|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
28 Oct 2005 08:10:07 AM |
|
|
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 12:02:16 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 01:21:27 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Yes.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
Yes.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. First, we're most definitely not talking about *good*
scientists, we're talking about quacks. Second, they most certainly should
be ostracized for calling ID science.
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
Sign of low intelligence on your part, I imagine.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 02:55:33 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Yes.
A litmus test. A profession of faith. "Oh we believe Darwin!"
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
Yes.
A litmus test. A profession of faith. "Oh we believe Darwin!"
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. First, we're most definitely not talking about *good*
scientists, we're talking about quacks.
Of course not. No one can possibly study a bird without first
professing a belief in the Theory of Evolution. (How silly of me to
think otherwise.)
Second, they most certainly should be ostracized for calling ID science.
I'd have to agree with that. But I personally think they should *also*
be ostracized for calling the Theory of Evolution a science.
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
Sign of low intelligence on your part, I imagine.
(Like you could recognize *any* sign of intelligence whatsoever.) Now
that we devolved to kindergarten level, how much further would you like
to go?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:18:08 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1130792133.864754.61120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Yes.
A litmus test. A profession of faith. "Oh we believe Darwin!"
Nothing to do with Darwin. Evolution is well supported by science. Those
who claim otherwise are either lying, or retarded.
Which are you?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
Yes.
A litmus test. A profession of faith. "Oh we believe Darwin!"
Lying, or retarded. Which are you?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. First, we're most definitely not talking about *good*
scientists, we're talking about quacks.
Of course not. No one can possibly study a bird without first
professing a belief in the Theory of Evolution. (How silly of me to
think otherwise.)
Lying, or retarded. Which are you?
Second, they most certainly should be ostracized for calling ID science.
I'd have to agree with that. But I personally think they should *also*
be ostracized for calling the Theory of Evolution a science.
Lying, or retarded. Which are you?
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
Sign of low intelligence on your part, I imagine.
(Like you could recognize *any* sign of intelligence whatsoever.) Now
that we devolved to kindergarten level, how much further would you like
to go?
Lying, or retarded. Which are you?
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 02:19:09 PM |
|
|
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
That's a strawman. The claims are not unsubstantiated.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
He obviously isn't.
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
It seems to me that what he is suggesting is that institutions of higher
education inform the school boards that they will not accept
inadequately educated candidates.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 28/10/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:03:57 PM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
Far too much effort has been put into books of science postulating on
the Theory of Evolution. Too often they have sentences like "We can
surmise that..." or "The ancestors of _______ probably evolved..."
"The common ancestors of both ______ and ______ were possibly formed
by..."
They are "just-so stories". They presuppose evolution as a fact and
then they attempt to force observations into presupposed facts.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
That's a strawman. The claims are not unsubstantiated.
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
He obviously isn't.
So you say so. But the facts are opposed to what you say. This is
clearly a litmus test. "Have you or have you not been indoctrinated
with the Theory of Evouluion?" "If not -- there's the door."
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
It seems to me that what he is suggesting is that institutions of higher
education inform the school boards that they will not accept
inadequately educated candidates.
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:34:18 PM |
|
|
In message <1130791496.516711.41730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
That is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. You can be a perfectly good
physicist or chemist or even some forms of geologist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution. Good and useful research
scientists build on what's already known. It's rather difficult to be a
good physicist without knowing about Newton's Laws; it's rather
difficult to be a good chemist without knowing about electron shells;
it's rather difficult to be a good geologist without knowing about the
principle of superposition. In the same way it's rather difficult to be
a good geologist without knowing about evolution.
Or if you still need an analogy to get the concept home, it's rather
difficult to be a good Christian without knowing the teachings of Jesus.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 28/10/2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:35:47 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-31 13:03:57 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> said:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
Because Evolution is the grand unifying principle of biology, and if
you ignore a grand unifying principle, you don't get much work done.
Far too much effort has been put into books of science postulating on
the Theory of Evolution. Too often they have sentences like "We can
surmise that..." or "The ancestors of _______ probably evolved..."
"The common ancestors of both ______ and ______ were possibly formed
by..."
Um, that's how scientists write. In ALL fields. If you're using this
as a reason to reject evolution, then you, to be consistent, must
reject things like relativity, quantum mechanics and everything else
using this
They are "just-so stories". They presuppose evolution as a fact and
then they attempt to force observations into presupposed facts.
