions. The _who_ does not matter at
all. It is the facts that matter, not the people discussing them.
Scientists accept evolution because the evidence shows that it is
happening. They accept the theory of evolution because it best describes
how evolution is happening.
>> if the teacher has an explanation of why
>> the criticism is incorrect or a valid point but which does not falsify
>> the theory.
>
>That is a valid point.
>
>> You certainly don't ask a novice to assess information and make up his
>> mind, what is he using to determine the good from the bad ?
>>
>School are suppose to teach students to think critically. If only one
>side is presented, how can this accomplish the objective?
There are no scientific theories about the history of life on earth
other than evolution. Could you explain specifically how you intend to
use this to teach students to think critically?
R. Dean
>>
>>> And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>>
>> >
>> The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
>> The book was published 20008.
>>
>
> 2007, as a matter of fact. and yes, I would strongly object against
> teaching this at school, since it is riddled with elemental mistakes,
> "misunderstandings" and statements plainly contradicted by empirical
> findings.
>
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"R. Dean" <"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2....@newsfe15.iad...
>>
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not?
>
>No, because it would then be revealed that much of what
>has been presented in textbooks in this area has been in
>fact only elaborate fantasy, falsehood and fraud; and thus
>would result in much embarrassment to the distinguished
>educators who have been so actively involved throughout
>the years in presenting this hoax upon the students.
Andrew, your intentional ignorance is showing again.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 4/23/2010 9:17 PM, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote, on 10-04-23 07:22 PM:
>>>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>
>> You say it was a "reasonable" critique, yet you don't say what it was. I
>> wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
>> critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
>> could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
>> evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
>>
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>
>> What controversy? There is none, except for creationists who generally
>> don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
>> hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
>> ignorant.
> >
>This is an unsubstantiated charge against these people.
The charges against the Discovery Institute have been substantiated.
They have a history of lying and playing confidence games.
>Can you give a few examples to justify your accusation of Discovery
>Institute? You can hardly claim that an independent, dispassionate and
>impartial agency makes the judgment.
Let's start with the disaster they brought upon Dover, Penna. when they
persuaded them to use the creationist book "Of Pandas and People". Let's
also look at their wedge strategy and the document that describes it
<http://www.antievolution.org/cs/di_crsc_wedge_document>.
They do not do science. They make claims about science that are false.
No one who has paid any attention and cares about honesty could possibly
defend their behavior.
>> If there truly was a controversy then we would see significant
>> scientific research don't by the anti-evolutionists. Why is it that we
>> never see them doing any research, only bitching about their
>> misrepresentations of science?
> >
>It takes financial grants etc to do research.
And the DI has had the opportunity to do such research. They refused.
Don't try to imply that there is a conspiracy against those who are
opposed to the scientific discoveries about evolution. There is not. The
people opposed to evolution are selling a religious dogma and trying
very hard to get others to ignore what they do in the scientific ring.
Apparently they have succeeded with you.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 4/23/2010 9:20 PM, osugeography wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 6:22 pm, "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>> this.
>>
>> R. Dean asked:
>> Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
>> allowed to make up their own minds?
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
>> antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
>> had substantially the same rights as the whites?
>>
>Can you quote any group or organization which advocates this?
There are such folks. You can find their lies spread all over the
internet, but I'm certainly not going to go looking for such stuff.
>It's imaginary and an absurdity.
Just as imaginary and absurd as the controversy about evolution.
>> What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
>> intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
>> and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
>> that women should not have the right to vote?
> >
>Another imaginary controversy.
Again, you show your ignorance of culture and history.
>> While you are at it, should students be presented with arguments,
>> given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
>> Holocaust?
> >
>Here again, there are photos movies of the holocaust. The holocaust
>is undeniable.
So is evolution, yet we still have deniers of both.
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that science is no
>> better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
>> man or woman in the street?
> >
>Why do you continue going off into the absurd?
Because science-denial is absurd.
>> What about giving equal time to those who believe that the disease and
>> health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
>> drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
>> population?
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
>> the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
>> knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
>> can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
>>
>> You should get the idea, R. Dean.
> >
>I see you point, however, to appeal to the absurdities to make your
>point is equally absurd. I would rather someone explain why there
>were no references to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.
The Bible has nothing to do with science.
>> How many of my topics above do you believe should be given equal time
>> in the classroom?
>
>The above examples are not actually advocated by anyone, thus, it
>seems ridiculous to compare my question with something unreal and
>imaginary. I.D. is being pushed into schools. This is our reality.
The examples are all taken from real life. Evolution deniers are every
bit as deluded as Holocaust deniers.
>> And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>
>The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
>The book was published 20008.
Well, Behe has a long history of getting it sort of right, but mixing in
a lot of wrong. Anyway, his claims do not square with ID/Creationists if
they pay attention to what he is saying.
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/book-reviews/the-edge-of-evo/> is a
good place to start to understand the problems with Behe's thesis. Once
you have read all of the articles, get back to us.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Do you know how to teach, even a little? Should we ask whether criticism
of spelling should be taught in spelling class?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Start here
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/book-reviews/the-edge-of-evo/> for
Behe's book.
Anyway, you've been around this stuff enough to know that creationism
has been shown to be false. This is not your first time trying to defend
ID Creationism.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/book-reviews/the-edge-of-evo/>
If you don't read the articles that you are directed to there, then it
is because you don't want to know why Behe is wrong.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The DI has funds in abundance to continue their agenda. Oddly they
have spent ab zero on trying to investigate their lies. Try another
approach, that one lies dead and stinking.
Harry K
Cory Albrecht
> On 4/23/2010 9:17 PM, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote, on 10-04-23 07:22 PM:
>>>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>
>> You say it was a "reasonable" critique, yet you don't say what it was. I
>> wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
>> critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
>> could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
>> evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
I notice that you again avoid saying what this supposedly "reasonable"
critique is. I wonder why?
>>
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>
>> What controversy? There is none, except for creationists who generally
>> don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
>> hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
>> ignorant.
> >
> This is an unsubstantiated charge against these people.
> Can you give a few examples to justify your accusation of Discovery
> Institute? You can hardly claim that an independent, dispassionate and
> impartial agency makes the judgment.
The DI is a non profit that relies on member donations. I think the
Wedge Strategy document says enough of about the DI and their lies about
science.
>
>>
>> If there truly was a controversy then we would see significant
>> scientific research don't by the anti-evolutionists. Why is it that we
>> never see them doing any research, only bitching about their
>> misrepresentations of science?
> >
> It takes financial grants etc to do research.
It's not like people don;t donate hundreds of millions to religious
causes every year. TV preachers make lots of money - let them fund the
scientific research into creationism. The money is not lacking. But what
about Liberty University and the like? Where's their "scientific" output?
The problem is clearly not lack of money, yet the creationists only
complain but never do any research themselves.
marks...@yahoo.com
are you aware of the site biologicinstitute.org. It appears to be a
research side of Discovery Institute or one of those ID sites.
osugeography
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Marks - the "About (Us)" connection at the URL you provided
states:
Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in
2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case for
intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific
implications. Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute’s
Center for Science and Culture, which continues to support its ongoing
work.
Thanks for the link, Mark.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Free Lunch
<osugeo...@aol.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
And what research have they published?
marks...@yahoo.com
I dont see any actual research on Intelligent design though in their
list of published works. They claim some of it is but it must be very
subtle.
osugeography
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark wrote:
I dont see any actual research on Intelligent design though in their
list of published works. They claim some of it is but it must be very
subtle.
Isn't there a phrase, "Subtle are the ways of the Lord?"
or maybe it's
"Subtle are the ways of the Lord's liars?"
Marvin
osugeography etc...
marks...@yahoo.com
there is a page of published works , a lot of it in peer reviewed
journals, but I dont have access to the papers , and the titles are
not ID specific. There are claims that papers on protein folding prove
design because the probability of them happening by chance is very
low.
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
The people seem to be a mix: Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard
Sternberg,Jonathan Wells are three I am sure I heard before.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Those claims have been shown to be meaningless.
>http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
>The people seem to be a mix: Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard
>Sternberg,Jonathan Wells are three I am sure I heard before.
