Will the the ID perps destroy their YEC support base?

[RonO]

Probably the most vocal group defending IDiocy at this time are the YEC
creationists. The fact is that a lot of what the Discovery Institute ID
perps are putting out is not YEC. It is old earth tweeker theistic
evolution. The Richard Sternberg thread is a case in point.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AoBlco8uTEI/oQe6lVwUBAAJ

Sternberg is obviously talking about the evolution of whales that
occurred around 40 million years ago within a 14 million year period.
Not only that, but they are obviously admitting that the designer has to
do stupid things because of previous evolution that can't be undone that
easily. Just read the whale testis paragraph of the first link.

Denton is an old earth creationists or deist. Behe is an old earth
tweeker. Now Sternberg is coming out with his old earth tweeker
arguments. It seems kind of strange that he can claim that 9 million
years is not enough time to evolve a fluke on a whale when the YECers
are claiming that the thousands of created kinds that were on the ark
gave rise to the millions of species existing today in just a couple
thousand years. Sternberg even has a point in his talk on the second
link where he claims that it took 5.5 million years to evolve humans
from an ape like ancestor so it would obviously take more than 9 million
years to evolve a fluke from a dog like animal. He claims that the
difference between chimps and humans is trivial.

I haven't heard of any YEC backlash on this type of junk. Kenyon is
YEC. No one knows what Meyer is but he does talk about what happened
within a 20 million year time period over half a billion years ago.
Dembski seems to be old earth tweeker material. Phillip Johnson claimed
that the earth was billions of years old. These ID perps all thought
that they could ride the tiger and control the fundies, but look what
happened to Dembski. He had to apologize to his class for claiming that
the flood might not have been global and that the earth might be older
than YECers think. My guess is that these guys would be the first up
against the wall after the revolution if they were ever able to
institute their theological paradise where materialism has been overthrown.

This can't be going over too well in Lousiana and Texas. With the bait
and switch a consistent issue and no one ever getting the promised ID
science how long are the YEC IDiots going to stand for this type of
junk? Are they really as clueless as they seem to be?

Ron Okimoto

[Rodjk #613]

You do realize that most creationist don't get YEC vs OEC or even care.
They want the biblical story of creationism taught and would prefer that evolution not be taught; and that pretty much is the limit of their knowledge of the subject.

Whether or not there is ID science is just not on the radar of 98% of creationist.

Rodjk #613

[Rolf]

"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:a6e191d9-1dfb-47a3...@googlegroups.com...

I think that more or less is the bottom line with respect to creationism. It
is what it is and that's how it will remain. Let us hope that with time we
may see changes - so far there's been some, but slow. There are other places
in the world even worse off but in Western civilization it looks like the US
score is not too good.

[RonO]

The "Big Tent" strategy of IDiocy obviously has limits. The dishonest
are willing to give lip service to the Big Tent, but what happened to
Dembski? What would happen to any of the OEC IDiots in the same
circumstances. The YEC IDiots are obviously only willing to lie to
themselves to a limited extent. It may seem infinite, but they
obviously have their limits and Dembski paid the price for exceeding
that limit.

So how long are the YEC IDiots going to stand the Discovery Institute
putting out their stupid and bogus propaganda videos. The competent
among them understand how bogus and stupid the pro ID arguments are, and
it also undermines their YEC belief. Lie to the rubes on one hand and
then hit them over the head with the other at the same time. When will
the balance of denial be exceeded?

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, they are that clueless. For most IDiots the point isn't that
one of their savants is right or wrong, it is that evolution MUST be
wrong or the Bible isn't the literal truth. And THAT they cannot
accept.

So they regard their savants arguments as arguments against evolution,
and so taken together there are tons of arguments against evolution.
Why you can read some of those arguments right here.

The fact that the savants arguments are circular, mutually contradictory,
and based on arguments such as "I just can't believe that!" doesn't matter
a bit.

With all that smoke there must be fire.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

About the same time right wing politicians accept global warming and
learn economics.