No.
You're obviously NOT familiar with the scientific literature. Nor are
you familiar with the evidence.
Evolution HAPPENS. That's a fact. Species have arisen and gone
extinct; the genetic make up of a population has changed through time.
These are facts. The theory of evolution tries to explain such facts.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
That's a strawman. The claims are not unsubstantiated.
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
He obviously isn't.
So you say so. But the facts are opposed to what you say. This is
clearly a litmus test. "Have you or have you not been indoctrinated
with the Theory of Evouluion?" "If not -- there's the door."
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
It seems to me that what he is suggesting is that institutions of higher
education inform the school boards that they will not accept
inadequately educated candidates.
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
--
oink@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
02 Nov 2005 02:29:06 PM |
|
|
On 31 Oct 2005 13:03:57 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com>
wrote:
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
You cannot do good research on ecology or taxonomy without a thorough
grounding in the theory of evolution. Ecology is all about how
species act on and are acted on by other forces, and those forces are
the same forces as evolutionary forces. Taxonomy deals with fitting a
species among other species in an orderly way, and common descent is
the only thing creating any order.
Those are the branches of biology I am most familiar with. I suppose
you could do *some* medical trials without considering evolution, but
then again, people and microbes make up an ecology, so you will
inevitably miss something if you never consider evolution.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
09 Nov 2005 11:41:04 AM |
|
|
KANS-*****! The world's laughingstock!
I knew those dimwits would do something like this! God-damned
religious freaks. They're as bad as those ridiculous muslims. As a
matter of fact, while you kansass-ers are at it, why not incorporate
into your fundamentalist "beliefs" 72 virgins as a reward for
martyrdom! Just as silly as intelluhgint design, or jezuz risin' from
th' dead! Yuk-yuk ...
==================
"Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design' "
Schools to Teach Doubts About Evolutionary Theory
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; A01
TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday
that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian
theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even
as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the
theory of evolution.
By a 6 to 4 vote that supporters cheered as a victory for free speech
and opponents denounced as shabby politics and worse science, the board
said high school students should be told that aspects of widely
accepted evolutionary theory are controversial. Among other points, the
standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the
genetic code."
The bitterly fought effort pushes Kansas to the forefront of a war over
evolution being waged in courts in Pennsylvania and Georgia and
statehouses nationwide. President Bush stated his own position last
summer, buoying social conservatives when he said "both sides" should
be taught.
"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that
we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E.
Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative
Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and
turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science
Teachers Association.
Opposing board members accused Abrams and his colleagues of hiding
behind a fiction of scientific inquiry to inject religion into science
classrooms. They said the decision would be bad for education, bad for
business and bad for the state's wounded reputation.
"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said
Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a
laughingstock, not only of the nation, but of the world."
The Board of Education does not mandate what will be taught to public
school students, a decision left to local school boards. But by
determining what students are expected to know for state assessment
tests, the board standards typically influence what students learn.
Analysts said Kansas delivered a deeper and more detailed challenge to
the teaching of evolution than other states. While a lawsuit is
possible before the standards take effect, one organization created to
oppose changes to science teaching said politics may be the swifter
route. Four of the six board members voting yes will face reelection
next year and three already have drawn opposition.
Eight school board members in Dover, Pa., who backed "intelligent
design" were ousted by voters Tuesday, the Associated Press reported.
But a spokesman for the Democratic slate that won said it would be
guided by a judge's decision in a court challenge to the curriculum.
"If this issue can be resolved by voting these people out in the next
elections, the standards will never get in place enough to make a court
case worthwhile. They'll be lame ducks," said Jack Krebs, vice
president of Kansas Citizens for Science.
That is what happened in 1999, when the board sought to undermine the
teaching of Darwinian theory. Moderates took control of the board in
2000, only to see it regain a conservative Republican majority in 2004.
Krebs also said he believes opponents could win a court case by showing
that the Kansas board is violating the Constitution by imposing
religion in another guise.
Members of the Kansas majority insisted that science motivated them,
although several have made clear their position that life's development
is too complex to be explained by natural evolution unguided by a
higher power. That view describes many adherents of intelligent design,
a critique of evolutionary theory that has gained particular support
from the religious right -- and ridicule from the vast majority of
trained scientists.
Asked about intelligent design last summer, Bush said, "Both sides
ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the
debate is about."