Anti-science Christians tend to be totally unimpressed with Jonathan
Wells because they think Rev. Moon is such a self-worshipping heretic.
None are really doing anything except around the edges. None are making
any effort to propose a scientific theory that is consistent with the
claims that their lawyer masters have invented.
osugeography
> On 4/23/2010 9:20 PM, osugeography wrote:
>
>
>
> >> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> >> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> >> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> >> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> >> this.
>
> > Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
>
> > What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
> > antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
> > had substantially the same rights as the whites?
>
> Can you quote any group or organization which advocates this?
> It's imaginary and an absurdity.
> >> What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
> > intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
> > and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
> > that women should not have the right to vote?
>
> >
> Another imaginary controversy.
Above you read R. Dean addressing equal treatment for women. When he
writes "Another imaginary controversy", I wonder if he writes that
because for him, there is no controversy, thinking that women are
inferior, and are subservient to their husbands.
But just in case he thinks there is no controversy, I remind of the
stand of Southern Baptists, who took this stance. I believe that
President Jimmy Carter left the church, largely because of that stand.
> > While you are at it, should students be presented with arguments,
> > given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
> > Holocaust?
>
> >
> Here again, there are photos movies of the holocaust. The holocaust
> is undeniable.
Here again, R. Dean does not acknowledge that the Holocaust is denied,
in part or in whole. See the following organizations dedicated to
questioning the Holocaust:
CODOH – Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
IHR - The Institute for Historical Review
AAARGH - L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et
d'Holocaustes
> > What about giving equal time to those who claim that science is no
> > better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
> > man or woman in the street?
>
> >
> Why do you continue going off into the absurd?
Why does R. Dean think that is absurd? Is he ignorant also of the too-
common negative attitude towards science?
Why not trust Scientology to treat your ills?
Why not trust Jenny McCarthy, when she says that vaccines cause
autism? Or when she says that chelation therapy cures autism?
> >> What about giving equal time to those who believe that the disease and
> > health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
> > drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
> > population?
>
> > What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
> > the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
> > knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
>
> > What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
> > can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
R. Dean writes that “The above examples are not actually advocated by
anyone.”
No belief in psychics? People don't advocate psychic cures or
contact?
It might do well for you to look at the American Association of
Psychics, http://www.americanassociationofpsychics.com/
The CIA dropped a psychic program, after twenty years:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17828080.html
What about the top TV psychics: Sylvia Brown, Noreen Renier, and John
Edwards?
I wish I had mentioned earlier about the popularization of
pseudoarcheology. I wonder if R. Dean would have written that it is
"not actually advocated by anyone"?
Idiot America, 2010.
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
> > You should get the idea, R. Dean.
>
> >
> I see you point, however, to appeal to the absurdities to make your
> point is equally absurd. I would rather someone explain why there
> were no references to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.
>
> > How many of my topics above do you believe should be given equal time
> > in the classroom?
>
> >
> The above examples are not actually advocated by anyone, thus, it
> seems ridiculous to compare my question with something unreal and
> imaginary. I.D. is being pushed into schools. This is our reality.
>
> > And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>
> >
> The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
> The book was published 20008.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marvin Sebourn
> > osugeogra...@aol.com- Hide quoted text -
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
The claim "probablility of it happening by chance" instantly throws it
into the trash bin. That isn't 'research' it is a "claim".
Harry K
Ron Dean
>
>> Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> Depends on what the book said and why. It would certainly be wrong to
> nitpick for a page or two and then jump to the conclusion that ID must
> be right when there is no supporting evidence for ID ever presented.
>
criticism of evolution be allowed.
>
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy,
>
> There is no scientific controversy at the level that would be discussed
> in an intro biology class. What would there be to present?
>
evolutionary process that fashioned present day life forms had
to have happen in the dim past, the only direct, empirical evidence
of these gradual changes leading up to today's forms must come from
the fossils embedded in the earth's strata. DNA, comparisons,
similarities etc, are secondary data, which in and of itself, provides
no objective evidence showing the gradual changes which must have
happened.
But fossil are extremely rare in the fossil strata. There are
numerous fossils said to be transitional, but a progression of
fossils leading from one distinct form to a different form through
minute step of graded steps is virtually absent from the fossil
record. The history of life as depicted in the fossil record is
one of abrupt appearance followed by long periods of stasis, then abrupt
disappearance from the strata. This is ubiquitous throughout
the fossil record. This fact was known by Darwin, and several
paleontologist throughout history has pointed this out, but since
evolution is about change, change is what scientist were searching for.
Stasis when found, was seen as non-data. It was ignored, and rarely
saw the printed page. In resent history the nature of the fossil
record was reintroduced by two reputable and established scientist,
the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. G& E offered a
theory to explain this fact which is observed from fossil record.
They called their theory "Punctuated Equilibrium".
Should students be shielded from the knowledge regarding what the fossil
record _actually_ depicts? This is not really a criticism,
but a more balanced picture of scientific discovery. My criticism
then is of the failure to present the whole truth, rather than
censoring what some advocates of evolution want concealed from
students.
<snip>
Ron Dean
the Bible was not mentioned anywhere in the book I read. If religion
is not mentioned or used to criticise evolution, then religion cannot
be seen as involved. Admittedly religion could be seen as a motivation,
but that in and of itself should have no bearing on the validity
of the argument.
<snip>
Ron Dean
criticized. But not the student himself or his honesty or character.
Ron Dean
agencies or universities which financed anything for the I.D. But
again, I'm not advocating I.D. But it's rather obvious that their
procedure is take the facts as paleontologist and other scientist
present then and interpret these facts in accordance with their
paradigm. IOW they rely upon the _same_ observations that others
make.
>
> Harry K
Ron Dean
Until then I had only a passing interest in the subject of evolution, I
didn't have a problem with it. But I didn't doubt the validity of
evolution, I thought it logical, and reasonable. I was very interested,
however, in what is called the "anthropic principle".
Ron Dean
classrooms. If they were I would criticize them.
I'm sorry, I know many Baptist, yet I never heard any of the make
such a claim. Nor is any public school teaching this. But still none of
this relates to anything I have written. I don't think ever really made
my point clear. I would criticize this position as well as the others. .
>
> But just in case he thinks there is no controversy, I remind of the
> stand of Southern Baptists, who took this stance. I believe that
> President Jimmy Carter left the church, largely because of that stand.
>
If they took such a stand, they were wrong. The pictures, and the
witnesses prove beyond any doubt the Holocaust happened. I would
criticize this.
>
>>> While you are at it, should students be presented with arguments,
>>> given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
>>> Holocaust?
>>
>> >
>> Here again, there are photos movies of the holocaust. The holocaust
>> is undeniable.
>
> Here again, R. Dean does not acknowledge that the Holocaust is denied,
> in part or in whole.
>
I don't! But I don't seen the relevance of it, in respect to my
question, since it's not being taught in U.S. classrooms.
See the following organizations dedicated to
> questioning the Holocaust:
>
> CODOH – Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
> IHR - The Institute for Historical Review
> AAARGH - L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et
> d'Holocaustes
>
Thanks for the references, I realize the president of Iran denies
that the Holocaust happened. The point is I would criticize this
if taught in schools too.
>
>
>>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that science is no
>>> better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
>>> man or woman in the street?
>>
>> >
>> Why do you continue going off into the absurd?
>
> Why does R. Dean think that is absurd? Is he ignorant also of the too-
> common negative attitude towards science?
>
It's absurd for two reasons: it's irrational and it's not being taught
to susceptible, trusting children. If it were I would criticize it.
>
>
> Why not trust Scientology to treat your ills?
>
>
> Why not trust Jenny McCarthy, when she says that vaccines cause
> autism? Or when she says that chelation therapy cures autism?
>
>> >> What about giving equal time to those who believe that the disease and
>>> health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
>>> drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
>>> population?
>>
>>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
>>> the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
>>> knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
>>
>
>
>>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
>>> can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
>
> R. Dean writes that “The above examples are not actually advocated by
> anyone.”
>
> No belief in psychics? People don't advocate psychic cures or
> contact?
