Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 261

Thread: ID and Evolution

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    (BTW, the construction of that second paragraph looks very ungrammatical to me. Gillian? Can you have "an objective of to help?" And then list three of them?)
    No and no.

    You can have "Our objective is to help." You can have "We have an objective to help." You can have "Our objective is helping." You can have "We have an objective of helping."But "We have an objective of to help" is just wrong.

    And, yes, if you have more than one, you should pluralize.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    Halfway down the page is a link to the actual text of the standards. It's in pdf.
    http://www3.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc892005.pdf

    The standards call for just what you describe: solid education, particularly in scientific methodology. Nowhere do they call for the teaching of Creation Science or Intelligent Design.
    Not in so many words (in keeping with the "wedge" approach, do you deny it?), but I will add to what Jim quoted in the standards. Most of the standards are just an honest reflection of the current ways science understands things, yet all of a sudden when you get to evolution, the science curriculum is strangely turned into a study in completely obscure controversies in science that you will not even find in most scientific publications or even discussed in mainstream scientific circles. Nevertheless, these "controversies" are specifically outlined in considerable detail as if they were widely agreed upon as the current issues of interest in biology, when in fact only the minutest fraction of acting scientists would agree on those so-called controversies (again, do you deny this?). For example, page 74 of the proposed standards actually goes so far as to list three so-called scientifically accepted reasons why the evolutionary picture of a "branching tree" has been challenged in recent years! What respected journals do you really think are carrying the articles describing those three objections?

    Come on Professor, do you actually believe that this is on the level? Do you really think that the mainstream scientific community, from whence K-12 science education emanates (does it not?), has a serious concern over the validity of the "branching tree" model of descent with modification? That would require a complete disconnect from modern science, and certainly has no place in a classroom with students who are earnestly trying to become effective scientists.

    So yes, science methodology is the crucial issue in this entire debate, and the dishonest characterization of the outcome of sincerely applied scientific methodology. Dishonest, yes, I think that word is quite clearly appropriate here, if it is dishonest to substitute one's own narrow interpretation of scientific debate in place of the actual debates you will find in the great majority of scientific literature and at scientific meetings. If ID people wish to shift the debate, let them follow scientific methodology like everyone else, not just pay lip service to it while plotting an "end run" right into impressionable young minds without even vetting their ideas through the standard channels of good science.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    191
    Edwards v. Aguillard
    U.S. Supreme Court Decision

    This 7-2 decision ended any prospect of public schools in the United States being legally forced to teach explicate creationism. One consequence of this case was that some antievolutionists choose to use the term "intelligent design" instead of "creationism."]

    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
    Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case
    US District Court

    Dover, Pennsylvania case which a judge ruled that intelligent design is creationism, is not This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science.

    He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations.

    (Transcripts of the hearings and other court cases can be found at)

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...tes.html#court

    These are Federal Court decisions that trump any State Court or state constitution.

    So when the Kansas Science Education Standards were adopted they had to make their regulations in line with the highest ruling authority, that being the federal courts. IF they fail to do that then they open themselfs up for law suit.

    Seeing ID was ruled to be creationism, that was ruled a religion, clearly they could NOT include ID or creationism as part of the Science Education Standards.

    It makes NO mater, what so ever, if top scientists debate the finer points of evolution, nor if the dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded, none of what would disqualify evolution being a scientific fact i.e. a scientific theory.

    Science is a “on going” process of discovery and the teachings of science in public schools can reflect that “on going” process. Not any problem. NOR does science claim to have all the answers, which is not a problem either. However, ID is a religious doctrine belief and that is rejected in full from being taught in public schools.

    It was also ruled that if a person or family wants to endorse or learn about ID or creationism there is a church on every corner for them to do so. It is not like the courts are stifling the free flow ideas, only utilizing the tax dollars and school time properly in line with the USA Constitution, and ensuring that students receive a “valid” science education.

    I find it very interesting that in Kitzmiller v. Dover the judge ruled the Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. You can read into this all you care to. I would venture say, not much has changed in the ID camp to the general public.