Prominent scientists and scientific organizations dismiss the call from
intelligent design proponents to "teach the controversy." The
scientific mainstream says there is no significant controversy, that
evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology
shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form.
Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can
be tested," said Francisco J. Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics
and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an
insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."
The Kansas board argued about which side was more truthful.
Member Kenneth Willard accused the scientific establishment of having
"blind faith in evolution." He told his colleagues during a 45-minute
debate that the anti-evolution view is more intellectually honest.
"What we're dealing with here," Willard said in an argument that
infuriates mainstream scientists, "is a high degree of fear of change."
Two Republicans and two Democrats opposed the move. Sue Gamble said the
board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for
natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to
supernatural explanations. Waugh said she believes in the biblical
version of creation, but does not believe it should be taught in
science class. And Carol Rupe mentioned the "hundreds and hundreds of
scientists from around the world" who wrote to protest the board's
impending move.
"I wish you were not changing science to have it fit into your faith,"
she said. "It's a lousy time for us to be lowering science standards in
Kansas."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 04:05:38 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
If you're going to argue with somebody, you should at least be honest
enough to address the point actually made. Ernest Major specifically
said that one might be a passable research scientist in a field
unrelated to evolutionary biology; however, anybody wishing to study
the history of life on earth scientifically needs to have a grasp of
evolution.
Far too much effort has been put into books of science postulating on
the Theory of Evolution. Too often they have sentences like "We can
surmise that..." or "The ancestors of _______ probably evolved..."
"The common ancestors of both ______ and ______ were possibly formed
by..."
They are "just-so stories". They presuppose evolution as a fact and
then they attempt to force observations into presupposed facts.
Evolution is a fact, in the sense that it is a fact that populations of
living things change genetically and morphologically over time. It is
also a fact that practically every anatomical, genetic, geographical,
and historical pattern across known life forms consistently falls in
line with the theory of descent with modification from a common
ancestry. And no, one cannot practice a discipline such as
paleontology competently without acquiring a firm grasp of this.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
That's a strawman. The claims are not unsubstantiated.
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx, Confuciusornis, to name just a few
of the better-known reptile-bird intermediates off the top of my head.
But that is actually beside the point being made. One cannot be a
scientist by simply looking at stuff and recording what one sees.
Someone who treats fossils that way is not a paleontologist; he is
merely a fossil collector. The point of science is to achieve a deeper
understanding of the world around us by making *inferences* about
things we cannot see from the things we can. Steadfastly refuse to
make such inferences simply because you do not like them, and no, you
cannot be a good scientist. Evolution isn't any sort of shibboleth or
sacred cow, it is simply a case in point of the sort of theoretical and
methodological underpinnings that separate a scientist from a
stamp-collector.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
He obviously isn't.
So you say so. But the facts are opposed to what you say.
Then please, by all means, present those facts.
This is
clearly a litmus test. "Have you or have you not been indoctrinated
with the Theory of Evouluion?" "If not -- there's the door."
If you have any evidence to support this, then by all means present it.
If all you have is sneering and empty rhetoric, then, well, there's
the door.
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
It seems to me that what he is suggesting is that institutions of higher
education inform the school boards that they will not accept
inadequately educated candidates.
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
Depends on why you're studying birds. Are you trying to understand why
penguins or ostriches are the way they are, as opposed to some other
way? Do you want to have a deeper understanding of their geographical
distribution and diversity, of their historical relationship with their
environment? Or do you just want to be a glorified bird-watcher?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 09:27:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote
....
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx, Confuciusornis, to name just a few
of the better-known reptile-bird intermediates off the top of my head.
Rahonavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Mononykus, Shuvuuia, Avimimus, Unenlagia,
Sinornithosaurus (which means "Chinese bird-lizard"), and Microraptor.
To name a few more.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Von R. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
02 Nov 2005 02:39:35 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
traklman@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote
....
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx, Confuciusornis, to name just a few
of the better-known reptile-bird intermediates off the top of my head.
Rahonavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Mononykus, Shuvuuia, Avimimus, Unenlagia,
Sinornithosaurus (which means "Chinese bird-lizard"), and Microraptor.
That still doesn't prove the existence of Macroraptor :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Von R. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
02 Nov 2005 02:35:18 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
traklman@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote
....
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx, Confuciusornis, to name just a few
of the better-known reptile-bird intermediates off the top of my head.
Rahonavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Mononykus, Shuvuuia, Avimimus, Unenlagia,
Sinornithosaurus (which means "Chinese bird-lizard"), and Microraptor.
To name a few more.
Thanks! I remember reading about Shuvuuia, Microraptor, and that
Protothingy-x, but the others are completely new to me. Looks like
I'll have to read something *again*. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
14 Nov 2005 04:37:21 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1130778295.528728.77960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paulo
Joe Jingy <dblizz@gmail.com> writes
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
Delete the "tenuous", and that's not far from the truth. I suppose a
student could be a neo-ornithologist or invertebrate palaeontologist,
but ignorance of the wider fields to such a degree is hardly desirable.
You can't be a good Xologist while being ignorant of basic data about X.
You can't be a good and useful research scientist without a thorough
grounding in the Theory of Evolution? Why not?
Noone said all scientists need a thorough grounding in ToE. A particle
physicist, for example, would get by just fine with a superficial
understanding of it. But she would need a thorough understanding of
Einstein's theory of gravity, yes?
And you brought up biological specialties, who *would need to
understand the foundation of modern biology.
Far too much effort has been put into books of science postulating on
the Theory of Evolution. Too often they have sentences like "We can
surmise that..." or "The ancestors of _______ probably evolved..."
"The common ancestors of both ______ and ______ were possibly formed
by..."
Are you concerned about the tentative nature of the assertions? Science
has found that fiece assertions do not actually make a person more
likely to be correct. In fact, a person who is unwilling to be
corrected with facts is *more likely in the long run to be wrong.
They are "just-so stories". They presuppose evolution as a fact and
then they attempt to force observations into presupposed facts.
Ah. Perhaps you could offer an alternative explanation for:
1. Humans having a plantaris tendon.
2. No lobster fossils found n the same strata as trilobite fossils
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
That's a strawman. The claims are not unsubstantiated.
Really? You know for sure? Enlighten us. How did it happen? Let us
know about the intermediates.
Ok. Fish to amphibians:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
Amphibians to reptiles
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
Reptiles to Birds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
Reptiles to Mammals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
Horses:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm
Whales:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Humans and Other Apes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
He obviously isn't.
So you say so. But the facts are opposed to what you say. This is
clearly a litmus test. "Have you or have you not been indoctrinated
with the Theory of Evouluion?" "If not -- there's the door."
Would you consider calculus an acceptable litmus test for a physicist?
How about anatomy for a medical doctor?
Are these religions?
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
It seems to me that what he is suggesting is that institutions of higher
education inform the school boards that they will not accept
inadequately educated candidates.
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds?
If they share a common ancestor, and are genetically modified by
natural selection and other evolutionary pressures, then it would be
very difficult to understand them. If you don't understand them, how
much could you really observe?
Your beef cannot be with our insisting this is necessary, if indeed
mainstream evolutionary science is true. You may as well complain about
all the math we require of engineers.
Now, if you had any evidence which successfully refuted evolutionary
theory, then this requirement (however formal or informal) would be
dropped. Have any?
How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
Very little. But *understanding it, and why we think so, is an
important step in becoming a scientist.
And what exactly do you mean by "a theropod"? Surely you're talking
about a species, and not any individual changing, yes? I'm just making
sure - we've run into creationists who seem to expect evolutionary
theory to discuss individual organisms changing like some sort of
morphing anime monster.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mick White" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:27:01 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
[snip]
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
Scientists may not have the complete picture, do you have a theory of
your own, perhaps?
All theories demand scrutiny.
Mick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:54:11 PM |
|
|
Mick White wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
[snip]
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
Scientists may not have the complete picture, do you have a theory of
your own, perhaps?
When you say scientists "may not have the complete picture" that
erroneously implies that they have most of the picture. They don't.
When it comes to birds they look at the fossils of small dinosaurs and
then they look at certain birds and they surmise that "Gee-whiz one
might have come from the other", or that "Golly I bet they had common
ancestors."
That's what they base what they call "science" on. And now some would
like it to go from "Gee wouldn't it be keen if birds really did come
from dinosaurs" to "You will profess a dogmatic belief that birds *DID*
evolve from dinosaurs or we will label you an ignoramus and deny you
access to this university."