[Bill]

Rolf wrote:


...

>>
>> You do realize that most creationist don't get YEC vs OEC or even care.
>> They want the biblical story of creationism taught and would prefer that
>> evolution not be taught; and that pretty much is the limit of their
>> knowledge of the subject.
>>
>> Whether or not there is ID science is just not on the radar of 98% of
>> creationist.
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>>
>
> I think that more or less is the bottom line with respect to creationism.
> It is what it is and that's how it will remain. Let us hope that with
time
> we may see changes - so far there's been some, but slow. There are other
> places in the world even worse off but in Western civilization it looks
> like the US score is not too good.

There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming that
the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should expect
something more substantial since the people promoting this fallacy pose as
experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.

Either the ToE is correct in its own right or it isn't, we don't need to
compare it to anything. It is especially deceptive in invoking a
discredited viewpoint as the only evidence against the ToE.

We all know the reputation of ID and Creationism (whether justified or not)
so the pretense that this is the only possible counter view is not only
false but deliberately misleading. Another point misrepresented is that
Creationists and IDers are a threat to science and a danger to society, yet
these groups have had very little impact on legislation or school
curricula.

So, the bait: proof of the correctness of the ToE. The switch: bash
Creationism and ID. Since there no evidence offered for the flaws in either
Creationism nor ID, there is no evidence that referring to either is
evidence favoring the ToE. Smoke and mirrors, rhetorical trickery and
completely irrelevant to the issue of the ToE.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:39:26 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rolf wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>>>
>>> You do realize that most creationist don't get YEC vs OEC or even care.
>>> They want the biblical story of creationism taught and would prefer that
>>> evolution not be taught; and that pretty much is the limit of their
>>> knowledge of the subject.
>>>
>>> Whether or not there is ID science is just not on the radar of 98% of
>>> creationist.
>>>
>>> Rodjk #613
>>>
>>
>> I think that more or less is the bottom line with respect to creationism.
>> It is what it is and that's how it will remain. Let us hope that with
>time
>> we may see changes - so far there's been some, but slow. There are other
>> places in the world even worse off but in Western civilization it looks
>> like the US score is not too good.
>
>There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming that
>the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should expect
>something more substantial since the people promoting this fallacy pose as
>experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.

Too bad nobody made such a claim here. The only one doing a
bait-and-switch here is you.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bill]

It may be that you are a practitioner of the fallacy you deny exists, to
the point that you don't see it. ID and Creationism are ridiculed with
great regularity here and usually in the context of the ToE.

In these posts it is asserted that the ToE is true because of those who
doubt it, a kind of reverse guilt by association. But, since you assume the
truth of the ToE, you never consider contrary evidence, believing it
spurious and therefore, non-existent.

Bill

[jillery]

My assumptions have nothing to do with the veracity of your assertion.

That some posters ridicule ID and Creationism has nothing to do with
the veracity of your assertion.

That Creationists claim ToE is false has nothing to do with the
veracity of ToE.

Nobody claimed that ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false.
Nobody would even think of making such a stupid claim.
Only you are stupid enough to claim that anybody else would be that
stupid.

[Rodjk #613]

How long have they put up with the idiocy from the CRS or the ICR?
Decades.

Again, as much as I love what you do you have this all wrong.
No science, no debate, not amount of information is going to change the minds of creationist as long as religion is involved. "Jesus was a creationist" ends the debate for most/all creationist, and anything else is just wasting your breath.

> The competent
> among them understand how bogus and stupid the pro ID arguments are, and
> it also undermines their YEC belief. Lie to the rubes on one hand and
> then hit them over the head with the other at the same time. When will
> the balance of denial be exceeded?

It won't. Simple enough.

Rodjk #613

>
> Ron Okimoto

[Rodjk #613]

Exactly. Much better said then my attempts...