    Don

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    191
    To those that are interested, here is exact wording from the courts conclusion. You will see that the conclusion slapped the ID camp very hard with stern language of degradation and silliness.

    To quote:

    “…we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”


    “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.”

    “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

    The real purpose of ID, that every one should be aware of, if you are going to argue the subject, as ruled on by this court, is to promote a god, in particular the chiristain god, and has nothing to do with valid science.

    Don



    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
    Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case
    US District Court

    H. Conclusion

    The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

    Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

    To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

    With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

    Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

    To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.


    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

    1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

    3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules


    s/John E. Jones III
    John E. Jones III
    United States District Judge18

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    191
    To those that are interested, here is exact wording from the courts conclusion. You will see that the conclusion slapped the ID camp very hard with stern language of degradation and silliness.

    To quote:

    “…we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”


    “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.”

    “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

    The real purpose of ID, that every one should be aware of, if you are going to argue the subject, as ruled on by this court, is to promote a god, in particular the chiristain god, and has nothing to do with valid science.

    Don



    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
    Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case
    US District Court

    H. Conclusion

    The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

    Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

    To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

    With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

    Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

    To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.


    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

    1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants' ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

    3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules


    s/John E. Jones III
    John E. Jones III
    United States District Judge18

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    {snip}
    These words allow - actually, require the teaching of ID if it can be presented as a vaild and competing scientific theory to evolution. It is these words that sparked the comments in the press that the Kansas State School Board was opening the schoolhouse doors to creationism masquerading as ID.

    Perhaps the press wasn't being untruthful, but you were misunderstanding their meaning?

    (BTW, the construction of that second paragraph looks very ungrammatical to me. Gillian? Can you have "an objective of to help?" And then list three of them?)
    The if seems to have you pretty worried. I thought it was supposed to be impossible to introduce any scientific evidence which would call evolution into question. And even if there was such evidence, how much could it cost to buy a judge and have it "ruled" invalid?

    But am I to suppose you're saying if such evidence did exist, it should be absolutely banned?

    And no, the press didn't tell the truth at all. Do a search and see for yourself. At least you took the time to look at the standards. I respect that. I'm not impressed if you equate this clause to "requiring the teaching of religion".

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    Glad it ain't my job

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Not in so many words (in keeping with the "wedge" approach, do you deny it?), but I will add to what Jim quoted in the standards. Most of the standards are just an honest reflection of the current ways science understands things, yet all of a sudden when you get to evolution, the science curriculum is strangely turned into a study in completely obscure controversies in science that you will not even find in most scientific publications or even discussed in mainstream scientific circles. Nevertheless, these "controversies" are specifically outlined in considerable detail as if they were widely agreed upon as the current issues of interest in biology, when in fact only the minutest fraction of acting scientists would agree on those so-called controversies (again, do you deny this?). For example, page 74 of the proposed standards actually goes so far as to list three so-called scientifically accepted reasons why the evolutionary picture of a "branching tree" has been challenged in recent years! What respected journals do you really think are carrying the articles describing those three objections?

    Come on Professor, do you actually believe that this is on the level? Do you really think that the mainstream scientific community, from whence K-12 science education emanates (does it not?), has a serious concern over the validity of the "branching tree" model of descent with modification? That would require a complete disconnect from modern science, and certainly has no place in a classroom with students who are earnestly trying to become effective scientists.

    So yes, science methodology is the crucial issue in this entire debate, and the dishonest characterization of the outcome of sincerely applied scientific methodology. Dishonest, yes, I think that word is quite clearly appropriate here, if it is dishonest to substitute one's own narrow interpretation of scientific debate in place of the actual debates you will find in the great majority of scientific literature and at scientific meetings. If ID people wish to shift the debate, let them follow scientific methodology like everyone else, not just pay lip service to it while plotting an "end run" right into impressionable young minds without even vetting their ideas through the standard channels of good science.
    Maybe you're not looking at this from the right perspective. How would you like to try to write guidelines for teaching about that silly tree? I'm not aware of anybody drawing new trees. Without examples of all the textbooks used in the state, how do you know which trees are being shown to the children.