But I guess you completely missed the point. Science doesn't need the
Theory of Evolution. Students shouldn't be denied admission to Kansas
Universities simply because they weren't indoctrinated with the Theory
of Evolution. (Or, more precisely, simply because there indoctrination
was tainted with the "heresy" of informing them that the Theory of
Evolution may or may not be true.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 04:47:35 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130795651.227823.52460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
But I guess you completely missed the point. Science doesn't need the
Theory of Evolution. Students shouldn't be denied admission to Kansas
Universities simply because they weren't indoctrinated with the Theory
of Evolution. (Or, more precisely, simply because there indoctrination
was tainted with the "heresy" of informing them that the Theory of
Evolution may or may not be true.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "need." Science has determined that
the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the facts drawn from
biology and paleontology. No one needs to declare a "belief" in
evolution. But Kansas universities may require students to have a
certain level of understanding of science. In biology, that requires an
understanding of evolution.
I, myself, never believed the Mean Value Theorem. But I didn't whine
about it being on the calculus midterm.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 04:08:29 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-31 13:54:11 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> said:
Mick White wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
[snip]
I think you mean "inadequately indoctrinated". How does a litmus test
of a professed belief in the Theory of Evolution change anyone's
ability to scientifically observe birds? How does reciting from rote
"A theropod dinosaur become something (we don't know what) and then
became a bird", change anything about his intellect and/or his ability
to scientifically observe and study birds, living today?
Scientists may not have the complete picture, do you have a theory of
your own, perhaps?
When you say scientists "may not have the complete picture" that
erroneously implies that they have most of the picture.
No, it doesn't.
That's what YOU assume.
Pay more attention to what scientists actually say, instead of what
you THINK they say.
They don't.
When it comes to birds they look at the fossils of small dinosaurs and
then they look at certain birds and they surmise that "Gee-whiz one
might have come from the other", or that "Golly I bet they had common
ancestors."
For example, in this instance, they look at the two fossils and
ennumerate exactly WHY they came to that conclusion BASED on a detailed
comparions of physical traits.
That's on the same level of examining you, the person you call your
mother, the genes of both of you, looking at the similarity of the
genes and then concluding that you're related.
That's what they base what they call "science" on.
Guess what. That IS science.
And now some would
like it to go from "Gee wouldn't it be keen if birds really did come
from dinosaurs" to "You will profess a dogmatic belief that birds *DID*
evolve from dinosaurs or we will label you an ignoramus and deny you
access to this university."
But I guess you completely missed the point. Science doesn't need the
Theory of Evolution. Students shouldn't be denied admission to Kansas
Universities simply because they weren't indoctrinated with the Theory
of Evolution. (Or, more precisely, simply because there indoctrination
was tainted with the "heresy" of informing them that the Theory of
Evolution may or may not be true.)
--
oink@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 09:16:09 PM |
|
|
Roger Tang <oink@porkfilled.com> wrote:
On 2005-10-31 13:54:11 -0800, "Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> said:
They don't.
When it comes to birds they look at the fossils of small dinosaurs and
then they look at certain birds and they surmise that "Gee-whiz one
might have come from the other", or that "Golly I bet they had common
ancestors."
For example, in this instance, they look at the two fossils and
ennumerate exactly WHY they came to that conclusion BASED on a detailed
comparions of physical traits.
In particular, they use a sophisticated analysis technique called
cladistic analysis to reach the conclusion.
The analyses showing birds deeply nested within Dinosauria passed
"convincing" years ago.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 01:07:53 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
He'd be a much better palaeontologist or ornithologists if he knew the
evidence on which such an hypotheos was based rather than dismissing it
as 'tenuous'. It's rather solid evidence, and getting better all the
time.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
I'd suggest that a scientist who forms no hypotheses which can predict
the characteristics of intermediates is not a very good scientist.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. But someone who claims to be a scientist, yet rejects the
fundamental assumptions and methods of science should be exposed as the
fraud they are.
RF
Because if that is what you're suggesting, I can't see much difference
between your "so-called" science and many of the religious beliefs you
criticize.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paulo Joe Jingy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 02:21:18 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
He'd be a much better palaeontologist or ornithologists if he knew the
evidence on which such an hypotheos was based rather than dismissing it
as 'tenuous'. It's rather solid evidence, and getting better all the
time.
I recently read one of Richard Dawkins books of Evolutionary
Philosophy, "Climbing Mount Improbable". He has no idea how or why
birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Is Richard Dawkins out of the
loop when it comes to recent evolutionary discoveries? If it's all
"pretty-much figured out", please enlighten me (and Richard Dawkins).