>
Here again these are imaginary controversies, and do not relate to
anything I've written because they are _not_taught in public schools. If
the were being taught in the classroom they would then be real and I
would feel justified in criticizing them.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 4/24/2010 12:13 PM, harry k wrote:
That's because no ID advocate wants to have any scientific research done
on it. They are the ones who refuse to design a proper experiment or
follow the expected protocols. Our government does not fund scientific
research on dianetics or homeopathy or alchemy, either.
>But again, I'm not advocating I.D. But it's rather obvious that their
>procedure is take the facts as paleontologist and other scientist
>present then and interpret these facts in accordance with their
>paradigm. IOW they rely upon the _same_ observations that others
>make.
It is quite clear to everyone who has paid attention that the ID
advocates cherrypick the data and refuse to develop a testable
hypothesis. They are bullshit artists.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Nothing in science implies a creator/designer. Nothing. ID is
creationism in secular dress. Read
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>. It makes
it very clear how dishonest the ID folks have been. Behe made a fool of
himself in that courtroom.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 4/24/2010 8:05 PM, osugeography wrote:
So why do you want an imaginary controversy about biology to be pushed
in classrooms?
...
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
No, you miss your point. If we teach the controversy of spelling, we
will have to question whether any spelling is correct.
Anyway, intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis. It was
invented by religious folks looking for an excuse to teach creationism
in the public classroom. It is a completely dishonest exercise and the
people trying to sell it at the Discovery Institute know they are lying.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>> There is no scientific controversy at the level that would be discussed
>> in an intro biology class. What would there be to present?
>>
>Evolution a primarily a historical science.
No.
> Consequence, the gradual
>evolutionary process that fashioned present day life forms had
>to have happen in the dim past, the only direct, empirical evidence
>of these gradual changes leading up to today's forms must come from
>the fossils embedded in the earth's strata. DNA, comparisons,
>similarities etc, are secondary data,
No.
> which in and of itself, provides
>no objective evidence showing the gradual changes which must have
>happened.
No. You do not understand how science is done or the data that has been
gathered. The following was posted to talk.origins long ago. It is still
true.
Here are some of the lines of evidence that force scientists to conclude
that evolution has happened and continues to happen:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
>But fossil are extremely rare in the fossil strata.
So what?
>There are
>numerous fossils said to be transitional, but a progression of
>fossils leading from one distinct form to a different form through
>minute step of graded steps is virtually absent from the fossil
>record.
So what? Genes show us that there was this progression. So far you seem
to want to cherypick the stupidest arguments made by creationists
against evolution. So far you have not offered any examples of
scientific controversy.
>The history of life as depicted in the fossil record is
>one of abrupt appearance followed by long periods of stasis, then abrupt
>disappearance from the strata. This is ubiquitous throughout
>the fossil record. This fact was known by Darwin, and several
>paleontologist throughout history has pointed this out, but since
>evolution is about change, change is what scientist were searching for.
So?
>Stasis when found, was seen as non-data. It was ignored, and rarely
>saw the printed page. In resent history the nature of the fossil
>record was reintroduced by two reputable and established scientist,
>the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. G& E offered a
>theory to explain this fact which is observed from fossil record.
>They called their theory "Punctuated Equilibrium".
Yes, they did. It is hardly high school level biology.
>Should students be shielded from the knowledge regarding what the fossil
>record _actually_ depicts?
What do you think they are being shielded from? The ID/Creationist
claims about the fossil record are completely misleading. The question
of punctuated equilibiria is an advanced subject.
>This is not really a criticism,
>but a more balanced picture of scientific discovery. My criticism
>then is of the failure to present the whole truth, rather than
>censoring what some advocates of evolution want concealed from
>students.
What do you think the 'whole truth' is? Why do you tell us that you are
not a creationist, but keep repeating the lies that the creationists
have spread?
Now, will you get back to us with an example of a scientific controversy
in evolution that is appropriate for a high school kid?
Burkhard
> >> Should any such
> >> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> > Depends on what the book said and why. It would certainly be wrong to
> > nitpick for a page or two and then jump to the conclusion that ID must
> > be right when there is no supporting evidence for ID ever presented.
>
> I am not advocating that I.D. be taught, my question was should
> criticism of evolution be allowed.
>
> >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >> of the controversy,
>
> > There is no scientific controversy at the level that would be discussed
> > in an intro biology class. What would there be to present?
>
> Evolution a primarily a historical science.
No, it isn't. Some important parts of the evidence are historical" -
but even then, even Darwin drew just as much from observations of
ongoing processes, such as dog and cattle breeding. With the discovery
of the mechanism behind mutations and the new synthesis, this changed
even more radically. put differently; even if we had not a single
fossil, we could predict that in billion years time, we will look very
different from the way we look now, as will all the animals we see
around us. The only reason this could not happen would be the
discovery of some "restore point" similar to the ones you have on your
computer that at some predefined point prevents change from
accumulating and "resets" a species. Nothing of this type has been
found.
>Consequence, the gradual
> evolutionary process that fashioned present day life forms had
> to have happen in the dim past, the only direct, empirical evidence
> of these gradual changes leading up to today's forms must come from
> the fossils embedded in the earth's strata.
No, we observe them in real time, sometimes in controlled laboratory
environemnts.
>DNA, comparisons,
> similarities etc, are secondary data, which in and of itself, provides
> no objective evidence showing the gradual changes which must have
> happened.
>
Yes, they do. your genes are different from your parents, and not just
a mixture of theirs.
> numerous fossils said to be transitional,
all of them are, unless they are from a "dead end"
>but a progression of
> fossils leading from one distinct form to a different form through
> minute step of graded steps is virtually absent from the fossil
> record. The history of life as depicted in the fossil record is
> one of abrupt appearance followed by long periods of stasis, then abrupt
> disappearance from the strata.
"Abrupt" here emans in geological time - we still talk thousands of
years.
>This is ubiquitous throughout
> the fossil record. This fact was known by Darwin, and several
> paleontologist throughout history has pointed this out, but since
> evolution is about change, change is what scientist were searching for.
> Stasis when found, was seen as non-data. It was ignored, and rarely
> saw the printed page. In resent history the nature of the fossil
> record was reintroduced by two reputable and established scientist,
> the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. G& E offered a
> theory to explain this fact which is observed from fossil record.
> They called their theory "Punctuated Equilibrium".
>
And their theories, to the extend that they have been confirmed, are
taught - only that it turned out that teir observations were no quite
as ground shattering as they had initially thought.
> Should students be shielded from the knowledge regarding what the fossil
> record _actually_ depicts?
They aren't, you misinterpret PE
Ron Dean
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 01:25:50 -0400, Ron Dean<"R. Dean"@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> ...
>
>>> There is no scientific controversy at the level that would be discussed
>>> in an intro biology class. What would there be to present?
>>>
>> Evolution a primarily a historical science.
>
> No.
>
which accured in the past, is happening today and will continue into the
future.
>
>> Consequence, the gradual
>> evolutionary process that fashioned present day life forms had
>> to have happen in the dim past, the only direct, empirical evidence
>> of these gradual changes leading up to today's forms must come from
>> the fossils embedded in the earth's strata. DNA, comparisons,
>> similarities etc, are secondary data,
>
> No.
>
constantly going on. Some have argued: there are no species, that what
we see is "snap-shots' of continuously changing forms.
>
>> which in and of itself, provides
>> no objective evidence showing the gradual changes which must have
>> happened.
>
> No. You do not understand how science is done or the data that has been
> gathered. The following was posted to talk.origins long ago. It is still
> true.
>
> Here are some of the lines of evidence that force scientists to conclude
> that evolution has happened and continues to happen:
> - Vestigial structures.
> - Homologies
> - Nested hierarchies
> - Vast and elaborate fossil record
> - Continental drift
> - Related to species distribution
> - Related to nested hierarchies
> - Behavioral studies
> - Radiometric dating
> - Radically different collection of flora and fauna
> during progressive eras
> - DNA and genetic data
> - Related to nested hierarchies
> - and recent observed events of speciation
>
>
>> But fossil are extremely rare in the fossil strata.
>
> So what?