    There's no consensus on what these trees should look like, but to take such a powerful brainwashing tool out of the classroom would surely make you guys cry fowl! So they write their guidelines to try to accomodate old and new trees.

    I was a little surprised myself at that one because some of the biology's pretty up-to-date, but that bit on recap "theory" is way old news. Then I remembered that many school don't have the newest books, and it made some sense.

    Would you have them just show a picture of the tree and not say a word about it? Won't work.

    I don't think the tree is the subject of much present day discussion by science. You seem to say that only what's being researched today should be a concern. Think about it. You can't just jump in and learn about black holes without going through Newton & Einstein. The tree's old news. The tree itself is pretty anachronistic. But it's there. I don't see a problem with this.

    To tell the truth, there are a lot more things on that list that I'm uneasy with than there are things that should reasonably make an evolutionist uneasy (if any).

    I don't really like them wasting so much time on a stupid propaganda tree, but I understand why they do. Somebody'd have a fit if they didn't.

    I understand your desire to find something to gripe about. I said your side told a pack of lies about this thing, and you'd like to think they didn't. I wish they hadn't myself. That kind of thing doesn't spread much good will.

    Thanks for taking the time (if you read as slowly as I do... whew!) to look at it.

    While I don't see much peace in store in a "big picture" sense, there can be quiet locally. You guys don't seem to be covering much up at all, and I'm very pleasantly surprised.


    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....011#post904011
    is a fine example of the openness here. I would have expected a cover-up about the moon-to-earth distance increasing, due to what it implies about the past.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    I thought it was supposed to be impossible to introduce any scientific evidence which would call evolution into question.
    You are exposing a profound misunderstanding of science here. Can you cite even a shred of evidence from the history of scientific methodology that it is "supposed to be impossible" to introduce contradictory evidence? The possibility of this is practically the cornerstone of science, in stark contrast to literal interpretations of religious texts. The issue here is certainly not whether it is possible, but rather whether it is currently in evidence. Tell me, do we teach to our K-12 all that is possible, or all that is currently in evidence in legitimate mainstream science? This is what I would like to know from you, in regard to scientific methodology.
    And even if there was such evidence, how much could it cost to buy a judge and have it "ruled" invalid?
    "The judge was bought" is about the lamest piece of logical argumentation that I can possibly imagine, and merely serves to starkly underscore the contrast in scientifically supportable thinking that is often found in the ID camp.
    But am I to suppose you're saying if such evidence did exist, it should be absolutely banned?
    I am certain you have taken the opposite meaning as intended there, for we can all agree that would not be the scientific approach, but it has many times in history been the approach of literal interpretation of revealed authority.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    I'm so imperfect

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Not in so many words (in keeping with the "wedge" approach, do you deny it?), but I will add to what Jim quoted in the standards.
    {snip}
    Forgot this part.

    I've got a little inside information, and yes it's all about the thinnest edge of... not a "wedge" so much. More like a tiny razor.

    Met a guy who knew a guy who was a consultant & helped out with the standards. The very "thin edge" they were after was to teach kids proper scientific methods, how to distinguish between theories, observations, interpretations, & conclusions.

    That's all a kid needs to know to spot a snow job, & recognize real science. Quite a bit like what you advocate, if I'm not mistaken.

    The idea is: when someone can see how utterly bankrupt evolution is, they'll probably get curious at some point in their life & look for the truth.

    In the meantime, parents can teach their children as they see fit without direct interference from the schools.

    Now this guy didn't write the whole thing, and politicians were involved; but that's what I know of the subversive conspiracy.

