| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 06:07:09 AM |
| Object: |
Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
From the article:
-------------------------------
Evolution is adequate to explain many of the puzzles of how living things
develop. It is not a complete theory, and possibly it can never be to the
satisfaction of all parties to this controversy. But it is simply mindless for
boards of education to pose a theory of intelligent design to compete with
evolution in the biology textbooks. For one thing, what if there are three or
three thousand or three million plausible explanations for the riddles of life?
Many advocates of creationist theory are quite sincere in their beliefs. They
are entitled to hold those beliefs if they wish. But they have no business
trying to bootstrap their religious beliefs into an educational system which at
its best does not do an adequate job in science education.
-------------------------------
Read it at
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050126/OPINION02/501260302/-1/OPINION
or http://tinyurl.com/66jy5
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 02:36:27 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Frogman, I have read your two posts of Feb. 2. There is a lot here,
plus your former post. I hope you don't mind if I single out what I
think is your most pertinent question. If there is something
significant that you feel I have avoided, I'm sure you will bring it
to
my attention so that I can respond. I think this one question
addresses other questions in your post - such as why I single out
evolution theory as not a particularly good scientific theory.
You understand the tem macro-evolution, that is, crudely speaking,
not
dealing with variation within a species but the assertion that one
species gave rise to another species, that complex organisms arose
from
simper organisms, etc.
frogman042@yahoo.com wrote:
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it
is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A
good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions
and
make
accurate predictions without serious modifications to the
theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
Name a single one and tell me what criteria that that 'serious
evolutionist' says that macro-evolution fails to meet.
The problems are well documented, and I don't need to quote
creationists here, but cutting edge evolutionists. I would have
to
go
on their authority, though, since I am not a biologist. I would
be
glad to provide you some quotes from these leading authorities,
if
you wish.
I am unaware of a single 'cutting edge evolutionist' that doesn't
think
evolution is sufficient to explain the biodiversity of the world
(note
there is a difference in disagreeing about which specific
evolutionary
mechanism is responsible for something vs. evolution can explain
it,
just like there might be disagreement as to which route my mother
followed when she visited me, but not that she actually visited
me).
You say it is well documented and that can provie the 'quotes'.
Please
do so. But if you do provide the quote, you can't just say 'Dr. so
and
so says: "...."', but you need to include a reference to the
original
source, the book or article it appeared in, and the page or section
that it appears, so it can be checked. Fair enough?
Fair enough:
I have restricted myself to quotes by non-creationist scientists; the
quotes
below should not be taken as an assertion that they are advocating
creationism.
"It's true that for the last eighteen months or so I've been kicking
around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas. . . . So
this
is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing
remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The
second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it
seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." Address of Dr. Colin
Patterson at American Museum of Natural History, tr. at 1, 4 (Nov. 5,
1981)
Steve, please answer me honestly. Did ou read this address or did you
get this quote from a creationists website? If the latter, then you
should at this point be aware that virtually all quotes on creationist
websites that they claim to show main-stream evolutionists denouncing
evolution either are out-of-context, don't support their point of view,
or the scientist is a creationist.
For example, here is a linke to the misuse of Dr. Colin Patterson words
by creationist. I invite you to read it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html and then tell me if you
think he supports you POV.
"Darwinism . . . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the
test
and found false," "Darwinian theory of systematics . . . has been
falsified." Nelson and Platnich, Systematics and Evolution, in
Beyond
Neo-Darwinism 143, 143-146 (M. Ho and P. Saunders eds. 1984)
First warning sign, the ellipses. Did you put them there, if so why,
if not, then you didn't get the quote from the source but from someone
else. Did you then go and read the original? Why or why not? Is it
important to you to know what they really said. Finally, are they
doubting evolution or Darwin's proposed explanation. There is a big
difference. I didn't ask for you to give me quotes where scientests
doubted specific mechanisms, but for quotes that they doubted evolution
in general. Can you show me that Ho and Saunders doubt evolution?
(there are) "some among the biologists who feel that much of the
[macroevolutionary] theory accepted by the majority today is actually
false." Olson, Morphology, Paleontology, and Evolution. 1 Evolution
after Darwin, 523
See my previous comments.
"What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity of
the
various implications of the theory of evolution? If we go back to our
initial assumptions it will be seen that the evidence is still
lacking
for most of them." G. Kerkut, Morphology, Paleontology, and
Evolution,
150.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution
because of its ability to account for any property of living beings
(the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried
to
see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so
fit
in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the
theory does not stand up at all."
Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138
(1980)
"In this book I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a
systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from
paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe
that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any
hope
of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that
consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable."
M. Denton, Evolution:A Theory in Crisis 16, 353 (1985)
I'm pretty sure Michael Denton doesn't qualify as a 'cutting-edge
evolutionist' unless you mean by 'cutting-edge' a creationist (although
I don't think he is a YEC). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
There are "a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have
never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of
Darwinian
claims" (Denton, above)
Sermonti, professor of genetics at University of Perugia, and former
director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo
(Italy), and Fondi, an Italian paleontologist, reject macro-evolution
on scientific grounds. G. Sermonti and R. Fondi, Dopo Darwin:Critica
all Evoluzionismo (1980), translated by Montalenti, Darwinism Today
I sincerely doubt that you have gone to any of these original sources
and confirmed that what the quotes say represent what the authors are
actually arguing, or that you have checked to see if they were
misquoted, taken out of context, or simply made up. Did you check to
see what publications these scientists have writen and if they are
experts in the field? I strongly suspect you took these quotes from a
creationist web-site and have not try to validate any of them. Correct
me if I'm wrong.
So can we agree that based on the scientific data, the earth formed
approx. 4.5 billion years ago? A simple yes or no will be
sufficient
at this point.
A good scientist can't give a simple yes and no. A good scientist
must
be aware of his assumptions. He can only say if A is true, then B is
true. That is what I have said. There are also numerous other
assumptions in dating the earth that I did not mention. But that is
another issue, and we could take up a whole board on that. One thing
is certain, macro-evolution if it occurred requires a long period of
time - but that presents other problems related to theromodynamics.
No offence Steve, but I suspect that your knowledge of dating comes
from the same sources as your knowledge of evolution, and that is
creationist web sites. It should be obvious to you by now that those
sites are not trustworthy, by your own standards or rigoursly checking
the data. I will not dilute the thread by going into the age of the
earth, but I do want to ask you a simple question. Do you doubt the
current accepted age of the earth because of personal religious reasons
or because you actually studied the scientific literture yourself (and
not through a proxy creationist site) and found it wanting? Please
answer honestly and don't bear false witness.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 11:08:34 AM |
|
|
Jay, Let me answer simply by saying I have read literature in both
camps over the course of forty years. There is enough to convince me
that the current theory is far from established scientific fact with
competing schools of evolutionists negating each other's arguments for
the mechanisms of how it could have occurred. I've made my point;
I've provided the citations, and now you claim I haven't read the
sources. I'm getting tired.
I've lost interest here, because, with a few notable exceptions, most
of the replies are without scientific merit or from ignorance. I can't
teach a course on thermodynamics to those who don't recognize its basic
principles. It's like saying something is red, and the reply is no,
it's blue. Neither is impugning the source without dealing with the
content a scientific argument. Some people evidently read church
bulletins unlike any I have ever seen.