Rodjk #613

[RonO]

That is just the basis for the big tent, but it doesn't mean that the
YEC IDiots can remain clueless to what they are actually reading if they
are trying to accept the big tent. It is obvious that they believe
anything against biological evolution is something that they believe in,
but they are being told that descent with modification is a fact over
millions of years. They are being told that humans evolved from an ape
like ancestor in 5.5 million years, and that, that much evolution is
trivial compared to what God did for whales in 9 million years. Whales
are the chosen lifeforms of God. Humans just arrived by accident with a
trivial amount of evolution, while God had to exert a lot of effort to
make whales what they are today.

Sure they are told that too much evolution had to happen in that 9
million years to be accounted for "naturally," but they are also told
that a lot of evolution can occur in just 5.5 million years.

When you believe that the earth is just 10,000 years old the claim that
9 million years is not enough time to do something seems to be
tragically out of whack. Especially when you are told that humans
evolving from apes in 5.5 million years does not violate that "not
enough" time period.

Look at Eddie, when he first came to TO he was making claims about
created kinds. He was obviously a semi YEC, just that the earth could
be thousands of years older than 10,000 years, but today he claims
billions, and he now embraces common descent and accepts the fact of
biological evolution. His views evolved when he realized just what the
ID perps were feeding him, and he realized that the guys that were lying
to him had the best lies to tell. What he hasn't figured out yet is
that they have the best lies because they follow accepted science up to
the point where they just make junk up. There is no IC science to
believe in, but that doesn't stop Eddie. He accepts common descent
because Behe does, but he doesn't realize that the IC IDiocy isn't in
the same ballpark. It just so happens that he has to accept biological
evolution to keep believing that the ID perps might have something to
add to it.

What is going to happen to YECers? I don't see them doing that, and
when someone finally gets a clue that, that is what may be happening
what will happen? The YECers do not want the rubes to be exposed to
better lies.

I just note that what the ID perps are doing is counter productive and
they are already on the hot seat for lying about the ID science. So how
much longer is their YEC support base going to take the bullpucky? The
bait and switch has been going down for over a decade and none of the
creationist rubes ever get the ID science when they need it, and what
are they getting instead? Junk that admits that we evolved from an ape
like ancestor and that, that evolution was trivial compared to evolving
a fluke on the whale.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The ICR doesn't tell them that 5.5 million years to evolve humans from
an ape like ancestor is trivial, but the 9 million years it took to
evolve whales from a dog is too short of a time.

>
> Again, as much as I love what you do you have this all wrong.
> No science, no debate, not amount of information is going to change the minds of creationist as long as religion is involved. "Jesus was a creationist" ends the debate for most/all creationist, and anything else is just wasting your breath.

That isn't true. Look at how Eddies beliefs have evolved since he
actually had to think about what they were feeding him.

If that can happen with someone as clueless as Eddie, what happens to
the YECers that actually view stupid videos described above?

There is likely some limit even for the most clueless.

They can remain as clueless as they want, but my guess is that they will
not support IDiocy much longer if they keep getting beaten over the head
with reality.

I came back from a science meeting and summarized what a sociologist
claimed about these types of things, and started a thread on it.
Basically when someone became like your usual YEC or vaccination deniers
nothing will change their minds (just as you say), but about the only
mitigating factor that will get them to stop and think about an issue
and keep them from doing something stupid is for one of their peers to
tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

The bait and switch works because the guys that sold the ID scam are
telling the IDiots that they shouldn't teach it. If they didn't listen
to the ID perps we'd have tested IDiocy and the switch scam in the
courts in multiple states by now. Now the same "peers" are telling the
IDiots that the earth is a lot older than they believe.

The YEC IDiots have the choice, to cut and run or change their minds.
The only reason they stick with IDiocy is because scientific creationism
is politically dead. The IDiot political influence is sliding so why
are the YEC IDiots going to put up with the junk when that realization
sinks in. It may be the only viable political scam in town, but it is
just a scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/16/2015 1:39 PM, Bill wrote:
> There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming that
> the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should expect
> something more substantial since the people promoting this fallacy pose as
> experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.

About 90% of your output consists of constructing imaginary opponents. I
have never, ever come across the "people" you mention above. Name one.