    Myself, I don't even like Kansas. A few individuals here & there are really good people, but on the whole I don't care for it.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    That's all a kid needs to know to spot a snow job, & recognize real science. Quite a bit like what you advocate, if I'm not mistaken.
    Quite so, which is why I would have had no problem with standards that include examples of good and bad science from history. And in such a standard, where do you think both creationism and ID would fall? I think the debate on this forum, as in the courtrooms, makes that abundantly clear, and it would be something of an embarrassment to ID to include that in advanced K-12 curricula. Indeed, that is just what the rest of the world is thinking.
    The idea is: when someone can see how utterly bankrupt evolution is, they'll probably get curious at some point in their life & look for the truth.
    Your posts read like a litany of logical fallacies, and here's one more. You are arguing by fiat, but there is as little supporting evidence presented here as in other ID literature.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    more already? cool!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    You are exposing a profound misunderstanding of science here. Can you cite even a shred of evidence from the history of scientific methodology that it is "supposed to be impossible" to introduce contradictory evidence? The possibility of this is practically the cornerstone of science, in stark contrast to literal interpretations of religious texts. The issue here is certainly not whether it is possible, but rather whether it is currently in evidence. Tell me, do we teach to our K-12 all that is possible, or all that is currently in evidence in legitimate mainstream science? This is what I would like to know from you, in regard to scientific methodology."The judge was bought" is about the lamest piece of logical argumentation that I can possibly imagine, and merely serves to starkly underscore the contrast in scientifically supportable thinking that is often found in the ID camp.
    I am certain you have taken the opposite meaning as intended there, for we can all agree that would not be the scientific approach, but it has many times in history been the approach of literal interpretation of revealed authority.
    First off, I ain't the one who claimed evolution was an "established scientific fact". Not that you did, but it's here more'n once. I should expect it to be pretty near impossible to find evidence against an established fact of any type. Deny that the media continually uses that very phrase any time they talk about the controversy. Hyperbole or lie, tough call...

    Fact is, it's very difficult to even state evolution as a proper scientific hypothesis, subject to disproof. It can be done, but nobody bothers. It is universally taught as history. They teach it in science class, but scientific methods are not applied - usually cannot be applied if the material is to be taught. There's nothing scientific about the statement "the dinosaurs died off 40 million years ago". Nor is "humans evolved from ape-like creatures that somehow technically weren't apes" a scientific statement.

    Good science is falsifiable, with very few exceptions. I myself wish they'd be strict about what is theory & law, and keep in place the whole hierarchy that worked for hundreds of years. Instead we get "Hubble's Law" fresh off the press. "Darwin's Theory" the day it was published. Nonsense. We all know nothing unchallenged is properly called a theory. And an idea has to withstand a whole lot of challenges to move up. By now we should have Pythagoras' Uber-Duper Supreme Undisputable Law, but that's just a theorum 'cause he can afford the PR men to hype it.

    Crooked judges aren't scientifically unsupportable at all, and I have no idea about the opinions of anyone in the CS/ID organizations on the subject. That's just what I know about the system: they're crooks. The older I get, the more evidence piles up. I've seen more than enough with my own eyes. We really don't need to go into that.

    Funny coincidence: in this discussion here, it actually is impossible to introduce contradictory evidence:
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....212#post924212

    You all can't have your cake and eat it too. Either evolution is established fact, or it's still subject to question. Ken G, I think I know about where you stand, but I think you're a minority. They hype has done already got to the majority.

    I'm a little curious how you would recommend evolution be taught. Almost all of what Darwin proposed has turned out wrong. Same for those who followed close behind. Should that be covered, or just skipped over? There have been several versions of evolution over the ages, most of which are rejected by todays "elite' (for lack of a better term) evolutionists. In fact, there is no consensus at present, so how can the lessons be wrapped up?

    And what about evolution prior to Darwin? If kids find out how much of it there was, it may be harder to get them to worship him. Particularly if you also teach how wrong he actually was (according to present-day evolution, not according to me). That's more to the camp than you, KG. You don't seem to be so lame.

    Evolution's a lot like religion: everyone's got his own brand. If it weren't for the ID/CS opposition, they'd be turning on each other left & right. Gradualist vs. Catastrophist, Neo-Darwinists vs. the Punctuated Equalibrium crowd. All squabbling & trying their best to draw from the vast we-don't-care-as-long-as-God-is-wrong majority.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    Slow down

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Quite so, which is why I would have had no problem with standards that include examples of good and bad science from history. And in such a standard, where do you think both creationism and ID would fall?
    I think you'd be really surprised. There's some very high quality CS science going on right now. And the people working on textbooks (for homeschooling) really do know what's what.