I have researched claims both made my creationists, anti-Darwinian
scientists, by evolutionists, and not a few similar to the notions of
anti-creationists on this board. That in itself is very revealing,
about who has a scientific bias. I can't do that for you, but I
suggest you read some of the materials where you charge people are
being quoted from context.
The conclusion I draw from many of the replies here is that most people
(including most scientists) believe in evolution because most people
believe in evolution. Go back and look at how many arguments
presented here fall into this category.
My other frustration is that we are beginning to go in circles. The
same questions get repeated about how I arrived at my information,
though I have provided my background, which no one else has done, as if
that were relevant to anything. You and others are still hung up on an
irrelevant argument about the age of the earth, without simply
acknowledging the assumptions inherent and moving on.
I enjoy learning and a difference of opinion is an opportuity to learn.
However, I don't think this thread is conducive to exploring those
differences - most of the contributors here seem to have an axe to
grind or are unable to focus on the issues raised in a competent way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:26:52 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107536914.398222.216950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jay, Let me answer simply by saying I have read literature in both
camps over the course of forty years. There is enough to convince me
that the current theory is far from established scientific fact with
competing schools of evolutionists negating each other's arguments for
the mechanisms of how it could have occurred. I've made my point;
I've provided the citations, and now you claim I haven't read the
sources. I'm getting tired.
Too bad for the Truth, that its proponents don't have any endurance.
I've lost interest here, because, with a few notable exceptions, most
of the replies are without scientific merit or from ignorance. I can't
teach a course on thermodynamics to those who don't recognize its basic
principles.
Yet you can't even give a textbook citation for what you claimed were
basic principles. You claim to have a degree in physics. I suggest you
demand a refund of your tuition.
It's like saying something is red, and the reply is no,
it's blue.
No, it is like you claiming something is there, when it is not.
A reasonable counter is to ask where?
Neither is impugning the source without dealing with the
content a scientific argument.
The content is imaginary in your case. For your recollection:
" There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine. It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met: 1/ an
outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order"
Major Misconception: Thermodynamics is irrelevant to whether
a process exists to go from state A to state B. State functions
are path independent. So condition 2 is FALSE.
Condition 3 is something completely imaginary.
Condition 1 is also false. A chemical system not at equilibrium does not
necessarily need outside energy to create something that is more complex.
For example, a chunk of sodium in chlorine gas would rather quickly and
enthusiastically generate ordered sodium chloride salt crystals. Surely
you are not using a definition where chemical elements are more
complex than chemical compounds!
You're batting 0.000.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:51:32 PM |
|
|
The content is imaginary in your case. For your recollection:
" There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine. It
does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met: 1/
an
outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order"
Major Misconception: Thermodynamics is irrelevant to whether
a process exists to go from state A to state B. State functions
are path independent. So condition 2 is FALSE.
Condition 3 is something completely imaginary.
Condition 1 is also false. A chemical system not at equilibrium does
not
necessarily need outside energy to create something that is more
complex.
For example, a chunk of sodium in chlorine gas would rather quickly
and
enthusiastically generate ordered sodium chloride salt crystals.
Surely
you are not using a definition where chemical elements are more
complex than chemical compounds!
Your arguments aren't even honest or logical. Your statements do not
contradict my statement, but are faulty anyway - you are not defining
the local
systems involved and examining only superficially what is taking place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 11:48:29 AM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 09:08:34 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Jay, Let me answer simply by saying I have read literature in both
camps over the course of forty years. There is enough to convince me
that the current theory is far from established scientific fact with
competing schools of evolutionists negating each other's arguments for
the mechanisms of how it could have occurred.
as a non-biologist scientist, i haven't seen that. what i have seen is
that intelligent design advocates are, a priori, biased towards
religoin. scientists are all over the map on religion but all agree
evolution is science while ID is not.
I've lost interest here, because, with a few notable exceptions, most
of the replies are without scientific merit or from ignorance. I can't
teach a course on thermodynamics to those who don't recognize its basic
principles.
spare me the grief. i had 5 courses, undergrad and grad, in thermo.
nothing in thermo says evolution isn't possible
The conclusion I draw from many of the replies here is that most people
(including most scientists) believe in evolution because most people
believe in evolution. Go back and look at how many arguments
presented here fall into this category.
since most people do NOT accept evolution in the US, your statement is
false. we scientists accept it IN SPITE of popular opinion because we
WORK with science while the general public does not. we KNOW how
science works while the public often thinks 'god did it' is a
scientific explanation for origins
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:25:45 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Jay, Let me answer simply by saying I have read literature in both
camps over the course of forty years. There is enough to convince me
that the current theory is far from established scientific fact with
competing schools of evolutionists negating each other's arguments
for
the mechanisms of how it could have occurred. I've made my point;
I've provided the citations, and now you claim I haven't read the
sources. I'm getting tired.
Sorry Steve, I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. I claimed
that you got the quotes from a creationists web site and not from the
original sources. I presented you with a specific challenge. Did you
go to the original source for the quotes or not? I specifically asked,
if you did go to the original source to get the quotes, why did you put
in the elipsis in the quote I referred to (the ...) what was you
motivation for that? If you can't explain that then I have to conclude
that you did not go to the source and have not read the source but are
using quotes from a third party. This is dishonest because I
specifically asked you for quotes from the original source. I provided
evidence that at least one of the scientist you used in the quotes does
not agree that evolution as a theory is in trouble. Period.
Steve, you have not made you point, you have repeated long discredited
claims that a 10 minute search would have shown that they have been
discredited. If you are sincere, and really had the curiosity, you
would have done the following:
1) This is my objection.
2) This is the scientific response to my objection or I've searched
the literture and there is no scientific response.
3) This is why I think the scientific response is not valid.
You have done 1 but not 2 or 3. Why not. If you want to be taken
seriously, then you must do 2 or 3 or you are no different then someone
saying that the Earth is flat and says because I've studied it and
that's my conclusion. Sorry that wont cut it. With the exception of
the link to TOOS regarding Darwins view on acquired characterstics, you
have yet to try to back up your claims with the actual sources.
So, here is my challenge - you said above "I've made my point; I've
provided the citations, and now you claim I haven't read the sources.
I'm getting tired."
Here is just one source that you cited:
'"Darwinism . . . is, in short, a theory that has been put to the test
and found false," "Darwinian theory of systematics . . . has been
falsified." Nelson and Platnich, Systematics and Evolution, in
Beyond Neo-Darwinism 143, 143-146 (M. Ho and P. Saunders eds. 1984)'
Post here the words that follow 'Darwinism' and 'systematics' and the
words that precede 'is, in short' and 'has been falsified.' If you
can't do that, then will you concide that you took this quote from a
third party and not from the original source?
I've lost interest here, because, with a few notable exceptions, most
of the replies are without scientific merit or from ignorance. I
can't
teach a course on thermodynamics to those who don't recognize its
basic
principles. It's like saying something is red, and the reply is no,
it's blue. Neither is impugning the source without dealing with the
content a scientific argument. Some people evidently read church
bulletins unlike any I have ever seen.
I have researched claims both made my creationists, anti-Darwinian
scientists, by evolutionists, and not a few similar to the notions of
anti-creationists on this board. That in itself is very revealing,
about who has a scientific bias. I can't do that for you, but I
suggest you read some of the materials where you charge people are
being quoted from context.