[Bill]

Ron O

Bill

[jillery]

I will give you any odds you choose that you can't cite where Ron O,
or anybody else, said what you said they said.

[Bill]

Why is Creationism or ID cited at all? Why are they mentioned in the same
posts as the ToE? Why compare the two points of view if not to show the
superiority of one over the other? Why bother ridiculing points of view
unless they are perceived as being a threat to some other point of view?

If people didn't say or imply that the ToE is the only correct view and all
others are false, I wouldn't infer that there was a comparison being made.
If ID and Creationism weren't ridiculed when discussing the ToE, I wouldn't
infer that they were perceived as a viable alternative view.

You may believe that these implications are unsupported because they must
be inferred. Maybe you believe they are too subtle, that maybe they are so
cleverly disguised that no one will notice. Maybe you can answer the
questions above and explain why ID and Creationism are mentioned in the
same posts as the ToE.

Bill

[Greg Guarino]

Nothing in his post suggests that standard biology (including evolution)
is true because creationists claim it is false. His post was about the
fact that various ID proponents are supported by YECs despite the ID
proponents' non-YEC poisitions.

Now, in my opinion, Ron is a bit of a broken record on the topic of ID,
but I have never seen him, or anyone else, claim that the TOE must be
true because creationists oppose it. That's your own invention.

[Bill]

Why are ID can Creationism even mentioned in a discussion about the ToE? In
fact, since we are assured that both are bogus, why discuss them at all? My
impression is that the whole point of these witless diatribes against ID
and Creationism is to show that the only alternatives to the ToE come from
marginally human fools.

Because of this, all objections or doubts about the ToE are demented. Ron
and his apologists have reduced all discussion of the ToE to a statement of
faith and get all huffy when I recognize the fallacy.

Bill

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/17/2015 3:14 PM, Bill wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2015 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2015 1:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming
>>>>> that the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should
>>>>> expect something more substantial since the people promoting this
>>>>> fallacy pose as experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.
>>>>
>>>> About 90% of your output consists of constructing imaginary opponents.
> I
>>>> have never, ever come across the "people" you mention above. Name one.
>>>
>>> Ron O
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>> Nothing in his post suggests that standard biology (including evolution)
>> is true because creationists claim it is false. His post was about the
>> fact that various ID proponents are supported by YECs despite the ID
>> proponents' non-YEC poisitions.
>>
>> Now, in my opinion, Ron is a bit of a broken record on the topic of ID,
>> but I have never seen him, or anyone else, claim that the TOE must be
>> true because creationists oppose it. That's your own invention.
>
> Why are ID can Creationism even mentioned in a discussion about the ToE?

Quite obviously, it's not a discussion about the merits of the TOE, or
the TOE at all. It's about the curious fact that many YECs support - or
think they support - various ID proponents, despite their decidedly
non-YEC positions. Chief among these are an old earth and common descent.

Now as I mentioned, I think Ron devotes more energy to these guys than I
would choose to. But in this case he has hit on something that I have
always found curious. I think that the average YEC person that knows of
the DI at all may be satisfied to know that *someone* is writing
"scientific" challenges to evolution, perhaps without knowing much about
the details.

> In fact, since we are assured that both are bogus, why discuss them
> at all?

Despite the questionable science of ID claims, unchallenged they can
affect actual policy. Thus, challenged they must be.

[Bill]

Neither Creationists nor IDers have had any significant influence. In the
marketplace of ideas they are as welcome as any other point of view and
should not be censored. While they purport to offer alternatives to the
ToE, they aren't taken seriously so what does it matter? If they deserve no
more consideration than, say, hollow Earth proponents, what's the
challenge?

It is also true that any point of view (Nazism, Communism, witchcraft,
etc.) can affect policy. The issue is, then, are the policies harmful or
destructive to society? To prefer some policies over others will require
some standard for comparison, an ideology, some philosophical belief. By
what measure do we determine the "best" policy?