    Kids who aren't subjected to public education, and get to learn both CS/ID and evolution score so much higher on evolution tests it's not even funny.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Your posts read like a litany of logical fallacies, and here's one more. You are arguing by fiat, but there is as little supporting evidence presented here as in other ID literature.
    I wasn't aware I was arguing. In the statement you seem to be referring to, I was telling you the strategy of others, although I agree with it. If I were to argue the point I'd probably use a different approach, and do it elsewhere.

    But you don't accuse the "evolution is fact" folks of logical fallacy, so maybe you're just a tad biased, hmmmm? That's fine.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    There's some very high quality CS science going on right now.
    I don't know how else to say this...but you couldn't be more wrong.

    ...and if you are that confused as to what science actually is, then there probably isn't any sense in trying to reason with you...

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    First off, I ain't the one who claimed evolution was an "established scientific fact". Not that you did, but it's here more'n once.
    I agree with you here, in the sense that what is a "fact" in science is always a bit hard to define. I'm sure that many things in science would have been viewed as fact in their day, such as Newton's law of gravity, but have since been supplanted by new discoveries. I personally have no problem with simply saying that evolution is currently the way we understand, by honest application of the scientific method, how humanity got here, nor would I have a problem with that statement being made in a K-12 school, the others may speak for themselves.
    I should expect it to be pretty near impossible to find evidence against an established fact of any type.
    On the contrary, history has shown time and again that this is rather easy to do. All it took Galileo, for example, was a telescope to turn the scientific "facts" of his day on its ear. But note the difference between that and ID-- the results of the telescope rapidly rose to the level of strong scientific evidence, and that's precisely what ID lacks. Indeed, as I've pointed out in the past, anything that would look like scientific evidence in favor of ID would not please the religious camp at all, as it would merely serve to trivialize the "deity" into a power in a highly technologically advanced state. I sorely doubt that the future of religion lies in the discovery of evidence for actions by highly advanced technology.
    Deny that the media continually uses that very phrase any time they talk about the controversy. Hyperbole or lie, tough call...
    The only tough call there is the appropriate definition of the phrase scientific fact. I point out that there is no such thing as a perfectly certain fact, unless you'd care to name even one. So what we are really discussing here is level of uncertainty, and how sure one needs to be that science has reached it's "final" position on a subject. Personally, I don't think that ever happens, so "fact" is a problematic word when applied to theories. But so is "just a theory", which is easily confused with "just a guess", and the usefulness of science is not based in guesswork or we'd never drive a car over a bridge.
    Fact is, it's very difficult to even state evolution as a proper scientific hypothesis, subject to disproof. It can be done, but nobody bothers.
    You are now opening up an entirely different area, that has nothing at all to do with ID. It's an aside in this discussion, we are talking about whether or not ID should be included in K-12 as a legitimate alternative scientific theory. If you have other ideas about how evolution itself should be taught, I'd be happy to hear it but that sounds like another thread. Personally, I am not an evolutionary biologist, so do not have a nuanced opinion on how evolution should be phrased, but I agree with you that it is worthy of careful consideration in view of the context.

    There's nothing scientific about the statement "the dinosaurs died off 40 million years ago". Nor is "humans evolved from ape-like creatures that somehow technically weren't apes" a scientific statement.
    I haven't the vaguest idea why you think those clearly scientifically testable statements are nonscientific. All that is nonscientific about them is to claim that we have complete certainty, rather than just the vast degree of confidence that a preponderence of evidence can provide.