And why, exactly, does it make someone a better ornithologist if he or
she accepts the the theory of evolution?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
I'd suggest that a scientist who forms no hypotheses which can predict
the characteristics of intermediates is not a very good scientist.
If someone (for example) wants to know how to treat illnesses in birds,
what difference does it make, as an ornithologist, if he believes in
the theory of evolution and its unproven theories about supposed bird
intermediates?
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. But someone who claims to be a scientist, yet rejects the
fundamental assumptions and methods of science should be exposed as the
fraud they are.
Really? So you *are* suggesting that someone can't scientifically
observe nature his whole life, make predictions based on those
observations and be considered a real scientist? That unless he pays
tribute to the Theory of Evolution he is to be considered a fraud? I'm
sorry, but that sounds like a bigoted position to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 09:10:45 PM |
|
|
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <dblizz@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
He'd be a much better palaeontologist or ornithologists if he knew the
evidence on which such an hypotheos was based rather than dismissing it
as 'tenuous'. It's rather solid evidence, and getting better all the
time.
I recently read one of Richard Dawkins books of Evolutionary
Philosophy, "Climbing Mount Improbable". He has no idea how or why
birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Is Richard Dawkins out of the
loop when it comes to recent evolutionary discoveries?
Not necessarily. The book was published in 1996! That is 9-10 years
ago. Much of the best evidence for the dinosaur-bird connection was
discovered *after* the book was written.
If it's all
"pretty-much figured out", please enlighten me (and Richard Dawkins).
Where did Richard say it was "pretty-much figured out"? I do not see
any such statement.
And why, exactly, does it make someone a better ornithologist if he or
she accepts the the theory of evolution?
Because he or she can make *predictions* from that theory, and can ask
better, more insightful questions for future research. [Scence is about
asking questions, so the better the questions you ask, the better you
are as a scientist].
I'd suggest that a scientist who forms no hypotheses which can predict
the characteristics of intermediates is not a very good scientist.
If someone (for example) wants to know how to treat illnesses in birds,
what difference does it make, as an ornithologist, if he believes in
the theory of evolution and its unproven theories about supposed bird
intermediates?
It matters because the evolutionary history of birds can point to likely
similar species in which to research possible cures.
However, someone *treating* an illness is not a scientist per se, he or
she is a *veterinarian*.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Von R. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 03:05:26 PM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
He'd be a much better palaeontologist or ornithologists if he knew the
evidence on which such an hypotheos was based rather than dismissing it
as 'tenuous'. It's rather solid evidence, and getting better all the
time.
I recently read one of Richard Dawkins books of Evolutionary
Philosophy, "Climbing Mount Improbable". He has no idea how or why
birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Is Richard Dawkins out of the
loop when it comes to recent evolutionary discoveries? If it's all
"pretty-much figured out", please enlighten me (and Richard Dawkins).
I can't comment on the Dawkins book in question, since I haven't read
it. I would point out, however, that the book was published back in
1996, and that several of the most important fossil finds linking
theropods to birds have been made since then (such as Caudipteryx and
Sinosauropteryx) or had been only very recently made when Dawkins was
writing (in the case of Confuciusornis). So, yes, you could say that
Dawkins was, at least as of the time he first wrote CMI, out of the
loop.
And why, exactly, does it make someone a better ornithologist if he or
she accepts the the theory of evolution?
I personally would argue it the other way around: that being a good
and conscientious scientist makes one accept the theory of evolution.
Only a perverse refusal to employ good scientific inference, or to look
closely at the available evidence, could lead an aspiring ornithologist
or paleontologist to a different conclusion.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
I'd suggest that a scientist who forms no hypotheses which can predict
the characteristics of intermediates is not a very good scientist.
If someone (for example) wants to know how to treat illnesses in birds,
what difference does it make, as an ornithologist, if he believes in
the theory of evolution and its unproven theories about supposed bird
intermediates?
Caudipteryx zoui, Sinosauropteryx, and several other recent important
finds are not supposed bird intermediates; they are real reptile/bird
intermediates. It is no longer a matter of belief that such creatures
existed.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. But someone who claims to be a scientist, yet rejects the
fundamental assumptions and methods of science should be exposed as the
fraud they are.
Really? So you *are* suggesting that someone can't scientifically
observe nature his whole life, make predictions based on those
observations and be considered a real scientist?