>
>> There are
>> numerous fossils said to be transitional, but a progression of
>> fossils leading from one distinct form to a different form through
>> minute step of graded steps is virtually absent from the fossil
>> record.
>
> So what? Genes show us that there was this progression. So far you seem
> to want to cherypick the stupidest arguments made by creationists
> against evolution. So far you have not offered any examples of
> scientific controversy.
>
>> The history of life as depicted in the fossil record is
>> one of abrupt appearance followed by long periods of stasis, then abrupt
>> disappearance from the strata. This is ubiquitous throughout
>> the fossil record. This fact was known by Darwin, and several
>> paleontologist throughout history has pointed this out, but since
>> evolution is about change, change is what scientist were searching for.
>
> So?
>
data! IOW, it's better to keep students ignorant of this and certain
scientifically established data as unnecessary to the objective
of teaching evolution.
>
>> Stasis when found, was seen as non-data. It was ignored, and rarely
>> saw the printed page. In resent history the nature of the fossil
>> record was reintroduced by two reputable and established scientist,
>> the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. G& E offered a
>> theory to explain this fact which is observed from fossil record.
>> They called their theory "Punctuated Equilibrium".
>
> Yes, they did. It is hardly high school level biology.
>
record. The fossil record is fact, Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory.
>
>> Should students be shielded from the knowledge regarding what the fossil
>> record _actually_ depicts?
>
> What do you think they are being shielded from?
>
Instead, they are being taught that gradual change is taking place
over long periods of time through constantly changing transitional forms.
>
> The ID/Creationist claims about the fossil record are completely
> misleading.
>
anything about the abrupt appearance long periods of stasis and the
abrupt disappearance from the fossil record. I did not get this from
Behe.
The question
> of punctuated equilibiria is an advanced subject.
>
Maybe, but the nature of the fossil record, is not. And this
fact _should_ be taught to students. The fact that it's not
is very close to being censorship. It shows that there is
an objective more important than reality.
>
>> This is not really a criticism,
>> but a more balanced picture of scientific discovery. My criticism
>> then is of the failure to present the whole truth, rather than
>> censoring what some advocates of evolution want concealed from
>> students.
>
> What do you think the 'whole truth' is?
>
The fossil record is an important part of the whole truth.
>
> Why do you tell us that you are not a creationist,but keep repeating
> the lies that the creationists have spread?
>
Two thing: If I'm a Creationist, I'm not a Biblical Creationist. Genesis
is completely and obviously wrong, on each of it positions. And I reject
it unequivocally.
>
> Now, will you get back to us with an example of a scientific controversy
> in evolution that is appropriate for a high school kid?
>
The data as revealed from the fossil record. This data should not be
withheld from students. It's one of my criticisms that this is being
done.
Ron Dean
>
> Anyway, intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis.
>
be taught. This is not an issue with me.
It was
> invented by religious folks looking for an excuse to teach creationism
> in the public classroom. It is a completely dishonest exercise and the
> people trying to sell it at the Discovery Institute know they are lying.
>
I'm not defending them, nothing I written is a lie. But some people who
are not familiar with the subject will try to dodge the issue by
this and other such charges. This doesn't apply to you. You and I have
discussed many topics over several years. You have always been
thoughtful, fair minded and honest, I respect that.
Ron Dean
that it is - is wrong. I do not see this as convtriversal.
>
> ...
Ron Dean
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 02:09:32 -0400, Ron Dean<"R. Dean"@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> It takes financial grants etc to do research.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>>>>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>>>>> this.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> The DI has funds in abundance to continue their agenda. Oddly they
>>> have spent ab zero on trying to investigate their lies. Try another
>>> approach, that one lies dead and stinking.
>>>
>> I noticed you did not mention any scientific institutions, government
>> agencies or universities which financed anything for the I.D.
>
> That's because no ID advocate wants to have any scientific research done
> on it. They are the ones who refuse to design a proper experiment or
> follow the expected protocols. Our government does not fund scientific
> research on dianetics or homeopathy or alchemy, either.
>
Good point!
>
>> But again, I'm not advocating I.D. But it's rather obvious that their
>> procedure is take the facts as paleontologist and other scientist
>> present then and interpret these facts in accordance with their
>> paradigm. IOW they rely upon the _same_ observations that others
>> make.
>
> It is quite clear to everyone who has paid attention that the ID
> advocates cherrypick the data and refuse to develop a testable
> hypothesis. They are bullshit artists.
>
Ok, whether or not this is true, I don't know or care. Again I don't
mean to defend them.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You don't care if people lie to you. As far as you are concerned, a lie
is every bit as good as the truth. What a completely amoral view of the
world.
>Again I don't mean to defend them.
Yet you repeatedly.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The fossil record is not withheld. That is another lie that the
science-deniers are spreading, but, that's right, a lie is just fine
with you if its done in the course of something that you approve of,
even if you don't want to admit it.
ID/Creationists are liars. They are opposed to education. You have
chosen to side with them and the false claims they make.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
And evolution is not a controversy, but that doesn't stop you from
advocating that fake controversies about biology be taught in high
school biology. Actually, the British think we Americans are horrible
spellers.
>> Anyway, intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis.
> >
>I really don't care. Again I do not advocate that I.D. or Creationism
>be taught. This is not an issue with me.
No, you have another fake issue.
>It was
>> invented by religious folks looking for an excuse to teach creationism
>> in the public classroom. It is a completely dishonest exercise and the
>> people trying to sell it at the Discovery Institute know they are lying.
> >
>I'm not defending them, nothing I written is a lie.
They lie and you make excuses for them.
Dave Oldridge
> On 4/23/2010 11:36 PM, Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2.58708 @newsfe15.iad:
>>
>>>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>
>> The trouble with ID critiques of evolution is that they are all too
>> often the same specious critiques that the creationists have been
>> spouting and that have long been refuted.
> >
> Can you document a few of specious critiques you asserted?
Here are two:
1. "All modern life forms appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion."
Actual fact: Not one mammal is evident in Cambrian strata.
2. Evolution is just too improbable to have occurred because of the low
prior probability of extant gene combinations.
Fact: Low prior probabilities are a function of rich state spaces and
have no bearing on what may (or may not) arise in them.
> I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
> attempted to do so.
That's just untrue. There are reams of refutations of most all of them
on the web. Creationist agitprop engineers do not care if their lies
have been refuted. They only care if they work on the (ignorant) target
audience.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
All-Seeing-I
Darwin said the fossil record would (and should) support his theory.
Well; It does not.
The rest of the stuff above that you try to support evolution with is
Inconclusive and Circumstantial at best.
People like Dawkins claim this circumstantial evidence is enough to
show evolution happens.
Well...He is wrong. The ancient texts say otherwise.
The texts are stronger then circumstantial evidence because they are
based on eye witnesses accounts and close to the time the events took
place.
The texts say "Man was Created".
From ancient Sumer and all the way around the globe to ancient
America, every tribe and race has traditions about a Creator God.
Sorry Free. That trumps your circumstantial evidence for evolution mu-
boi`
--
In the begining God Created says....
The All Seeing I
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You lie.
>The rest of the stuff above that you try to support evolution with is
>Inconclusive and Circumstantial at best.
You lie.
>People like Dawkins claim this circumstantial evidence is enough to
>show evolution happens.
You lie.
>Well...He is wrong. The ancient texts say otherwise.
You lie.
>The texts are stronger then circumstantial evidence because they are
>based on eye witnesses accounts and close to the time the events took
>place.
You lie.
>The texts say "Man was Created".
Who cares.
>From ancient Sumer and all the way around the globe to ancient
>America, every tribe and race has traditions about a Creator God.
Who cares.
>Sorry Free. That trumps your circumstantial evidence for evolution mu-
>boi`
You lie.
Too bad you have invented such a useless god that you need to lie all
the time to get anyone to believe anything about that useless god.
Cory Albrecht
>
>>
>>> Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>
>> Depends on what the book said and why. It would certainly be wrong to
>> nitpick for a page or two and then jump to the conclusion that ID must
>> be right when there is no supporting evidence for ID ever presented.
>>
> I am not advocating that I.D. be taught, my question was should
> criticism of evolution be allowed.