    We all know nothing unchallenged is properly called a theory.
    I agree, but you are mistaken if you think evolution is unchallenged. Anyone who could come up with significant evidence in favor of an alternative scientific hypothesis would be immediately propelled to the same fame as Darwin himself, yet somehow people in your position seem to think that scientists "want" evolution to be right. In truth, scientists are very skeptical of everything, and have tried many times to come up with viable alternatives that have been simply blown away by the vastly compiling evidence. Remember, Darwin came up with his theory before he even knew about genetics! That amazing fact in itself completely blows away any analogous "success" of ID.

    Crooked judges aren't scientifically unsupportable at all
    Again, that is not the issue-- the issue is did you support it. Checked back over your posts-- nope.
    Either evolution is established fact, or it's still subject to question. Ken G, I think I know about where you stand, but I think you're a minority.
    All of science is open to question, or it isn't science. The real questions are, when is K-12 the appropriate place for that, what is the real motivation behind doing that, and just how dumb do they think those "crooked" judges are?

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    Ok

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I don't know how else to say this...but you couldn't be more wrong.

    ...and if you are that confused as to what science actually is, then there probably isn't any sense in trying to reason with you...
    Fine then - Don't.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    {snippity}
    All it took Galileo, for example, was a telescope to turn the scientific "facts" of his day on its ear. But note the difference between that and ID-- the results of the telescope rapidly rose to the level of strong scientific evidence, and that's precisely what ID lacks. Indeed, as I've pointed out in the past, anything that would look like scientific evidence in favor of ID would not please the religious camp at all, as it would merely serve to trivialize the "deity" into a power in a highly technologically advanced state. I sorely doubt that the future of religion lies in the discovery of evidence for actions by highly advanced technology.
    Depends on how ID is defined. A good part of ID and CS is culled from mainstream's reject pile. Not things that were rejected due to any flawed science - just hard or next-to-impossible to reconcile with dogma. The departure rate of the moon's a good example. Things like that have got teachers fired, and I bet at least one someone here's gonna be delighted with the very thought.

    See, according to your oh-so-honest judges, that's "teaching religion". At least if they even suggest looking back in time to see how long ago the moon would have been touching the earth.

    I myself didn't bring it up in that thread lest I be banned. Still don't know just how this place operates. Someone said there was a 15-year old over there, and it wouldn't surprise me to get accused of "child endangerment".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The only tough call there is the appropriate definition of the phrase scientific fact. I point out that there is no such thing as a perfectly certain fact, unless you'd care to name even one. So what we are really discussing here is level of uncertainty, and how sure one needs to be that science has reached it's "final" position on a subject. Personally, I don't think that ever happens, so "fact" is a problematic word when applied to theories. But so is "just a theory", which is easily confused with "just a guess", and the usefulness of science is not based in guesswork or we'd never drive a car over a bridge.
    Have you forgotten who you're dealing with? I can easily give you a perfectly certain fact: Someone will do something stupid today.

    I get your point, but man oh man; when I'm in Illwill mode you gotta watch them hangin' curveballs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    You are now opening up an entirely different area, that has nothing at all to do with ID. It's an aside in this discussion, we are talking about whether or not ID should be included in K-12 as a legitimate alternative scientific theory. If you have other ideas about how evolution itself should be taught, I'd be happy to hear it but that sounds like another thread. Personally, I am not an evolutionary biologist, so do not have a nuanced opinion on how evolution should be phrased, but I agree with you that it is worthy of careful consideration in view of the context.
    Again, this depends on how one defines ID. Forcing the kids to sit through hour long sermons by fundamentalist preachers, that what you got in mind? Radiohalos are just the "thin end of the wedge", right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I haven't the vaguest idea why you think those clearly scientifically testable statements are nonscientific. All that is nonscientific about them is to claim that we have complete certainty, rather than just the vast degree of confidence that a preponderence of evidence can provide.
    Those are historic statements. Science and history use different methods and assign different values to different types of evidence. An historical theory is different than a scientific theory. This is a weakness your side really, really needs to work on. They try to teach history as science, and turn right around and claim the Bible is unscientific when it is clearly an history book.