The conclusion I draw from many of the replies here is that most
people
(including most scientists) believe in evolution because most people
believe in evolution. Go back and look at how many arguments
presented here fall into this category.
You are simply wrong. Most scientists accept evolution because of the
vast wealth of data that backs it up. I would agree that most
lay-people (and that includes some scientist who have neither studied
evolution or the evidence) accept it on authority, but that is neither
here or there. You claimed you studied it for 40 years but have only
repeated tired old creationist claims and quotes culled from from
creationist web-sites (prove me wrong by addressing my challenge
above). You have never presented the scientific answers to your claims
and show why those answers are wrong. I can only conclude that you
have not done your homework. Saying 'Did Too' is not a response. You
can prove me wrong by taking my challenge of presenting the scientific
response to your claims and debunking them. You made claims that
evolution says or expects this or that, but those claims are not what
evolution claims and the only ones who say they do is creationists.
Can you now understand why I doubt that you have honestly studied this
issue. Again it is easy to prove me wrong. Do it.
My other frustration is that we are beginning to go in circles. The
same questions get repeated about how I arrived at my information,
though I have provided my background, which no one else has done, as
if
that were relevant to anything. You and others are still hung up on
an
irrelevant argument about the age of the earth, without simply
acknowledging the assumptions inherent and moving on.
The same questions are being asked because you avoid answering them.
It is that plain and system. If you disagree prove me wrong. You were
challenged for your credentials for two reasons - one is that you
claimed your college degree convinced you that electrons exist. Here
is a question you avoided. If that is sufficient, why isn't it
sufficient for a evolutionist to say they accept evolution because they
studied it in college (btw, it is not sufficient). The second is that
you are providing definitions of the 2nd law that doesn't seem to exist
anywhere outside of your posts. If I say that I'm a physicist and that
all the evidence points to a flat earth, I would hope someone would
say, where did you get your degree from, because that doesn't come
close to matching any physics education known to anyone. Is that
clear?
I asked you some questions to get a feel of what current mainstream
scientific thinking you accept. One of those was 'do you accept that
the age of the earth is 4.5 years' - you dodged that and to my
knowledge have only spouted some stuff about dating assumptions. I
pretty much let that lie where it was because I didn't want to open
that can of worms (I'm familier with the YEC objections and they of the
same high quality as their evolution arguments, and I did not want to
go down that lane). I highly doubt that I'm 'hung up on an irrelevant
argument about the age of the earth'.
I enjoy learning and a difference of opinion is an opportuity to
learn.
However, I don't think this thread is conducive to exploring those
differences - most of the contributors here seem to have an axe to
grind or are unable to focus on the issues raised in a competent way.
Steve, I wish I could believe you. I'm not sure what you have learned.
Can you tell me what you have learned from this discussion? This is
not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know what you have
learned.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond and I hope your strength of
character is such that you can either answer my challenges or admit
that your were wrong, and not just dodge the issue. And to be fair,
feel free to chalenge me on any issue and I will either address the
challenge or admit I was wrong.
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:57:39 PM |
|
|
<frogman042@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107541545.180012.65050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Steve wrote:
[snip]
I enjoy learning and a difference of opinion is an opportuity to
learn.
However, I don't think this thread is conducive to exploring those
differences - most of the contributors here seem to have an axe to
grind or are unable to focus on the issues raised in a competent way.
Steve, I wish I could believe you. I'm not sure what you have learned.
Can you tell me what you have learned from this discussion? This is
not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know what you have
learned.
His list of quotes, presented as is with discussion of what he thinks they
mean, give no hint of understanding. They gave a
hint that he can cut and paste from a source that is ultimately ICR,
Impact #176.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 01:24:07 PM |
|
|
Thanks again for taking the time to respond and I hope your strength
of
character is such that you can either answer my challenges or admit
that your were wrong, and not just dodge the issue. And to be fair,
feel free to chalenge me on any issue and I will either address the
challenge or admit I was wrong.
I'm not sure about the strength of my character. My honest perception
is
that no matter what I answer, your reply will be that I have dodged the
issue
or you will manufacture another irrelevant issue. When I respond,
there is no
concession so that we can mover further, but a new demand.
Since it is important to you, the quotes I obtained from an article by
Wendell
Bird, an attorney (Yale law school graduate) and a creationist, who has
argued
some of the briefs in the evolution-creation controversy. The source
is not
relevant - the quotes and context speak for themselves. The burden is
upon you
to show where someone was misquoted or misrepresented if you are making
that claim. That would be truly enlightening. Character
assassination and
unsupported claims are not.
I have the impression that you and I specifically are sometimes talking
past each
other, because our frame of reference is so different. I appreciate
your effort to
understand. You do seem to view my statements through a filter, rather
than
looking at the factualness or logic of them. For instance, you make an
issue over
the age of the earth where there is no issue. You argue Ptolemy's view
of the
universe. It's like arguing Newtonian physics, now that quantum theory
is here. It
seems to be because you think anyone who questions evolution belongs to
the
flat earth society.
Here is where I think you miss me, in broad terms. There is much data,
and more
accumulating all the time. We make inferences from it and create
models. Model A
explains the data, and so does Model B. Neither model can be verified
scientifically,
but science has something to say about both models. The model you
select as
being able to best harmonize and explain the data is the model you are
likely to
embrace, and you will interpret future data in the light of that model,
modifying the
model when needed. If you lose sight of your assumptions, you will
begin to say
that model A is more scientific than model B. Assumptions have a way
of becoming
invisible, and history shows that scientists are not immune from this
phenomenom.
So here we are, prisoners of our assumptions. But the greater prisoner
is the one, who
does not recognize them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 01:50:07 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 11:24:07 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Since it is important to you, the quotes I obtained from an article by
Wendell
Bird, an attorney (Yale law school graduate) and a creationist
not a good attorney since he lost his case to get religion introduced
into the public school systems of louisiana.
universe. It's like arguing Newtonian physics, now that quantum theory
is here. It
seems to be because you think anyone who questions evolution belongs to
the
flat earth society.
pretty accurate characterization on the part of most scientists, i
think.
Here is where I think you miss me, in broad terms. There is much data,
and more
accumulating all the time.
funny you guys keep saying that. creationism is the theory of the
future and always will be.
We make inferences from it and create
models. Model A
explains the data, and so does Model B. Neither model can be verified
scientifically,
\
bull. evolution can be done in the lab. creationism can only be done
in church.
So here we are, prisoners of our assumptions. But the greater prisoner
is the one, who
does not recognize them.
says the guy who lets the assumption that the bible is literally true
color his view of science
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 02:48:35 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Thanks again for taking the time to respond and I hope your
strength
of
character is such that you can either answer my challenges or admit
that your were wrong, and not just dodge the issue. And to be
fair,
feel free to chalenge me on any issue and I will either address the
challenge or admit I was wrong.
I'm not sure about the strength of my character. My honest perception
is
that no matter what I answer, your reply will be that I have dodged
the
issue
or you will manufacture another irrelevant issue. When I respond,
there is no
concession so that we can mover further, but a new demand.
I'm glad you answered honestly about the quotes. That reinforces my
respect for your character. Thank you.