Then in that case, you realize that science does this all the time?
Indeed, criticism is very basis of science, however not with the
colloquial meaning of "criticism" which is nothing more than a put-down
or an insult. Thinking criticism - that intelligent evaluation and
judgment based upon evidence - is not only allowed in science it is
*required*, for that is the only way that science increases what it
knows and gets closer to the truth of reality.
But that's not what the "teach the controversy" advocates mean or want.
They prefer rhetoric over evidence because they don't have any evidence
and they don't really understand evolution enough to be able to do an
intelligent evaluation. So they prefer to create strawmen arguments and
emotional appeals to postmodern "but we need to be balanced and fair"
bullshit. (When they start giving equal time to other religions in their
churches, then maybe I'll believe that one.)
Tell me, at what point in their mathematics education should students be
introduced to Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorem which shows that
there are problems with the arithmetic they are learning and that it is,
in sense, broken? Do you teach them that in grade 2? Grade 7? Freshman year?
Contrary to what you say above, it is fossils which are the secondary
evidence and it is DNA which is the primary evidence for evolution.
Fossils are merely the most accessible and most easily understandable to
the uninformed masses. This is because DNA shows, in the here and now,
that different organisms, no matter how different, are definitely
related whereas with fossils we can only say that fossil animal X was
probably a close relative of the ancestor to living animal Y.
As for the lack of minute graded steps, if you truly understand how rare
fossilization actually is, why do you even bring this up? We don't need
every minute step - and even if we did the creationists that demand it
would still move the goalposts - because the series that we do have are
enough for reasonable deduction and inference by reasonable people.
The thing is, in biology there is no controversy on evolution. There are
quibbles about minor points but all of them are solidly based in the
fact that evolution happens.
Would you support also teaching flat earth "theory" or expanding earth
"theory" to school children? If not, why is geology different from biology?
Cory Albrecht
Time for you to go review the fossils, then, and abate your ignorance.
Start with the horse family and close relatives.
Ralph
> On 4/23/2010 8:20 PM, Ralph wrote:
>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>> this.
>>
>>
>>
>> its own then it certainly couldn't be an alternative to evolution. You
>> know that, Dean!
>>
> As you know Ralph, I do not advocate teaching I.D..
That's right Ron, you don't advocate much of anything.
Ralph
> "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2....@newsfe15.iad...
>>
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not?
>
> has been presented in textbooks in this area has been in
> fact only elaborate fantasy, falsehood and fraud; and thus
> would result in much embarrassment to the distinguished
> educators who have been so actively involved throughout
> the years in presenting this hoax upon the students.
In your wet dreams Andrew, you still have those as a Christian, right?
Ralph
> On 4/23/2010 9:17 PM, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> R. Dean wrote, on 10-04-23 07:22 PM:
>>>
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>
>> wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
>> critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
>> could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
>> evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
>>
>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>
>> don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
>> hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
>> ignorant.
> >
> This is an unsubstantiated charge against these people.
> Can you give a few examples to justify your accusation of Discovery
> Institute? You can hardly claim that an independent, dispassionate and
> impartial agency makes the judgment.
Tell you what Ron. why don't you read the transcript of Kitzmiller v.
Dover BOE. This is loaded with examples of ID duplicity and their
eventual exposure as such. It will save all of us a lot of time.
Ralph
> On 4/23/2010 9:20 PM, osugeography wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 6:22 pm, "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>> this.
>>
>> Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
>> antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
>> had substantially the same rights as the whites?
>>
> Can you quote any group or organization which advocates this?
> It's imaginary and an absurdity.
> >
>> What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
>> intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
>> and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
>> that women should not have the right to vote?
> >
> Another imaginary controversy.
>>
>> given equal time, from people claiming the outright denial of the
>> Holocaust?
> >
> Here again, there are photos movies of the holocaust. The holocaust
> is undeniable.
>>
>> better at addressing complex problems than the average, non-informed
>> man or woman in the street?
> >
> Why do you continue going off into the absurd?
> >
>> health problems of the last half of the twentieth century are due to
>> drug company designed bacteria and viruses, spread into the human
>> population?
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that the opinion of
>> the uninformed is worth as much, if not more, than those with
>> knowledge of a subject? (Wow, have we seen that here?)
>>
>> What about giving equal time to those who claim that people’s problems
>> can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
>>
>> You should get the idea, R. Dean.
> >
> I see you point, however, to appeal to the absurdities to make your
> point is equally absurd. I would rather someone explain why there
> were no references to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.
>>
>> in the classroom?
> >
> The above examples are not actually advocated by anyone, thus, it
> seems ridiculous to compare my question with something unreal and
> imaginary. I.D. is being pushed into schools. This is our reality.
>>
>> And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
> >
> The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
> The book was published 20008.
If it is a Behe book you definitely need to read that transcript. Behe
looked like a dear in the headlights when he had to tell the truth and
listen to the other side for a change.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>
>>> Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>
>> Depends on what the book said and why. It would certainly be wrong to
>> nitpick for a page or two and then jump to the conclusion that ID must
>> be right when there is no supporting evidence for ID ever presented.
>>
>I am not advocating that I.D. be taught, my question was should
>criticism of evolution be allowed.
What criticism? Tell us exactly what scientific criticism of evolution
you think is appropriate for consideration in a high school biology
class and why.
...
Ron Dean
>
> The fossil record is not withheld. That is another lie that the
> science-deniers are spreading, but, that's right, a lie is just fine
> with you if its done in the course of something that you approve of,
> even if you don't want to admit it.
>
> ID/Creationists are liars. They are opposed to education. You have
> chosen to side with them and the false claims they make.
>
ID's. So, If you are telling me I'm siding with these people on the
the nature of the fossil record, the explain where what I've written
is in error.
Ron Dean
>
>>> Anyway, intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis.
>>>
>> I really don't care. Again I do not advocate that I.D. or Creationism
>> be taught. This is not an issue with me.
>
> No, you have another fake issue.
>
encourage critical thinking in students. But when the thinking is done
for them education suffers.
>
>> It was
>>> invented by religious folks looking for an excuse to teach creationism
>>> in the public classroom. It is a completely dishonest exercise and the
>>> people trying to sell it at the Discovery Institute know they are lying.
>>>
>> I'm not defending them, nothing I written is a lie.
>
> They lie and you make excuses for them.
>
issues I've raised. I don't care about them or their lies. I question
that they know anything about Stasis etc.
Ron Dean
organisms evolved from a single ancestor, through long periods of
gradual change, yet cannot understand the nature of the record,
which is almost always one of sudden appearance, long period of stasis
followed by abrupt disappearance from the strata? This is not advanced
biology nor is it advanced differential equations.
>
> Contrary to what you say above, it is fossils which are the secondary
> evidence and it is DNA which is the primary evidence for evolution.
>
rather the omission of the real fossil record. At this point to discuss
the DNA is really deflecting the issue.
>
> Fossils are merely the most accessible and most easily understandable to
> the uninformed masses.
>
discolosed rather than covered up. This is not how education
is supposed to work..
This is because DNA shows, in the here and now,
> that different organisms, no matter how different, are definitely
> related whereas with fossils we can only say that fossil animal X was
> probably a close relative of the ancestor to living animal Y.
>
I've read about this and I understand it, but it does not address my
criticism.
>
> As for the lack of minute graded steps, if you truly understand how rare
> fossilization actually is, why do you even bring this up? We don't need
> every minute step - and even if we did the creationists that demand it
> would still move the goalposts - because the series that we do have are
> enough for reasonable deduction and inference by reasonable people.
>
But the fact is sequences of fossil transitional fossils are extremely
rare, whereas the long periods of fossil forms in stasis are said to be
ubiquitous. Gould and Eldridge advanced their theory entitled
"Punctuated Equilibrium" to explain the fact as revealed from the
strata. P.E. Was compared to the life of a soldier. A brief period
of abject terror followed by long periods of boredom. According
to G&E's theory, a part of a population became cut off from the
main population, ie a mountain range, a river or some by some natural
boundry into what the describd as "peripheral Isolates". In small
groups evolution took place rapidly, and returned to the home range
changed, unable to interbreed with the parent population.