    I wonder if our side could turn that confusion to our advantage somehow. Most people probable don't know that there is a difference between science & history. Nah! It'd be dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I agree, but you are mistaken if you think evolution is unchallenged. Anyone who could come up with significant evidence in favor of an alternative scientific hypothesis would be immediately propelled to the same fame as Darwin himself, yet somehow people in your position seem to think that scientists "want" evolution to be right. In truth, scientists are very skeptical of everything, and have tried many times to come up with viable alternatives that have been simply blown away by the vastly compiling evidence. Remember, Darwin came up with his theory before he even knew about genetics! That amazing fact in itself completely blows away any analogous "success" of ID.
    I don't think evolution is unchallenged for one minute. That's for judges, politicians, and dupes to think, and that's what the media says our school kids had better think or we'll be back in the dark ages.

    You must be young to have such an optimistic view of how meritorious modern society is. If you think great ideas lead to acclaim, fame, and fortune... look at the history of the Wright Brothers. They had a monumental battle against the establishment, and if there weren't two of them we'd still be on the ground. That was a long time ago, and things haven't improved. Don't get too disillusioned - you'll end up like me. But success ain't automatic, even with hard work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Again, that is not the issue-- the issue is did you support it. Checked back over your posts-- nope.
    All of science is open to question, or it isn't science. The real questions are, when is K-12 the appropriate place for that, what is the real motivation behind doing that, and just how dumb do they think those "crooked" judges are?
    Do you really want me to convince you how crooked judges are? Send me some money and I'll think about it. I'm already to cynical for my own good, and I don't need to even think about those people for one more minute as long as I live. Anyone who would knowingly sentence an innocent man to 20 years... what does one make of that? No, I'll quit the thread before I'll think about those low-lifes.

    Tell you what - find your local lawyer bar. Every town's got one 'cause lawyers love booze & like to hang together (and need a place to rub elbows with bigshots & judges, and "conduct business") Go hang out there a little. Chit chat with 'em. They'll drink a little and tell you all kinds of things. Observe the judge's table. Pay attention to briefcases and bags and who leaves with which one.

    Don't be too obvious. They're pretty bold, but like any other crook they can get suspicious fairly easily. All that braggin' bout how lawyers (cowards) like to sick cops on people & get silly court orders that you seen in this thread - well they'll do it. Never fight their own fights, and mighty proud of it for some reason. And just 'cause you ain't done nothin' wrong, do not ever ever ever think that would work in your favour in a courtroom.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    Depends on how ID is defined.
    Perhaps it is time for you to define ID and CS.

    Be specific, so we can avoid misunderstandings.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,312

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    I myself didn't bring it up in that thread lest I be banned. Still don't know just how this place operates. Someone said there was a 15-year old over there, and it wouldn't surprise me to get accused of "child endangerment".
    Read this before assuming.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    See, according to your oh-so-honest judges, that's "teaching religion". At least if they even suggest looking back in time to see how long ago the moon would have been touching the earth.
    Well, let's start with this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html You seem to think that either scientists haven't thought of this or that they're actively pretending it isn't there. Which is it?

    Again, this depends on how one defines ID. Forcing the kids to sit through hour long sermons by fundamentalist preachers, that what you got in mind? Radiohalos are just the "thin end of the wedge", right?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html Same question as above.

    Those are historic statements. Science and history use different methods and assign different values to different types of evidence. An historical theory is different than a scientific theory. This is a weakness your side really, really needs to work on. They try to teach history as science, and turn right around and claim the Bible is unscientific when it is clearly an history book.
    Actually, in order to be "clearly history," there must be evidence that what happened in the work happened in actuality, and there isn't for most of the Bible. But let that pass; I've got a more relevant point. You say that study of what happened in the past isn't scientific. This, for one, means that all of astronomy, pretty much, isn't scientific; likewise geology. But more importantly, it assumes that evolution isn't still happening, which is flat wrong.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html We watch evolution happen. That much is fact. The finer details are still being analyzed. It's an important difference. As more fossil species are found, we learn more about our ancestry. You claim evolution is bankrupt, but the evidence for it increases all the time.