There are numerous times where I've explicitly asked you if you accept
this or that point, or do you concide a specific point. Most ot the
time, you ignore that question. Do you have any points that you want
me to concide to that I've ignored? If so please post them. In short,
I've tried to present my best argument on a variety of specific topics
and most of the time you choose to ignore them. I can repost them if
you wish. Please point to any argument that you think I haven't
properly addressed or you think that I need to concide to. Then we can
move forward.
Since it is important to you, the quotes I obtained from an article
by
Wendell
Bird, an attorney (Yale law school graduate) and a creationist, who
has
argued
some of the briefs in the evolution-creation controversy. The source
is not
relevant - the quotes and context speak for themselves. The burden
is
upon you
to show where someone was misquoted or misrepresented if you are
making
that claim. That would be truly enlightening. Character
assassination and
unsupported claims are not.
Sorry, you make a claim, you say that it is supported by the following
cites, by you don't provide the original cites or indicate that you
read the original work (although I was under the impression, based on
earlier threads, that you reasearched them yourself). I'm well aware
that creationists quotes are not trustworthy, and most if not all those
quotes have been debunked. That is why the source is VERY relevent.
Here is an example. I will take the position that the bible denies the
existance of God and I have the quotes to back them up. You reply,
"nonsense, I've read the bible and it says no such thing." I take you
up on the challenge and post the following quotes from the bible (which
BTW, I got from the bible (searching King James Version on
bibleontheweb.com, so that is my source)):
'there is no god' Deuteronomy 32:39
'there is no God' 1 Kings 8:23
'there is no God' 2 Kings 1:16
'there is no God' 2 Kings 5:15
'there is no God' 2 Chronicles 6:14
'no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people' 2
Chronicles
You then claim I took the quotes out of context and I respond "The
source
is not relevant - the quotes and context speak for themselves."
Do you get my point? How is what I did any different then what you
did? Is my argument as valid as yours? If not, why not?
I even gave you a link to where one of the quotes was dishonest. I
also rebutted how a number of the quotes talk about the mechanism of
evolution and not evolution in general - a huge difference. If someone
says that Newton's model of gravity is incorrect does that mean they
are saying gravity does not exist? If I claimed gravity does not exist
and cited scientists saying Newton was wrong, have I supported my claim
that gravity doesn't exist? If a quote says that Darwins mechanism of
evolution is false, is the author saying that evolution doesn't exist?
That is the problem - I ask these simple question and you don't answer
them. Please answer them or explicitly concede the point.
You claimed that cutting edge evolutionary scientists have serious
doubts about evolution. I doubted your claim. You then provide quotes
not from the original sources to be sure that they are accurate, but
from a third party that has a vested interest in pursuading you that
evolution is wrong. You don't check to see if that person is being
honest or not but accept it on face value with, I'm assuming, no
verification on your own, because these are well know distortions and a
10 minute search would reveal that. You then claim that you researched
both sides and are surprised that I'm skeptical. You presented the
quotes to support your side of the argument, it is your responsibility
to do the due diligence to see if the quotes are accurate, since you
presented them. Is that clear. Or do you concide that the bible
denies the existince of God?
I have the impression that you and I specifically are sometimes
talking
past each
other, because our frame of reference is so different.
Yes and no. Do you accept that there are such things as scientific
truth? Do you accept that these truths are based on data, scientific
reasoning, and scrutny? I would answer yes to both questions, would
you? You posted what you considered to be valid scientific approach
and I agreed. So I don't think, if you really believe what you said
earlier, that or frame of reference is so different. If you want to
believe that the 'REAL TRUTH' includes God, processes not working now,
etc, fine. You have agreed that this is outside the scope of science.
I agree as well. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
I appreciate
your effort to
understand. You do seem to view my statements through a filter,
rather
than
looking at the factualness or logic of them. For instance, you make
an
issue over
the age of the earth where there is no issue.
I'm confused. I don't think I made an issue over the age of the earth,
I just asked if you thought that the current scientific evidence
indicates and age 4.5 billion years - and I'm not sure you ever
answered it. No biggie.
You argue Ptolemy's view
of the
universe. It's like arguing Newtonian physics, now that quantum
theory
is here. It
seems to be because you think anyone who questions evolution belongs
to
the
flat earth society.
Absolutly not. I'm trying to establish a common frame of reference of
scientific truths that we both can agree on. I've said that numereous
times. No, the mere fact that someone questions evolution does not
make them a flat eather, I've never said that. What I did say that if
you are prepared to question evolution, you better do it from a 1) a
scientific perspective and 2) show that you actually understand what
evolution is so that your arguments can be taken seriously. I use the
flat earth or Ptolemy's view, etc as a devil's advocate position.
Very simply my argument is as follows:
You are free to question evolution from a scientific perspective.
If you choose to do so, you have to have your ducks in order - that is
you have to understand what the current scientific thinking is in
response to you challange.
If you haven't done that then you haven't done due dilligence in your
challange, it is your repsonibility to make sure that your claims
against evolution haven't already been properly addressed.
I reserve the right to use the same form of argument that you used to
question evolution, but use it to deny that the earth orbits the sun.
This is to illustrate that your argument is not a good argument, since
the same type of argument is not valid for a geocentric universe.
You are then obliged to either distingush your argument from my
argument, to show why yours is valid and mine is invalid, and here is
the important part, without an appeal to, well we know that the earth
circles the sun and not the other way around.
These are the rules as I have laid them out. Do you have a problem
with any of them? Are they unfair? Do you think if we both abide by
them that a meaningful discussion can occur.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to you.
Here is where I think you miss me, in broad terms. There is much
data,
and more
accumulating all the time. We make inferences from it and create
models. Model A
explains the data, and so does Model B. Neither model can be
verified
scientifically,
but science has something to say about both models.
This is where I lose you. If they cannot be verified (not proved, but
verified) then it simply is not science. If the model makes no
predictions then - bing - it is out of the picture. Agreed?
I claim that evolution is a model that explains the data and can make
predictions. There are millions of potential models that can be used
to explain the data. If they can't be verified they are not
scientific. If they can be verified and the verification fail, then
they are discarded. Evolution, currently is the only one that I know
of that meets both criteria, 1) that it predictions can be verified and
2) that the verifications, to date, have validated it. If you have
another model that meets those criteria, please present it. If you
have validations or predictions that disprove evolution, present them.
But it is your responsibility to first read what the scientific
community says about your objections and be able to defend them.
In the link to TOOS you presented earlier, this is what Darwin did. He
presented a theory, he recieved criticism and then he addressed the
criticism. Not that hard and doesn't depend on ones world view.
The model you
select as
being able to best harmonize and explain the data is the model you
are
likely to
embrace, and you will interpret future data in the light of that
model,
modifying the
model when needed. If you lose sight of your assumptions, you will
begin to say
that model A is more scientific than model B. Assumptions have a way
of becoming
invisible, and history shows that scientists are not immune from this
phenomenom.
Great, that is how new scientific heros arise. That is how Einstein
became famous. He understood what he was arguing against, showed the
problems, presented a theory that not only accounted for all the data
as well as if not better then the previous theory, but made new
predicitions that no one had anticiapted and had those predictions
validated.