If this theory was taught along with the record, I would have no
criticism.
>
>
> The thing is, in biology there is no controversy on evolution.
>
True, when certain facts are brushed aside such as the actual observed
data dug from the strata and conceiled from students. This borders
of censorship.
>
> There are
> quibbles about minor points but all of them are solidly based in the
> fact that evolution happens.
>
Again this is not the issue.
>
> Would you support also teaching flat earth "theory" or expanding earth
> "theory" to school children? If not, why is geology different from biology?
>
If it was being taught. I would criticize it. But again this is
diverting attention away form the issue.
Ron Dean
> "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:bKuAn.122850$mn6....@newsfe07.iad:
>
>> On 4/23/2010 11:36 PM, Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>> "R. Dean"<"R Dean"@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>>> news:0ZpAn.72542$iu2.58708 @newsfe15.iad:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>>
>>> The trouble with ID critiques of evolution is that they are all too
>>> often the same specious critiques that the creationists have been
>>> spouting and that have long been refuted.
>>>
>> Can you document a few of specious critiques you asserted?
>
> Here are two:
>
> 1. "All modern life forms appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion."
> Actual fact: Not one mammal is evident in Cambrian strata.
>
that mammals appeared, in the Cambrian Strata, Cambrian fossils were sea
dwelling organisms, not milk giving mammals. If this was a claim
of the proponents of intelligent design, I would be completely surprised.
>
> 2. Evolution is just too improbable to have occurred because of the low
> prior probability of extant gene combinations.
> Fact: Low prior probabilities are a function of rich state spaces and
> have no bearing on what may (or may not) arise in them.
>
>> I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
>> attempted to do so.
>
> That's just untrue.
<
>
There are reams of refutations of most all of them
> on the web. Creationist agitprop engineers do not care if their lies
> have been refuted. They only care if they work on the (ignorant) target
> audience.
>
about what the IDers believe of don't believe. I'm am not advocating
teaching intelligent design in schools.
>
>
Ron Dean
is nothing - absolutely that gives support to the Bibical stories of
creation. Indeed, what one finds in the Bible concerning origins is
patently wrong. A seven day creation is utterly wrong, the order of
creation is wrong, there is no evidence of a universal flood.
And the specific God depicted in Genesis is not supported by any
empirical evidence.
>
> From ancient Sumer and all the way around the globe to ancient
> America, every tribe and race has traditions about a Creator God.
>
> Sorry Free. That trumps your circumstantial evidence for evolution mu-
> boi`
>
> --
> In the begining God Created says....
>
to have happened. It's called the big bang. This is the only point you
can find about origins where science and the Bible come close to an
agreement.
>
> The All Seeing I
>
>
>
Dave Oldridge
@newsfe13.iad:
What they say is very carefully worded to omit the necessary information
while goving the impression that all modern forms of life are found in
the Cambrian.
>>
>> 2. Evolution is just too improbable to have occurred because of the
low
>> prior probability of extant gene combinations.
>> Fact: Low prior probabilities are a function of rich state spaces and
>> have no bearing on what may (or may not) arise in them.
>>
>>> I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
>>> attempted to do so.
>>
>> That's just untrue.
> <
> I'm here discussing the folks who responded to me on this thread.
> >
> There are reams of refutations of most all of them
>> on the web. Creationist agitprop engineers do not care if their lies
>> have been refuted. They only care if they work on the (ignorant)
target
>> audience.
>>
> Somehow, I find myself getting off topic. The truth is I don't care
> about what the IDers believe of don't believe. I'm am not advocating
> teaching intelligent design in schools.
OK, that's all I ask. Teach science in the schools not religious-
motivated propaganda. That's all *I* asl. The Id-ers are permitted to
worship Satan any way they want in their homes and so-called "churches."
The thing is, the public face of ID is a POLITICAL movement designed to
attack the way science is taught to school children and most of their
public activity has been designed to incite such politics. In short they
are publicly mounting a subversive attack on the US constitution by
aiding and abetting conspirators who continually incite unconstitutional
legislation at state and local levels of government.
Not to mention that piece of cinematic yellow journalism titled
"Epelled" whose producers need an EXORCISM, if you ask me!
Ron Dean
provided any references supporting this charge. But considering that all
mammals, birds and Homo sapient are _modern_ forms they are being very
deceptive. I would seriously like to see this. I haven't found this and
I've looked.
>>
>>> 2. Evolution is just too improbable to have occurred because of the
> low
>>> prior probability of extant gene combinations.
>>> Fact: Low prior probabilities are a function of rich state spaces and
>>> have no bearing on what may (or may not) arise in them.
>>>
>>>> I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
>>>> attempted to do so.
>>>
>>> That's just untrue.
>> <
>> I'm here discussing the folks who responded to me on this thread.
>>>
>> There are reams of refutations of most all of them
>>> on the web. Creationist agitprop engineers do not care if their lies
>>> have been refuted. They only care if they work on the (ignorant)
> target
>>> audience.
>>>
>> Somehow, I find myself getting off topic. The truth is I don't care
>> teaching intelligent design in schools.
>
> OK, that's all I ask. Teach science in the schools not religious-
> motivated propaganda. That's all *I* asl. The Id-ers are permitted to
> worship Satan any way they want in their homes and so-called "churches."
>
there would be "open doors" to Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology, Islam,
Christian Science, Mormonism and every other crack-pot cult there is.
Nevertheless, I believe the fossil record as it's found to exist in
nature, should be taught, not just the theoretical gradualism most
advocates want.
>
> The thing is, the public face of ID is a POLITICAL movement designed to
> attack the way science is taught to school children and most of their
> public activity has been designed to incite such politics. In short they
> are publicly mounting a subversive attack on the US constitution by
> aiding and abetting conspirators who continually incite unconstitutional
> legislation at state and local levels of government.
>
local papers about the Textbook controversy that was happening at the
time. In the past the 15 member textbook committee has selected and
challenged certain aspects of the texts. Historically those proposing
that criticism be included, such as sudden appearance, stasis and
abrupt disappearance from the strata, lost. However, they voted to
allow such to be taught. But before it passed, they agreed on a
compromise, not to use words such as criticism, but instead calling
it the strengths and weaknesses. But the people opposing, the change
set a new Texas presedence, they took the case to court.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You are not siding with scientists. You are cherrypicking data, ignoring
vast amounts of other data and then jumping to an indefensible
conclusion.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
There is no evidence that God did anything, any time, anywhere.
>> The All Seeing I
>>
>>
>>
Ron Dean
>> ID's. So, If you are telling me I'm siding with these people on the
>> the nature of the fossil record, the explain where what I've written
>> is in error.
>
> You are not siding with scientists. You are cherrypicking data, ignoring
> vast amounts of other data and then jumping to an indefensible
> conclusion.
>
withholding data from students. Stasis should be taught. Why is it
not!
Ron Dean
Intelligent Design. What transcript are you referring to?
Surely, Ralph you realize I not defending Biblical Creationism.
Ralph
It is Ron. At which educational level do you refer?
Ralph
>>>> can be addressed effectively by consulting a psychic?
>>>>
>>>> You should get the idea, R. Dean.
>>> >
>>> I see you point, however, to appeal to the absurdities to make your
>>> point is equally absurd. I would rather someone explain why there
>>> were no references to Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> How many of my topics above do you believe should be given equal time
>>>> in the classroom?
>>> >
>>> The above examples are not actually advocated by anyone, thus, it
>>> seems ridiculous to compare my question with something unreal and
>>> imaginary. I.D. is being pushed into schools. This is our reality.
>>>>
>>>> And what was the book on intelligent design that you read?
>>> >
>>> The title was: "The Edge of Evolution", by M. Behe
>>> The book was published 20008.
>>
>>
>> If it is a Behe book you definitely need to read that transcript. Behe
>> looked like a dear in the headlights when he had to tell the truth and
>> listen to the other side for a change.
> >
> There us a significant difference in Genesis based creationism, and
> Intelligent Design. What transcript are you referring to?
> Surely, Ralph you realize I not defending Biblical Creationism.