In a secular society, religion cannot be a test of worthiness so should not
be a criterion for policy. There are religious people who will attempt to
influence policy but so will atheists so there will be religiously
ambiguous policies. The only way to ensure ideological purity is a
totalitarian police state which is at least as dangerous as the points of
view it suppresses.

In this newsgroup opinion seems to imply that skepticism of the standard
views of science is somehow dangerous. To the extent that ID and
Creationism challenge the standard views, they have value. If one prefers
slavish conformity and doctrinal purity, these challenges will be despised.

Bill

[RonO]

The post that you have written in this thread makes it look like you
didn't even read the post that you are complaining about.

How is busting up someones mail box a solution to your problem?

The Petty stupidity has to stop. It should have never started.

Reality isn't going to change.

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

I'm with you on most of this. But even including the exception here
and there, I don't see YECs giving up their YECism, the IDiots gaining
insight, and so on.

For a parallel situation just look at the economic positions of the
Republican candidates for president. Most all of their proposals
have been tried in the real world and none have worked. Creationism
is similar. It just doesn't matter to the true believers if it works
or not. There is no cure for this mental disorder. It just has to
be lived with as best we can.

[Bill]

So you are accusing me of driving all the way to Arkansas to bash your
mailbox? Not only are you an idiot, you're a paranoid idiot. Now I see why
no one takes you seriously.

Bill

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:02:53 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:58:34 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2015 1:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming
>>>>> that the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should
>>>>> expect something more substantial since the people promoting this
>>>>> fallacy pose as experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.
>>>>
>>>> About 90% of your output consists of constructing imaginary opponents.
>I
>>>> have never, ever come across the "people" you mention above. Name one.
>>>
>>>Ron O
>>>
>>>Bill
>>
>>
>> I will give you any odds you choose that you can't cite where Ron O,
>> or anybody else, said what you said they said.
>
>Why is Creationism or ID cited at all? Why are they mentioned in the same
>posts as the ToE? Why compare the two points of view if not to show the
>superiority of one over the other? Why bother ridiculing points of view
>unless they are perceived as being a threat to some other point of view?

Apparently you haven't noticed, but Biblical literalism is the primary
motivation for opposition to the concept of biological evolution. This
is based on a philosophical presupposition, and is entirely different
from what motivates specific challenges to various theories of
evolution.

>If people didn't say or imply that the ToE is the only correct view and all
>others are false, I wouldn't infer that there was a comparison being made.

Of course you would. It's almost certain that nobody but you knows
how you get from what people actually say to what you say they say.
And given that you don't even try to explain, it's almost certain that
you don't know either.

>If ID and Creationism weren't ridiculed when discussing the ToE, I wouldn't
>infer that they were perceived as a viable alternative view.

Since you think viable alternative views are ridiculed, one can only
wonder how you think unviable alternative views are treated.

>You may believe that these implications are unsupported because they must
>be inferred. Maybe you believe they are too subtle, that maybe they are so
>cleverly disguised that no one will notice. Maybe you can answer the
>questions above and explain why ID and Creationism are mentioned in the
>same posts as the ToE.

The most likely explanation is that you're just making stuff up.

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:45:35 -0500, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

An irony of Creationists' cites of ID literature and videos is ID
states explicitly it offers no evidence that identifies a presumptive
Designer, yet Creationists argue as if ID supports their beliefs in
their presumptive Deity.

>> In fact, since we are assured that both are bogus, why discuss them
>> at all?
>
>Despite the questionable science of ID claims, unchallenged they can
>affect actual policy. Thus, challenged they must be.
>

[Greg Guarino]

They continually try to change education policy, and not without some
success.

> In the
> marketplace of ideas they are as welcome as any other point of view and
> should not be censored.

They aren't. They are called out for the weak arguments that they are.

> While they purport to offer alternatives to the
> ToE, they aren't taken seriously so what does it matter? If they deserve no
> more consideration than, say, hollow Earth proponents, what's the
> challenge?

They may deserve no more, but they get a great deal more from some
politicians.