You are free to (along with everyone else, creationist or
non-creationsit) to do the same thing. Scientists are human, have
egos, etc. The scientific method tries to account for these biases and
tries to mitigate them as best as possible. Feel free to point out any
assumptions or data that is inconsistent with evolution. Any. But you
have to be rigourous if you want to be taken seriously. Fair enough?
So here we are, prisoners of our assumptions. But the greater
prisoner
is the one, who
does not recognize them.
Agreed. Here is my assumption. The scientific method is the best way
to get an understanding of how the world works. If you think I have
other assumptions that I do not recognize, please feel free to let me
know what they are.
What are your assumptions, Steve?
---Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
07 Feb 2005 09:09:24 PM |
|
|
Jay,
I won't have time to read all of the posts tonight, but I want to at
least attempt a reply to yours. Your post is qute lenghty and I won't
do it justice.
frogman042@yahoo.com wrote:
There are numerous times where I've explicitly asked you if you
accept
this or that point, or do you concide a specific point. Most ot the
time, you ignore that question. Do you have any points that you want
me to concide to that I've ignored? If so please post them. In
short,
I've tried to present my best argument on a variety of specific
topics
and most of the time you choose to ignore them. I can repost them if
you wish. Please point to any argument that you think I haven't
properly addressed or you think that I need to concide to. Then we
can
move forward.
I apologize. I don't think I've chosen to deliberately ignore them.
Perhaps I can just reply to your thread and we can take one question at
a time. I honestly can't keep up. I make a post and the next time I
log on there are 20 or 30 new entries. I can't even read them all,
much less reply to them. So it is hit and miss Repeat one question
that I've overlooked, and I'll respond to it - so I may not get to them
all at once, but over time...
Sorry, you make a claim, you say that it is supported by the following
cites, by you don't provide the original cites or indicate that you
read the original work (although I was under the impression, based on
earlier threads, that you reasearched them yourself).
Jay, I frankly think this is unfair. I have read books and material on
both sides. To provide you with quotes at the drop of a hat, I relied
on a source. The quotes are not out of context and support my original
claim that evolutionists themselves are not agreed on the mechanisms of
how it happened.
I'm well aware
that creationists quotes are not trustworthy, and most if not all
those
quotes have been debunked. That is why the source is VERY relevent.
OK, here is an example of an assumption. Or at best, it is an
unsupported claim. It is not a scientific argument. For the second
time, I ask you to show where the quotes are unreliable.
Your reasoning is like this: someone who does not hold my position (a
creationist) is not trustworthy; therefore, I reject any information
from someone who holds this position. I wonder why the only evidence
you find supports your position?
I even gave you a link to where one of the quotes was dishonest.
Fair enough. I did not see this. Do you mind repeating it?
I
also rebutted how a number of the quotes talk about the mechanism of
evolution and not evolution in general - a huge difference. If
someone
says that Newton's model of gravity is incorrect does that mean they
are saying gravity does not exist? If I claimed gravity does not
exist
and cited scientists saying Newton was wrong, have I supported my
claim
that gravity doesn't exist? If a quote says that Darwins mechanism
of
evolution is false, is the author saying that evolution doesn't
exist?
That is the problem - I ask these simple question and you don't
answer
them. Please answer them or explicitly concede the point.
The point was that EVOLUTIONISTS concede serious problems. I took
pains to avoid quotes from creationists. If they were saying evolution
is false, they wouldn't be evolutionists, would they?
You claimed that cutting edge evolutionary scientists have serious
doubts about evolution. I doubted your claim. You then provide
quotes
not from the original sources to be sure that they are accurate, but
from a third party that has a vested interest in pursuading you that
evolution is wrong.
That these quotes are accurate is beyond reasonable doubt. These
quotes were presented in a court of law and not challenged as far as I
know. I don't think a Yale lawyer is going to be sloppy. If you
continue to insist they are not accurate, I maintain it is your
responsiblity to support your charge. I have no way to prove to you
otherwise than by providing the references and page numbers as you
requested. It is easy to make claims if you don't support them.
because these are well know distortions and a
10 minute search would reveal that.
Another claim. Cite the evidence, please.
presented them. Is that clear. Or do you concide that the bible
denies the existince of God?
I get the point. It doesn't apply. You can save the time writing an
analogy about quoting out of context and spend it instead on
demonstrating where the quotes are a distortion.
Yes and no. Do you accept that there are such things as scientific
truth? Do you accept that these truths are based on data, scientific
reasoning, and scrutny? I would answer yes to both questions, would
you? You posted what you considered to be valid scientific approach
and I agreed. So I don't think, if you really believe what you said
earlier, that or frame of reference is so different. If you want to
believe that the 'REAL TRUTH' includes God, processes not working
now,
etc, fine. You have agreed that this is outside the scope of
science.
I agree as well. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
This is our common ground. Well, we may be closer than we think.
Where assumptions may come into play-- I am skeptical about
macro-evolution and consider it more phiosphically based than
scientific. You are more skeptical about scientists who are
creationists. That seems to influence your judgment or even
willingness to look at the content of an argument on its own merits.
What I did say that if
you are prepared to question evolution, you better do it from a 1) a
scientific perspective and 2) show that you actually understand what
evolution is so that your arguments can be taken seriously.
BTW, I've not taken a position against evolution, per se; my position
has been that it is dogma. Look at most of the arguments for evolution
on this thread and see how well they meet your two criteria.
I reserve the right to use the same form of argument that you used to
question evolution, but use it to deny that the earth orbits the sun.
This is to illustrate that your argument is not a good argument,
since
the same type of argument is not valid for a geocentric universe.
Don't follow you here. What argument of mine are you referring to?
You are then obliged to either distingush your argument from my
argument, to show why yours is valid and mine is invalid, and here is
the important part, without an appeal to, well we know that the earth
circles the sun and not the other way around.
These are the rules as I have laid them out. Do you have a problem
with any of them? Are they unfair? Do you think if we both abide by
them that a meaningful discussion can occur.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the two paragraphs preceding the last.
The other I'm in complete agreement with.
This is where I lose you. If they cannot be verified (not proved,
but
verified) then it simply is not science. If the model makes no
predictions then - bing - it is out of the picture. Agreed?
Agreed.
I claim that evolution is a model that explains the data and can make
predictions. There are millions of potential models that can be used
to explain the data. If they can't be verified they are not
scientific. If they can be verified and the verification fail, then
they are discarded. Evolution, currently is the only one that I know
of that meets both criteria, 1) that it predictions can be verified
and
2) that the verifications, to date, have validated it. If you have
another model that meets those criteria, please present it. If you
have validations or predictions that disprove evolution, present
them.
But it is your responsibility to first read what the scientific
community says about your objections and be able to defend them.
I have focused on my original assertion that evolution is a dogma and
not brought in another model, which opens up a lot of territory. I
like your summary here, and it's a good framework to proceed - but a
step at a time. Do you think it is possible to be skeptical about
evolution, or concede its unscientific nature, and not be a
creationist, or does that de facto make you a creationist?
F> eel free to point out any
assumptions or data that is inconsistent with evolution. Any. But
you
have to be rigourous if you want to be taken seriously. Fair enough?
OK
So here we are, prisoners of our assumptions. But the greater
prisoner
is the one, who
does not recognize them.
Agreed. Here is my assumption. The scientific method is the best
way
to get an understanding of how the world works. If you think I have
other assumptions that I do not recognize, please feel free to let me
know what they are.