I am referring to the transcript of the Kitzmiller v. Dover BOE where
the Dover attempted to introduce ID into the classroom. Behe was an
'expert' witness for the ID side and quite frankly he was made to look
like a stooge.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The problem is that the stasis only exists in the phenotype. There is
strong evidence that the genotype is not static. What needs to be taught
is the importance of the change in genes over time.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 4/25/2010 8:40 PM, Ralph wrote:
Intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a legal
strategy that failed.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why do you misrepresent what scientists say?
>>
>> The thing is, the public face of ID is a POLITICAL movement designed to
>> attack the way science is taught to school children and most of their
>> public activity has been designed to incite such politics. In short they
>> are publicly mounting a subversive attack on the US constitution by
>> aiding and abetting conspirators who continually incite unconstitutional
>> legislation at state and local levels of government.
> >
>I was in Texas a few weeks last year, I saw TV, local news and read in
>local papers about the Textbook controversy that was happening at the
>time. In the past the 15 member textbook committee has selected and
>challenged certain aspects of the texts. Historically those proposing
>that criticism be included, such as sudden appearance, stasis and
>abrupt disappearance from the strata, lost. However, they voted to
>allow such to be taught. But before it passed, they agreed on a
>compromise, not to use words such as criticism, but instead calling
>it the strengths and weaknesses. But the people opposing, the change
>set a new Texas presedence, they took the case to court.
Intelligent design has been shown to be a complete fraud, cooked up by
lawyers as a way around the bar to teaching creationism in public
schools. It has absolutely no scientific merit, even the folks who
invented it refuse to do discuss the scientific virtues of their silly
doctrine. They know they are teaching creationism, why else would their
hilarious "cdesign proponentsists" be of such embarrassment to them.
Burkhard
Because the scientific community had a long good look at Gould and PE,
and came to the conclusion that at best it is a small modification
within the theory of evolution, at worst a misunderstanding of the
data and in any case very misleadingly formulated. Since students
are not taught that evolution proceeds with uniform speed all the time
(at least i would hope they are not, since there is no reason to
believe this), the main claim tat PE.stasis claims to address is moot.
With other words there is no controversy to teach, since nobody made
the claim they tried to refute first place.
Dawkins (of whom I'm otherwise not a great fan, personally) sums it
up quite well in the Blind Watchmaker (p.250ff) when he calls it a
minor gloss and an " interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of
neo-Darwinian theory". School students would not go anyway into
sufficient detail of the theory t see how there is a very minor
disagreement on that specific issue.
Dave Oldridge
I was just on the Discovery Institute site. They completely misrepresent
the Cambrian explosion, practically pretending that there are no Vendian
fossils at all and never mentioning the fact that our own phylum,
chordata is represented at the bottom only by worms and the most advanced
chordates at the top are primitive fishes. Moreover, they completely
neglect to state that this 'explosion' took place over tens of millions
of years.
When you consider that the author of the first piece I read on their site
has a PhD in biology, the omissions, considering the nature of the target
audience, are, in my sacerdotal opinion, examples of a deliberate sin of
false witness--intentional deception.
>>
>> Not to mention that piece of cinematic yellow journalism titled
>> "Epelled" whose producers need an EXORCISM, if you ask me!
This bears repeating. Hatemongering by hinting that honest scientists,
many of them Christians and Jews are closet Nazis is the worst form of
false witness. It's outright deliberate slander.
Ron Dean
believe is a creationist, claimed that all major groups, appeared
during the Cambrian over a period of 5-10 million years. Only a few
have appeared after the this one I remember was Byozoa which first
appeared in the ordovician.
Based upon what I've read the trace fossils and the shelly fossils
etc. have no known affinity to any later organisms.
>
Moreover, they completely
> neglect to state that this 'explosion' took place over tens of millions
> of years.
>
Maybe you can find some who says this, but it doesn't hold true for
all of the I.D. proponents.
>
> When you consider that the author of the first piece I read on their site
> has a PhD in biology, the omissions, considering the nature of the target
> audience, are, in my sacerdotal opinion, examples of a deliberate sin of
> false witness--intentional deception.
>
You are too vague for me to really understand where you are getting this
stuff.
>
>>>
>>> Not to mention that piece of cinematic yellow journalism titled
>>> "Epelled" whose producers need an EXORCISM, if you ask me!
>
> This bears repeating. Hatemongering by hinting that honest scientists,
> many of them Christians and Jews are closet Nazis is the worst form of
> false witness. It's outright deliberate slander. In my experience,
>
Christians generally do not hate, quite the contrary: the same with
Jews. If they hate, this disqualifies them as Christian, they turn
their back on the teachings of Jesus and their religions.
>
I don't know, I find the over-usage of the word hate to be an over
reaction. Disagreement doesn't mean hate. But that all too often is
the way many people view thse who voice a different position.
>
>
>
Ron Dean
I will be grateful, and never do this again. I do learn.
>>>
>>> The thing is, the public face of ID is a POLITICAL movement designed to
>>> attack the way science is taught to school children and most of their
>>> public activity has been designed to incite such politics. In short they
>>> are publicly mounting a subversive attack on the US constitution by
>>> aiding and abetting conspirators who continually incite unconstitutional
>>> legislation at state and local levels of government.
>>>
>> I was in Texas a few weeks last year, I saw TV, local news and read in
>> local papers about the Textbook controversy that was happening at the
>> time. In the past the 15 member textbook committee has selected and
>> challenged certain aspects of the texts. Historically those proposing
>> that criticism be included, such as sudden appearance, stasis and
>> abrupt disappearance from the strata, lost. However, they voted to
>> allow such to be taught. But before it passed, they agreed on a
>> compromise, not to use words such as criticism, but instead calling
>> it the strengths and weaknesses. But the people opposing, the change
>> set a new Texas presedence, they took the case to court.
>
> Intelligent design has been shown to be a complete fraud, cooked up by
> lawyers as a way around the bar to teaching creationism in public
> schools. It has absolutely no scientific merit, even the folks who
> invented it refuse to do discuss the scientific virtues of their silly
> doctrine. They know they are teaching creationism, why else would their
> hilarious "cdesign proponentsists" be of such embarrassment to them.
>
criticism I brought up by calling attention to something not relevant
to the issue I brought up. Why is this? I don't care about I.D. or it's
proponents. This is no my issue.
>>>
Ron Dean
> ...
Ron Dean
to the issue I brought up. All of this stuff is a diversion.
It's wrong to omit that stasis in the fossil record is the
predominant characteristic, not gradual change. This is the issue.
Ron Dean
> On 4/23/2010 11:23 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 4/23/2010 8:20 PM, Ralph wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> its own then it certainly couldn't be an alternative to evolution. You
>>> know that, Dean!
>>>
>> As you know Ralph, I do not advocate teaching I.D..
>
>
> That's right Ron, you don't advocate much of anything.
>
Well, for once, you are right! I have no serious commitment
to anything, except family, job and country. And in theat
order.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I have read what you wrote. Let me state my problem with your ongoing
objections quite clearly:
1. There are disagreements within science about some aspects of
evolution. None of those disagreements would be of any interest or value
to a student taking high school biology who is first being introduced to
evolution. Whether it is your goal or not, your allegation that we need
to introduce 'criticism of evolution' will only serve to confuse the
issue. If you can explain what other goal you might have, please do so.
2. There are zero general criticisms of evolution. None. At. All. There
are no scientists who reject evolution for scientific reasons. There are
a handful like Jon Wells who reject it for religious reasons and are
willing to lie. The Discovery Institute appears to have hired every one
they could find. Again, introducing cherrypicked data, and yes, you have
routinely tried to introduce cherrypicked data, to the point of
misrepresenting what scientists have to say about evolution, does not
educate students. Again, you appear to be an ally of McLeroy, trying to
make certain that students are completely confused about evolution when
they are done with the unit.
3. Have you read "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Stephen Jay
Gould? Do you understand what he was explaining in it? When you have and
can show us that you understand it, then your criticisms might be worth
listening to, but, of course, if you do manage, you won't have the
criticisms that you are offering because you won't be so sophomoric
about evolution any more. I highly recommend that you master some
introductory biology and genetics before taking on Gould's book.