> It is also true that any point of view (Nazism, Communism, witchcraft,
> etc.) can affect policy. The issue is, then, are the policies harmful or
> destructive to society?

If the teaching of biology omits the core concept of biology, I would
call that destructive, yes.

> To prefer some policies over others will require
> some standard for comparison, an ideology, some philosophical belief. By
> what measure do we determine the "best" policy?

Scientists determine what science is, for a start. When we teach
schoolchildren, we can even stick to the most conservative,
well-supported, uncontroversial science if you like; common descent, for
instance.

>
> In a secular society, religion cannot be a test of worthiness so should not
> be a criterion for policy. There are religious people who will attempt to
> influence policy but so will atheists so there will be religiously
> ambiguous policies.

Government should not favor any variety of religious belief, especially
in schools.

> The only way to ensure ideological purity is a
> totalitarian police state which is at least as dangerous as the points of
> view it suppresses.

Having abandoned your most recent straw man, you construct another. How
predictable.

>
> In this newsgroup opinion seems to imply that skepticism of the standard
> views of science is somehow dangerous.

It becomes dangerous when people try to bowdlerize science curricula -
deciding what may and may not be taught based on scripture rather than
evidence.

> To the extent that ID and
> Creationism challenge the standard views, they have value. If one prefers
> slavish conformity and doctrinal purity, these challenges will be despised.

You are a living monument to the fallacy of the excluded middle.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RonO]

Go through the history and your non denials of being that Bill.

I realize that it could be coincidence, but why didn't you deny being
that Bill? If you are that Bill then you know what you were involved
in. That is all that I have, and that is just what I claim. It should
stop.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/nThk2M8Bo4U/rxwjsXEABAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Greg Guarino wrote:

...

>
>> To prefer some policies over others will require
>> some standard for comparison, an ideology, some philosophical belief. By
>> what measure do we determine the "best" policy?
>
> Scientists determine what science is, for a start. When we teach
> schoolchildren, we can even stick to the most conservative,
> well-supported, uncontroversial science if you like; common descent, for
> instance.

I hadn't mentioned education. In the sense usually encountered, education
means indoctrination; kids are taught to study for test and not how to
think. Rather than comparing alternative views to ponder the differences,
students are presented Truths to memorize. There will be a test of course.

>
>>
>> In a secular society, religion cannot be a test of worthiness so should
>> not be a criterion for policy. There are religious people who will
>> attempt to influence policy but so will atheists so there will be
>> religiously ambiguous policies.
>
> Government should not favor any variety of religious belief, especially
> in schools.

Yet they do.

>
>> The only way to ensure ideological purity is a
>> totalitarian police state which is at least as dangerous as the points
of
>> view it suppresses.
>
> Having abandoned your most recent straw man, you construct another. How
> predictable.

And you changed the subject by bringing in education.

>>
>> In this newsgroup opinion seems to imply that skepticism of the standard
>> views of science is somehow dangerous.
>
> It becomes dangerous when people try to bowdlerize science curricula -
> deciding what may and may not be taught based on scripture rather than
> evidence.

That doesn't happen in public schools. That is one of those bogeyman,
slippery slope excursions into hyperbole so popular here.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:n2gd7k$69o$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Of course you have considered that your attitude toward Republicans and creationists reflects a mental disorder that has no cure.

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/18/2015 8:06 AM, Bill wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>>> To prefer some policies over others will require
>>> some standard for comparison, an ideology, some philosophical belief. By
>>> what measure do we determine the "best" policy?
>>
>> Scientists determine what science is, for a start. When we teach
>> schoolchildren, we can even stick to the most conservative,
>> well-supported, uncontroversial science if you like; common descent, for
>> instance.
>
> I hadn't mentioned education. In the sense usually encountered, education
> means indoctrination; kids are taught to study for test and not how to
> think. Rather than comparing alternative views to ponder the differences,
> students are presented Truths to memorize. There will be a test of course.