What are your assumptions, Steve?
Too numerous to count. I'm sure most of them are unconscious. So feel
free
to point mine out too.
Have to call it a night.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
11 Feb 2005 09:28:02 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2005 19:09:24 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Jay,
If a quote says that Darwins mechanism
of
evolution is false, is the author saying that evolution doesn't
exist?
That is the problem - I ask these simple question and you don't
answer
them. Please answer them or explicitly concede the point.
The point was that EVOLUTIONISTS concede serious problems. I took
pains to avoid quotes from creationists. If they were saying evolution
is false, they wouldn't be evolutionists, would they?
any theory has serious problems. physicists acknowledge both
relativity and QM are incomplete. few, however, have proposed 'god did
it' as the alternative as creationists do with evolutionary biology.
You claimed that cutting edge evolutionary scientists have serious
doubts about evolution. I doubted your claim. You then provide
quotes
not from the original sources to be sure that they are accurate, but
from a third party that has a vested interest in pursuading you that
evolution is wrong.
That these quotes are accurate is beyond reasonable doubt. These
quotes were presented in a court of law and not challenged as far as I
know. I don't think a Yale lawyer is going to be sloppy.
appeal to authority. of course he's gonna be sloppy if he's pursuing
an illogical agenda. look at phillip johnson...former law professor at
boalt hall and as nuts as an xmas fruitcake about evolution.
\You have agreed that this is outside the scope of
science.
I agree as well. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
This is our common ground. Well, we may be closer than we think.
Where assumptions may come into play-- I am skeptical about
macro-evolution and consider it more phiosphically based than
scientific.
funny that the only folks who say this are creationists who have a
philosophical, not scientific, objection to science
What I did say that if
you are prepared to question evolution, you better do it from a 1) a
scientific perspective and 2) show that you actually understand what
evolution is so that your arguments can be taken seriously.
BTW, I've not taken a position against evolution, per se; my position
has been that it is dogma. Look at most of the arguments for evolution
on this thread and see how well they meet your two criteria.
those of us who are scientists, but are not evolutionary biologists,
disagree. creationists pursue the 'nonscientific' argument against
evolution in the hopes that they can draw a parallel between their own
non-scientific views and the facts of evolution.
I have focused on my original assertion that evolution is a dogma and
not brought in another model, which opens up a lot of territory. I
like your summary here, and it's a good framework to proceed - but a
step at a time. Do you think it is possible to be skeptical about
evolution, or concede its unscientific nature, and not be a
creationist, or does that de facto make you a creationist?
what is the alternative? scientists are not questioning evolution
since it is a fact like heliocentrism. the only ones questioning
science are creationists.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 02:40:50 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 19:09:24 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
I have focused on my original assertion that evolution is a dogma
and
not brought in another model, which opens up a lot of territory. I
like your summary here, and it's a good framework to proceed - but a
step at a time. Do you think it is possible to be skeptical about
evolution, or concede its unscientific nature, and not be a
creationist, or does that de facto make you a creationist?
what is the alternative? scientists are not questioning evolution
since it is a fact like heliocentrism. the only ones questioning
science are creationists.
Bob, Is that your reason for not being skeptical - that the only
alternative is creation? Isn't that a philosophical bias? Can you not
be skeptical about both and humbly say you don't know, life is a
mystery that you don't have answers for at this point?
I have to point out that you are not following the criteria you laid
out of sticking to an issue and only arguing scientifically. You are
giving lots of conclusions... without support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 03:06:36 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2005 12:40:50 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 19:09:24 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
I have focused on my original assertion that evolution is a dogma
and
not brought in another model, which opens up a lot of territory. I
like your summary here, and it's a good framework to proceed - but a
step at a time. Do you think it is possible to be skeptical about
evolution, or concede its unscientific nature, and not be a
creationist, or does that de facto make you a creationist?
what is the alternative? scientists are not questioning evolution
since it is a fact like heliocentrism. the only ones questioning
science are creationists.
Bob, Is that your reason for not being skeptical - that the only
alternative is creation? Isn't that a philosophical bias?
no. there is no point in being skeptical about theories that have so
much evidence they are established virtually as fact. quantum theory
falls in that category, as does heliocentrism and evolution.
Can you not
be skeptical about both and humbly say you don't know, life is a
mystery that you don't have answers for at this point?
we know how species originated...evolution. what i see is creationists
mistaking gullibility for open mindedness. there is a difference.
I have to point out that you are not following the criteria you laid
out of sticking to an issue and only arguing scientifically. You are
giving lots of conclusions... without support.
the conclusion that evolution is a fact is a conclusion without
support? since when? evolution is a fact.
again, what i see is a bunch of american fundamentalist xtians
insisting that their religious beliefs are scientific. it would be
gullible in the extreme to ignore the motivations of these people...to
pretend they don't exist.
what i see is the thomas moore law centre, and jay sekulow, both
advocates of fundamentalist xtianity, defending creationism. they are
not scientific research centers.
again, the conclusion is obvious. there is none so blind as he who
will not see.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
08 Feb 2005 01:55:51 AM |
|
|
Thank you for responding Steve.
Steve wrote:
Jay,
I won't have time to read all of the posts tonight, but I want to at
least attempt a reply to yours. Your post is qute lenghty and I
won't
do it justice.
frogman042@yahoo.com wrote:
There are numerous times where I've explicitly asked you if you
accept
this or that point, or do you concide a specific point. Most ot
the
time, you ignore that question. Do you have any points that you
want
me to concide to that I've ignored? If so please post them. In
short,
I've tried to present my best argument on a variety of specific
topics
and most of the time you choose to ignore them. I can repost them
if
you wish. Please point to any argument that you think I haven't
properly addressed or you think that I need to concide to. Then we
can
move forward.
I apologize. I don't think I've chosen to deliberately ignore them.
Perhaps I can just reply to your thread and we can take one question
at
a time. I honestly can't keep up. I make a post and the next time I
log on there are 20 or 30 new entries. I can't even read them all,
much less reply to them. So it is hit and miss Repeat one question
that I've overlooked, and I'll respond to it - so I may not get to
them
all at once, but over time...
Sorry, you make a claim, you say that it is supported by the
following
cites, by you don't provide the original cites or indicate that you
read the original work (although I was under the impression, based
on
earlier threads, that you reasearched them yourself).
Jay, I frankly think this is unfair. I have read books and material
on
both sides. To provide you with quotes at the drop of a hat, I
relied
on a source. The quotes are not out of context and support my
original
claim that evolutionists themselves are not agreed on the mechanisms
of
how it happened.
Steve,
Youe claimed 'cutting edge' evolutionary scientists doubt evolution and
had the quotes to prove it. You said if I wanted the proof you could
provide the quotes.
I said, OK, give me the quotes, but I cautioned you about two very
critical points. 1 - that you need to make sure the quotes are
accurate and reflect the original authors actual views and 2 - that
quotes the doubt or question a specific mechanism of evolution but not
evolution in general, do not support your claim that evolution as a
theory is being questioned.
You provided quotes which were obvious not from the original source, as
well having a number of quotes about 'Darwinism' but not about the
theory of evolution. For example, natural selection may turn out not
be an important procss in explaining evolution, that doesn't mean that
all life is not related from a single or small group of simple
(compared to modern) cellular life.