Ron Dean
> groups evolution took place rapidly, and returned to the home range
> changed, unable to interbreed with the parent population.
> If this theory was taught along with the record, I would have no
> criticism.
> >
>>
>> The thing is, in biology there is no controversy on evolution.
> >
> True, when certain facts are brushed aside such as the actual observed
> of censorship.
> >
>> There are
>> quibbles about minor points but all of them are solidly based in the
>> fact that evolution happens.
> >
> Again this is not the issue.
> >
>> Would you support also teaching flat earth "theory" or expanding earth
>> "theory" to school children? If not, why is geology different from
>> biology?
> >
> If it was being taught. I would criticize it. But again this is
> diverting attention away form the issue.
>
many living animals and plants which have not changed appreciably or
changed very little over millions of years, 10's of millions or even
100's of millions of years. These are called "living fossils". Why
should this be overlooked in the classroom. Is this stasis?
However, when you consider that stasis is the predominant characteristic
of the fossil record, then this data along with living fossils could be
problematic if students were educated with the complete story..
It might be argued that, there are explanations for the fact that
some oraganisms do not change or change very little. These are facts
for which theories have been put forward to explain why this is the
case. The point is, students should not be sheltered from such
information. They should be given the facts along with the theories
which have been advanced to explain this "abnormality". It could be
considered censorship.
Burkhard
No, it is ignorance. These animals have evolved, even if their outward
appearance remained similar. This is what the theory predicts where
an animals is well adapted to its environment - fewer mutations will
be beneficial and selective pressure low. It mistakenly identifies
evolution with external, visible change - massive changes in the
immune system are however often much more important for a species.
Answer_42
> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution.
"reasonable" to anyone who does not know anything about evolution, no
doubt.
> Should any such
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> this.
Just like we should teach them about chemistry and alchemy and let
them decide which is correct?
Just like we should teach them about astronomy and astrology and let
them decide which is correct?
Just like we should teach them about physics and magic and let them
decide which is correct?
Name one instance of scientific endeavour that is only putatively
taught to high school students so that they can decide if it is
correct or not.
_____________________________________
Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone
claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain
they are mistaken.
-- Rev Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, PhD
Answer_42
> On 4/23/2010 9:17 PM, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>
> > R. Dean wrote, on 10-04-23 07:22 PM:
>
> >> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>
> > You say it was a "reasonable" critique, yet you don't say what it was. I
> > wonder why? See, the thing is, without actually knowing what the
> > critique was there's no way to say whether or not it was reasonable. It
> > could just be more of the muzzy-headed, fluffy thinking that you have
> > evinced in the past as opposed to any real critique.
>
> >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>
> > don't understand biology in specific or science in general, and the
> > hucksters like the Discovery Institute trying to make a buck off the
> > ignorant.
>
> >
> This is an unsubstantiated charge against these people.
> Can you give a few examples to justify your accusation of Discovery
> Institute? You can hardly claim that an independent, dispassionate and
> impartial agency makes the judgment.
>
>
>
> > scientific research don't by the anti-evolutionists. Why is it that we
> > never see them doing any research, only bitching about their
> > misrepresentations of science?
>
> >
> It takes financial grants etc to do research.
And it takes a valid scientific theory to get said grants.
Ron Dean
Stephen Gould was published by the President and Fellows of Harvard
College. P.E. is a theory, and may very well be wrong. Indeed PE is
an attempt to explain the data which has been ignored since Darwin, with
few exceptions, until Gould and Eldredge. So, obviously the theory is G
& E's best effort to explain the data within the context of evolution.
>
Since students
> are not taught that evolution proceeds with uniform speed all the time
> (at least i would hope they are not, since there is no reason to
> believe this), the main claim tat PE.stasis claims to address is moot.
> With other words there is no controversy to teach, since nobody made
> the claim they tried to refute first place.
>
>
> Dawkins (of whom I'm otherwise not a great fan, personally) sums it
> up quite well in the Blind Watchmaker (p.250ff) when he calls it a
> minor gloss and an " interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of
> neo-Darwinian theory". School students would not go anyway into
> sufficient detail of the theory t see how there is a very minor
> disagreement on that specific issue.
>
Dawking and Eldredge had a running disagreement, for years, not just
over this, but I don't think they cared for each other.
>
>
Answer_42
> > If it is a Behe book you definitely need to read that transcript. Behe
> > looked like a dear in the headlights when he had to tell the truth and
> > listen to the other side for a change.
>
> >
> There us a significant difference in Genesis based creationism, and
> Intelligent Design.
No there is not. The former claims evolution is wrong because
goddidit, the latter claims evolution is wrong because, well, because
it is, so there.
In actual fact, Creationism became ID when Creationism was officially
rejected from school curriculum, so they tried again by changing the
word "Creationism" by "Intelligent Design" in their crappy books and
pamphlets, and by removing references to the bible in order to appear
scientifically legit. They did not fool anyone, well, except some like
you it appears.
Answer_42
<snip>
> >> I really don't care. Again I do not advocate that I.D. or Creationism
> >> be taught. This is not an issue with me.
>
> > No, you have another fake issue.
>
> >
> Actually, it isn't stasis etc should be taught in American H.S. It would
> encourage critical thinking in students.
Except that that stasis issue you think is all so important is not an
actual critic against the theory of evolution, as you seem to think it
is.
It is just a very minor issue regarding a very specific point that is
too advanced for high school students.
Indeed, high school student are not advanced enough to even begin to
understand and appreciate this minor issue. It would be like teaching
string theory and its various critics to K8 students. They do not have
the necessary background to even understand how some aspect of the
string theory are criticized.
While you are right that critical thinking should be encouraged, and
usually is, this stasis issue is not a proper vehicle for that.
Ethics, for instance, would be a better one. Or discussing
stereotypes would be another one.
> But when the thinking is done
> for them education suffers.
Agreed, but you are wrong in thinking that this happens with regards
to this particular point which is very mnior and does not actually
contradict anything about the theory of evolution as it is taught at
the high school level.
Answer_42
<snip>
> > School science courses are not about presenting creationist lies. If the
> > creationists want a critique of evolution presented, they need to provide
> > a scientifically valid one, not just the pack of carefully crafted lies
> > they are currently distributing.
>
> >
> I would appreciate a few of these lies documented. So far no one has
> attempted to do so.
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Answer_42
<snip>
> There are reams of refutations of most all of them> on the web. Creationist agitprop engineers do not care if their lies
> > have been refuted. They only care if they work on the (ignorant) target
> > audience.
>
> Somehow, I find myself getting off topic. The truth is I don't care
> about what the IDers believe of don't believe. I'm am not advocating
> teaching intelligent design in schools.
Then it appears that you have a short term memory problem.
Here is your own O.P.:
"
A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
I read the book in it's entirety.
I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
Those who present only one view point do not allow
this.
"
The two sides you are referring to are clearly ID and the theory of
evolution.
So, yes, you did imply that both could be taught and that somehow
uninformed gullible teenagers would/should be able to tell which is
right.
The fact is that ID is not officially part of the science curricula
(except, maybe, in Texas...). So, when you ask whether it should be or
not, you are indirectly advocating that maybe it should.
How is suggesting that "both sides be taught" not advocating that ID
be taught in high schools?
harry k
> On 4/23/2010 11:06 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/23/2010 9:20 PM, osugeography wrote:
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> >>> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> >>> this.
>
> >> Should students be presented with both sides of the controversy, and
>
> >> What about giving equal time to those who claim that blacks in the
> >> antebellum South were well-off, treated kindly and with respect, and
> >> had substantially the same rights as the whites?
>
> > Can you quote any group or organization which advocates this?
> > It's imaginary and an absurdity.
>
> >> What about giving equal time to those claiming that women are inferior
> >> intellectually, do not deserve the same pay for the same job as a man,
> >> and that married women should be subservient to their husbands? Or
> >> that women should not have the right to vote?
>
> > Another imaginary controversy.
>
> looked like a dear in the headlights when he had to tell the truth and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heh, I think in the end he would have liked someone to put him out of
his misery.
Harry K