More fallacy of the excluded middle, your whole modus operandi, it
seems. Yes, we should teach kids how to think for themselves, but we
don't need to simply hope they rediscover the wheel, the electron and
the cell; we can allow them to build on the discoveries of their forebears.

>>> In a secular society, religion cannot be a test of worthiness so should
>>> not be a criterion for policy. There are religious people who will
>>> attempt to influence policy but so will atheists so there will be
>>> religiously ambiguous policies.
>>
>> Government should not favor any variety of religious belief, especially
>> in schools.
>
> Yet they do.

You probably mean they favor atheism by teaching biology. There are
certain religious beliefs (by no means all) that will be called into
question by any discussion of science, to be sure. But we can't just
blinker the kids to protect those particular beliefs.

>>> The only way to ensure ideological purity is a
>>> totalitarian police state which is at least as dangerous as the points
> of
>>> view it suppresses.
>>
>> Having abandoned your most recent straw man, you construct another. How
>> predictable.
>
> And you changed the subject by bringing in education.

That's the "policy" I had in mind all along.

>>> In this newsgroup opinion seems to imply that skepticism of the standard
>>> views of science is somehow dangerous.
>>
>> It becomes dangerous when people try to bowdlerize science curricula -
>> deciding what may and may not be taught based on scripture rather than
>> evidence.
>
> That doesn't happen in public schools. That is one of those bogeyman,
> slippery slope excursions into hyperbole so popular here.

Sure it does. I saw a documentary called "Country Boys" a few years ago.
I recommend it. It wasn't about evolution or even education, per se. It
chronicled the lives of a couple of rural teenage boys, I remember their
science teacher asking the class, "Some people say we descended from
apes, but do you think our Lord and Savior was descended from an ape?"
(class shakes their heads) "No, me either".

Now that's a particularly egregious example, but there are efforts to
pass legislation all the time that will weaken, eliminate or otherwise
twist the teaching of science.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/17/15 12:14 PM, Bill wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2015 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2015 1:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> There a kind of bait and switch going on here. It starts by claiming
>>>>> that the ToE is true because Creationists claim it's false. We should
>>>>> expect something more substantial since the people promoting this
>>>>> fallacy pose as experts in evolutionary biology. I feel short changed.
>>>>
>>>> About 90% of your output consists of constructing imaginary opponents.
> I
>>>> have never, ever come across the "people" you mention above. Name one.
>>>
>>> Ron O
>>>

>> Nothing in his post suggests that standard biology (including evolution)
>> is true because creationists claim it is false. His post was about the
>> fact that various ID proponents are supported by YECs despite the ID
>> proponents' non-YEC poisitions.
>>
>> Now, in my opinion, Ron is a bit of a broken record on the topic of ID,
>> but I have never seen him, or anyone else, claim that the TOE must be
>> true because creationists oppose it. That's your own invention.
>

> Why are ID and Creationism even mentioned in a discussion about the ToE?

They aren't. Again you are inventing your own problems.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[RAM]

Your are as usual silly and non-substantive.

And, of course, you have considered that your irrational religiously based attitude toward the theory of evolution and the vast volume of supportive empirical research reflects a mental disorder that has no cure.

[Glenn]

"RAM" <rmathers%macom...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message news:ee4b0cdd-3616-4566...@googlegroups.com...

You're blind.

[RAM]

I can readily see that you remain silly and non-substantive.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <n2d205$j65$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Yes, they are that clueless. For most IDiots the point isn't that
> one of their savants is right or wrong, it is that evolution MUST be
> wrong or the Bible isn't the literal truth. And THAT they cannot
> accept.

It's very easy to be taken in by an argument that gives an answer
you want. Don't ask me how I know.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <n2d205$j65$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Yes, they are that clueless. For most IDiots the point isn't that
>> one of their savants is right or wrong, it is that evolution MUST be
>> wrong or the Bible isn't the literal truth. And THAT they cannot
>> accept.

>It's very easy to be taken in by an argument that gives an answer
>you want. Don't ask me how I know.