You presented the quotes but did not state where you got them from, it
took 2 posts on my part to get you to admit that you didn't read the
original sources from the quotes and that you got them from a
creationist site.
Now you say I'm not being fair by asking for them at the drop of a hat?
Steve, you said you had them, its not my fault that you had to crib
them from a site and didn't vet them. When I challenged you to present
the quotes, you could have then said - I have some from creationist
sources, but I will need some time to make sure they are fair and
accurate, but you didn't. You presented them as authentic with no
qualifications. Only after being challenge to you admit the source.
Do you understand my point?
You say they are accurate and they are not taken out of context, but
you admit to not reading the original source from where the quotes came
from. You accept they are accurate because you source is a lawyer from
Yale, so he couldn't possibly try to mislead the reader. Buzzzzzzz.
Not good. You should have been up-front at the beginning and you
should admit that you don't know first-hand the accuracy of the quotes.
If I can show that some of the quotes are taken out of context, that
the author(s) don't hold the views that are implied by the quotes, will
you admit that you were wrong? Will you also admit that you should not
have blindly trusted your source? Are these unfair questions?
I'm well aware
that creationists quotes are not trustworthy, and most if not all
those
quotes have been debunked. That is why the source is VERY
relevent.
OK, here is an example of an assumption. Or at best, it is an
unsupported claim. It is not a scientific argument. For the second
time, I ask you to show where the quotes are unreliable.
Your reasoning is like this: someone who does not hold my position
(a
creationist) is not trustworthy; therefore, I reject any information
from someone who holds this position. I wonder why the only evidence
you find supports your position?
WRONG!!!! That is not my reasoning and I've said it over and over
again. It is neither an assumption nor an unsupported claim. I gave
you a link to a dialog with one of the quotes author who said that he
was misrepresented. For example, (although you didn't include a quote
from him), I've seen creationists try to use quotes from Stephen J.
Gould, that I knew were taken out of context because I have read more
the half-a-dozen books by Gould and know his positions. So I have
direct evidence that those quotes are dishonest.
I even gave you a link to where one of the quotes was dishonest.
Fair enough. I did not see this. Do you mind repeating it?
Here is the link to the message:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fb8422338fc5a54b
Here is the link to what Dr. Patterson's thinks of how his quotes are
used:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Again, I did not just assume the quotes were taken out of context
because they came from a creationist, but because they really are and I
took the time to check the validity.
Steve, I think you owe me an apology.
I
also rebutted how a number of the quotes talk about the mechanism
of
evolution and not evolution in general - a huge difference. If
someone
says that Newton's model of gravity is incorrect does that mean
they
are saying gravity does not exist? If I claimed gravity does not
exist
and cited scientists saying Newton was wrong, have I supported my
claim
that gravity doesn't exist? If a quote says that Darwins mechanism
of
evolution is false, is the author saying that evolution doesn't
exist?
That is the problem - I ask these simple question and you don't
answer
them. Please answer them or explicitly concede the point.
The point was that EVOLUTIONISTS concede serious problems. I took
pains to avoid quotes from creationists. If they were saying
evolution
is false, they wouldn't be evolutionists, would they?
Yes, that was the point, but you didn't go to the sources, you took the
quotes of the evolutionists FROM A CREATIONIST, without checking to see
if they were acuate. If they are not acurate then they don't support
your point. Is that clear. I've already shown at least one quote is
inaccurate and that other quotes don't refer to evolution in general,
but talk about the specific mechanism.
You claimed that cutting edge evolutionary scientists have serious
doubts about evolution. I doubted your claim. You then provide
quotes
not from the original sources to be sure that they are accurate,
but
from a third party that has a vested interest in pursuading you
that
evolution is wrong.
That these quotes are accurate is beyond reasonable doubt. These
quotes were presented in a court of law and not challenged as far as
I
know.
How do you know they are accurate if you haven't check the original
sources? How do you know they weren't challenged, did you read the
transcripts of the case. Did the 'Yale lawyer' win or lose the case?
Do you know?
I don't think a Yale lawyer is going to be sloppy. If you
continue to insist they are not accurate, I maintain it is your
responsiblity to support your charge.
I've already shown that at least one quote is inaccurate - did you look
at my evidence? If I provide even more evidence will you admit that
your source is either sloppy or has lied to you?
I have no way to prove to you
otherwise than by providing the references and page numbers as you
requested. It is easy to make claims if you don't support them.
Now, answer me honestly Steve, did you go to those original references
and page numbers to confirm them and to make sure that the surrounding
context, keeps the implied meaning intact? If I show you that some
additional quotes are dishonest, will you admit that these came from an
unreliable source?
because these are well know distortions and a
10 minute search would reveal that.
Another claim. Cite the evidence, please.
I went to the talk.origins archive and clicked on the search link, and
searched on 'Colin Patterson'. You're right though, I lied, it was
more like 2 minutes.
presented them. Is that clear. Or do you concide that the bible
denies the existince of God?
I get the point. It doesn't apply. You can save the time writing an
analogy about quoting out of context and spend it instead on
demonstrating where the quotes are a distortion.
I did with one already, and will do with some others as well. So why
doesn't the analogy apply. If an author writes a book arguing A, and
someone pulls out an isolated quote and claims the author believes Not
A, then yes, it as an apt analogy.
So, here is some more questions as to whether or not the scientist
doubt if evolution is valid.
You gave this quote as support for you claim that cutting edge
scientists doubt evolution.
"What conclusions, then, can one come to concerning the validity of
the
various implications of the theory of evolution? If we go back to our
initial assumptions it will be seen that the evidence is still
lacking
for most of them." G. Kerkut, Morphology, Paleontology, and
Evolution, 150.
Does G. Kerkut doubt Evolution and does he doubt that all life is
interconnected?
Follow this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote69
Do you think Kerkut doubts evolution or was the quote used to decieve
the reader?
You also have a quote by a physicst, how does that support your claim
that these quotes would show that cutting edge evolutionary scientists
question evolution. Sorry, but wrong discipline.
Yes and no. Do you accept that there are such things as scientific
truth? Do you accept that these truths are based on data,
scientific
reasoning, and scrutny? I would answer yes to both questions,
would
you? You posted what you considered to be valid scientific
approach
and I agreed. So I don't think, if you really believe what you
said
earlier, that or frame of reference is so different. If you want
to
believe that the 'REAL TRUTH' includes God, processes not working
now,
etc, fine. You have agreed that this is outside the scope of
science.
I agree as well. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
This is our common ground. Well, we may be closer than we think.
Where assumptions may come into play-- I am skeptical about
macro-evolution and consider it more phiosphically based than
scientific. You are more skeptical about scientists who are
creationists. That seems to influence your judgment or even
willingness to look at the content of an argument on its own merits.
What I did say that if
you are prepared to question evolution, you better do it from a 1)
a
scientific perspective and 2) show that you actually understand
what
evolution is so that your arguments can be taken seriously.
BTW, I've not taken a position against evolution, per se; my position
has been that it is dogma. Look at most of the arguments for
evolution
on this thread and see how well they meet your two criteria.
And I asked if you consider the earth is a round or electons exist,
etc. is Dogma? Evolution is not dogma because it is based on evidence.