No, he is not. He is saying that there is no longer a reasonable case
for rejecting the idea that birds evolved from reptiles, given the
currently available evidence. It is not a matter of an arbitrary set
of shibboleths, but of what one can reconcile with scientific evidence
and inference.
That unless he pays
tribute to the Theory of Evolution he is to be considered a fraud? I'm
sorry, but that sounds like a bigoted position to me.
And that is not what he said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
01 Nov 2005 03:02:36 AM |
|
|
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
Are you suggesting that a student can't be a good Ornithologist or a
good Paleontologist without making a tenuous connection between
theropod dinosaurs and modern birds?
He'd be a much better palaeontologist or ornithologists if he knew the
evidence on which such an hypotheos was based rather than dismissing it
as 'tenuous'. It's rather solid evidence, and getting better all the
time.
I recently read one of Richard Dawkins books of Evolutionary
Philosophy, "Climbing Mount Improbable". He has no idea how or why
birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Is Richard Dawkins out of the
loop when it comes to recent evolutionary discoveries? If it's all
"pretty-much figured out", please enlighten me (and Richard Dawkins).
Well, bearing in mind that "Climbing Mount Improbable" was published in
1996, and that Dawkins is not a vertebrate palaeontologist, and that
most of the finds both in the fossil record and in embryolgy which
support the link have been made within the past 10 years, I'd say that
whereas Richard Dawkins may not have been "out of the loop" 10 years
ago, what he wrote 10 years ago is not exactly cutting edge science.
And why, exactly, does it make someone a better ornithologist if he or
she accepts the the theory of evolution?
Because without evolutionary theory, and formal classification of birds
is meaningless.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist can't simply observe what
"does" exist, without making unsubstantiated claims about "supposed"
intermediates?
I'd suggest that a scientist who forms no hypotheses which can predict
the characteristics of intermediates is not a very good scientist.
If someone (for example) wants to know how to treat illnesses in birds,
what difference does it make, as an ornithologist,
If an ornithologist set out to treat an illness in a bird, he'd be
breaking the law in the UK. Vets treat sick animals.
if he believes in
the theory of evolution and its unproven theories about supposed bird
intermediates?
Perhaps you can identify a theory in any field of science which is
'proven'?
When you've tried and failed, you should find out what science can and
can't do.
Are you suggesting that a good scientist should be ostracized simply
because he or she won't make obeisance to the altar of the Theory of
Evolution?
Not at all. But someone who claims to be a scientist, yet rejects the
fundamental assumptions and methods of science should be exposed as the
fraud they are.
Really? So you *are* suggesting that someone can't scientifically
observe nature his whole life, make predictions based on those
observations and be considered a real scientist?
If someone makes predictions based on an hypothesis formulated from
those observations, he'd be considered a real scientist. Why is this
relevant? Creationism (which includes ID, of course) makes no
predictions, is not built on observations, and is not science.
That unless he pays
tribute to the Theory of Evolution he is to be considered a fraud? I'm
sorry, but that sounds like a bigoted position to me.
Who in earth "plays tribute to the Theory of Evolution"?
Why not find out more about science and how science is practised
instead of making yourself look ignorant?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
28 Oct 2005 09:26:24 AM |
|
|
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
I don't think they can do that. I don't know if it's still the case,
but Kansas law used to require that state schools accept any state
residents as students. Then, they just flunk them out if they can't
hack it.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
29 Oct 2005 10:12:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
I don't think they can do that. I don't know if it's still the case,
but Kansas law used to require that state schools accept any state
residents as students. Then, they just flunk them out if they can't
hack it.
Well, it was that way when I went to KU. [Not that I needed that
benefit: they also charge less for residents, which was useful].
I doubt it has changed.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers |
31 Oct 2005 12:32:13 AM |
|
|
"Stanley Friesen" <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message
news:8847m118s5pssnj4c5o2oa8u81lhav2s16@4ax.com...
eroot@swva.net wrote:
Al wrote:
What if Kansas State University or University of Kansas ... just to
take two examples, told school districts in Kansas that followed the
State Boards standards they would not accept their students as pre
meds?
I don't think they can do that. I don't know if it's still the case,
but Kansas law used to require that state schools accept any state
residents as students. Then, they just flunk them out if they can't
hack it.
Well, it was that way when I went to KU.
Just out of curiosity, when were you there?
Deadrat
[Not that I needed that
benefit: they also charge less for residents, which was useful].
I doubt it has changed.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