I agree not only with the content of your argument, but also with
the example it provides.

[Mike Dworetsky]

This is because you do not understand the basic purpose of Talk Origins,
which is (from the FAQ):

"Talk.origins ("t.o.") is a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of issues
related to biological and physical origins. Topics discussed include, but
are not limited to, evolution, creation, abiogenesis, catastrophism,
cosmology, and theology. Be assured that you will find lively, often heated,
exchanges between people of all persuasions.
Much of the bandwidth of t.o. is used for discussion of the merits of
various ideas about origins. Other types of posts, however, are welcome
(and, in fact, refreshing!), particularly [MI]:

a.. A scientific Theory of Creation
b.. Personal experiences which have affected your attitudes on the subject
c.. Relevant news, scientific and/or political
d.. Anything original, entertaining, and/or downright brilliant :-)"
So what you seem to be objecting to is posters who are conforming to the
intentions of the charter of the newsgroup. To me this seems a strange
point of view.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[J. J. Lodder]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <n2d205$j65$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, they are that clueless. For most IDiots the point isn't that
> >> one of their savants is right or wrong, it is that evolution MUST be
> >> wrong or the Bible isn't the literal truth. And THAT they cannot
> >> accept.
>
> >It's very easy to be taken in by an argument that gives an answer
> >you want. Don't ask me how I know.
>
> I agree not only with the content of your argument, but also with
> the example it provides.

Philosophers must ultimately find
their true perfection
in knowing all the follies of mankind,
by introspection.
(Piet Hein)

[J. J. Lodder]

talk.origins is a newsgroup for the care and feeding
of the (American) reli-nutter.

You are well served, and have no reason to complain,

Jan

[jillery]

TO abuses all nutters equally, regardless of national origin. There
are no guards at TO's borders. Of course, sometimes the hall monitors
act like guards, but they don't have live ammunition.

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure, of course, but in practice it is the American ones
who take nearly all the care and feeding,
one percent excepted at most,

Jan

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 23:15:57 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Not at all. Take you for example...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 22:24:45 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

....and many other "reli-nutters", plus nutters of other
types and nationalities; we're diversity-embracing,
nationality-wise as well as kook-wise. Even the Dutch have
appeared on occasion.

>You are well served, and have no reason to complain,

As are you, and as you have.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[J. J. Lodder]

If you want to deny that the vast majority
of the 'nutters' figuring here are American
you should read Ron O's periodic 'by their fruits' postings.

> Even the Dutch have appeared on occasion.

Indeed, we have had Nando as a general purpose nutter,
until he was banned for pretending to be moderator.
He seems to have a Dutch background.
(or at least, is capable of stringing Dutch words together)

His postings however originated at -0800 (PST) or -0700 (PDT),
according to season, which means American west coast.

That leaves the 'nature or nurture' question open in his case,

Jan

[jillery]

Your goalpost shift is noted, and you didn't even need a green card.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:21:14 +0100, the following appeared

I deny nothing. I admit nothing.

Ommmm... Ommmm...

>> Even the Dutch have appeared on occasion.
>
>Indeed, we have had Nando as a general purpose nutter,
>until he was banned for pretending to be moderator.
>He seems to have a Dutch background.
>(or at least, is capable of stringing Dutch words together)
>
>His postings however originated at -0800 (PST) or -0700 (PDT),
>according to season, which means American west coast.
>
>That leaves the 'nature or nurture' question open in his case,

Nah, we all know the Left Coast is Nutterville.

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure. From experience, no doubt.
Good thing you didn't mention Kalki.
He is at -07:00 too,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:24:18 +0100, the following appeared

Yep; I've been there. North of Frisco and south of San Diego
are mostly sane, though.

>Good thing you didn't mention Kalki.

Why would I? I deny that Kalki is Stilton; I deny he is even
Dutch. I also deny that wishes are horses and that pigs have
wings (reference left as an exercise for the reader).

>He is at -07:00 too,

I'd say he's closer to -100. Oh, wait; you meant the
timestamp. OK.