If you want, I can provide you with links to some of that evidence.
If, after you read it, you have specific problems with the evidience,
then we can discuss it.
I reserve the right to use the same form of argument that you used
to
question evolution, but use it to deny that the earth orbits the
sun.
This is to illustrate that your argument is not a good argument,
since
the same type of argument is not valid for a geocentric universe.
Don't follow you here. What argument of mine are you referring to?
You are then obliged to either distingush your argument from my
argument, to show why yours is valid and mine is invalid, and here
is
the important part, without an appeal to, well we know that the
earth
circles the sun and not the other way around.
These are the rules as I have laid them out. Do you have a problem
with any of them? Are they unfair? Do you think if we both abide
by
them that a meaningful discussion can occur.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the two paragraphs preceding the
last.
So, you have no arguments against evolution. Fine then. The above
applies to any anti-evolution arguments you choose to present.
The other I'm in complete agreement with.
This is where I lose you. If they cannot be verified (not proved,
but
verified) then it simply is not science. If the model makes no
predictions then - bing - it is out of the picture. Agreed?
Agreed.
I claim that evolution is a model that explains the data and can
make
predictions. There are millions of potential models that can be
used
to explain the data. If they can't be verified they are not
scientific. If they can be verified and the verification fail,
then
they are discarded. Evolution, currently is the only one that I
know
of that meets both criteria, 1) that it predictions can be verified
and
2) that the verifications, to date, have validated it. If you
have
another model that meets those criteria, please present it. If you
have validations or predictions that disprove evolution, present
them.
But it is your responsibility to first read what the scientific
community says about your objections and be able to defend them.
I have focused on my original assertion that evolution is a dogma and
not brought in another model, which opens up a lot of territory. I
like your summary here, and it's a good framework to proceed - but a
step at a time. Do you think it is possible to be skeptical about
evolution, or concede its unscientific nature, and not be a
creationist, or does that de facto make you a creationist?
Yes it is possible and people can hold any personal beliefs they want,
but if they publicly want to make these claims, they better be able to
1) back up their claims and 2) show they understand the subject matter
that they are doubting, if they want to be taken seriously.
So, feel free to claim that evolution is dogma and that it is
unscientific in nature, but it is your responsibility to back up those
claims and it is not our responsibility to prove you wrong, just
because you make these claims wihtout substantiating them. My
responsibility is to examine your claims and either concide the point
to you are explain why I disagree, if you can provide the support for
your claims. Is that clear?
F> eel free to point out any
assumptions or data that is inconsistent with evolution. Any. But
you
have to be rigourous if you want to be taken seriously. Fair
enough?
OK
So here we are, prisoners of our assumptions. But the greater
prisoner
is the one, who
does not recognize them.
Agreed. Here is my assumption. The scientific method is the best
way
to get an understanding of how the world works. If you think I
have
other assumptions that I do not recognize, please feel free to let
me
know what they are.
What are your assumptions, Steve?
Too numerous to count. I'm sure most of them are unconscious. So
feel
free
to point mine out too.
Have to call it a night.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
10 Feb 2005 07:23:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Steve,
Youe claimed 'cutting edge' evolutionary scientists doubt evolution
and
had the quotes to prove it. You said if I wanted the proof you could
provide the quotes.
Jay, this isn't quite true. Here is what I said...
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make accurate predictions without serious modifications to the
theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
The problems are well documented, and I don't need to quote
creationists here, but cutting edge evolutionists.
Cutting-edge means people who are in the forefront of the theory as
opposed to most people who are evolutionists without thinking about it.
My claim was that macro-evolution did not meet the criteria of
harmonizing all the data and making accurate predictions without
serious modifications. You challenged me to find quotes to support
that claim. I chose quotes which illuminated the extensive
modifications
that classical Darwinism has undergone and how even these were
insufficient in current macro-evolutionary theory. I did not assert
that
these men were rejecting evolution and even stated that for emphasis.
So I think I am the one who was misquoted here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
11 Feb 2005 02:38:47 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
frogman042@yahoo.com wrote:
Steve,
Youe claimed 'cutting edge' evolutionary scientists doubt evolution
and
had the quotes to prove it. You said if I wanted the proof you
could
provide the quotes.
Jay, this isn't quite true. Here is what I said...
If the initial living cells are incredibly complex, I think it is
"possible" scientifically. But there are serious problems. A
good
theory will harmonize all the data with the fewest exceptions and
make accurate predictions without serious modifications to the
theory.
According to many serious evolutionists, the current theory of
macro-evolution does not meet this criteria.
The problems are well documented, and I don't need to quote
creationists here, but cutting edge evolutionists.
Cutting-edge means people who are in the forefront of the theory as
opposed to most people who are evolutionists without thinking about
it.
It also means people who understand the theory thoroughly, have studied
it's effects and implications rigorously, and made major contributions
to the field. It does not mean people who make unfounded
quasi-philosphical assertions, refuse to back them up with evidence,
deny their real religious and political agenda, and refuse to address
the criticisms of their ideas by people who have a deep knowledge of
the field.
You should read the later editions of Darwin's 'Origins', and note the
way he specifically and systematically addresses the criticisms of his
theory, and his open admission that it is not complete. This is the
mark of a cutting-edge thinker at the forefront of his field.
My claim was that macro-evolution did not meet the criteria of
harmonizing all the data and making accurate predictions without
serious modifications.
Bearing in mind that 'macro-evolution' as used by evolutionary
biologists is a descriptive term, not a theory, it makes no predictions
about anything. It is a label attached to cladogenesis events which
have been observed on numerous occasions. It cannot 'harmonise the
data' any more than calling something a 'tree' tells us anything about
its biology.
You challenged me to find quotes to support
that claim. I chose quotes which illuminated the extensive
modifications
that classical Darwinism has undergone and how even these were
insufficient in current macro-evolutionary theory. I did not assert
that
these men were rejecting evolution and even stated that for emphasis.
So I think I am the one who was misquoted here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 02:17:34 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
Bearing in mind that 'macro-evolution' as used by evolutionary
biologists is a descriptive term, not a theory, it makes no
predictions
about anything. It is a label attached to cladogenesis events which
have been observed on numerous occasions. It cannot 'harmonise the
data' any more than calling something a 'tree' tells us anything
about
its biology.
I'm not sure I get your distinction. The theory of evolution includes
the processes of macro-evolution, does it not? If you exclude
macro-evolution, then I would think you eliminate all controversy,
since I don't know of any scientists who would contest speciation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
15 Feb 2005 09:21:10 AM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Bearing in mind that 'macro-evolution' as used by evolutionary
biologists is a descriptive term, not a theory, it makes no
predictions
about anything. It is a label attached to cladogenesis events which
have been observed on numerous occasions. It cannot 'harmonise the
data' any more than calling something a 'tree' tells us anything
about
its biology.
I'm not sure I get your distinction. The theory of evolution
includes
the processes of macro-evolution, does it not? If you exclude
macro-evolution, then I would think you eliminate all controversy,
since I don't know of any scientists who would contest speciation.
The processes involved in macro-evolution are no different from the
processess involved in micro-evolution. The terms are rarely used by
evolutionary biologists because they are not very useful. There is no
barrier or sudden change in process that distinguishes one from the
other. There | | | | | | | | | | | |