    You must be young to have such an optimistic view of how meritorious modern society is. If you think great ideas lead to acclaim, fame, and fortune... look at the history of the Wright Brothers. They had a monumental battle against the establishment, and if there weren't two of them we'd still be on the ground. That was a long time ago, and things haven't improved. Don't get too disillusioned - you'll end up like me. But success ain't automatic, even with hard work.
    What on Earth are you talking about? I'm really not clear. What fight against the establishment did they have? Are you referring to the fact that they had to fund their initial experiments themselves? If you are, that had nothing to do with any idea that "the establishment" was trying to keep them down. It had to do with practical things like the fact that, in 1903, no one really got scientific funding from the US government, and certainly not random Midwestern bicycle repairmen.

    Do you really want me to convince you how crooked judges are? Send me some money and I'll think about it. I'm already to cynical for my own good, and I don't need to even think about those people for one more minute as long as I live. Anyone who would knowingly sentence an innocent man to 20 years... what does one make of that? No, I'll quit the thread before I'll think about those low-lifes.
    Actually, what we'd like is some evidence that this particular judge was crooked. Or, if this is the point you seem to be making, that all judges are crooked, which is certainly a bold statement that I really, really doubt can be backed up. I'm also curious as to this "knowingly sentecing an innocent man to 20 years." Is that the judge from an ID case, or is it an attempt to poison the profession?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    191
    The big problem that you have Illwill, regardless of your argument for ID, is that if you take your god out of your conclusions, your entire card house falls down.

    The god factor is your foundation, without that you don’t have a thing much less creation science, that is an oxymoron.

    Therefore, you have to show the god, and you can’t get out of it. Not what a god did, by claim making, but the god itself. Clearly, you have a religious doctrine argument. I can claim, “Green men in the moon created everything.” with the same evidence that you claim your favorite deity. When asked, what is the definition of a tree, by the ID standard, this would be a valid answer, “an item that god created.”


    How is a science teacher supposed to grade that answer on a test? If this question is graded wrong, the teacher is of the devil and antichrist, if it is graded right, the human race is thrown back into Dark Age mentality, who in hell needs a definition of a tree, better to know that god knows, right, and let the school board call this “science”.


    If you have read evolution, and studied it, you would know that evolution (the bioscience) does not make any claim for or against any deity, where any gaps in knowledge are NOT are explained by “spoofing stuff by magic” into existence as what ID is dependant. Therefore, you are free to have any god you want, but in school, you had better answer the science questions right, and give the proper definition of a tree that can at least shows exclusivity, so students do not confuse a tree with a scrub.

    Once you drink the Kool-Aid of ID, you do not have a away to define anything in our natural world. Once you open the door to ID magic, a tree is not a tree, it is really a cow that is designed (by god) to look like a tree, unless you are going to tell an all powerful god what he can and cannot do.


    Now if ID should be taught in public schools (K-12) that is very much a dead issue, NO, but granted, enforcement is an “on going” daily endeavor. However, here in the USA every common person has open access to the courts, go for it. In your court brief, make the argument that John E. Jones III United States District Judge, was on the take and being bought off by an underground consortium of scientist that worship Darwin. Just because you claim something, does not make it a fact. I suppose that is what really ****es off the ID camp. The lines between fact and fantasy are so blurred in the ID camp, they think any thing they claim is a fact.


    Clearly, the ID argument is based on a god. As John E. Jones III United States District Judge ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover:

    “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

    “…we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    Your main intent IllWill is to validate that ID is a science, but the strong arm of the courts disagree. Your argument is clearly based on a magical god, that can make the earth to look billions of years old, but it is really two seconds old, because using the magic god factor, you have no way of knowing anything, and you want to call that science. What you have is religious argument of doctrine.


    Believe as you would, study as you would, but by force if necessary, we are keeping religions out of our public schools and state laws mandate a valid education in science.


    Don

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    The if seems to have you pretty worried. I thought it was supposed to be impossible to introduce any scientific evidence which would call evolution into question.

    You really need to read what's written and not what you want to be there.

    The "if" doesn't have me worried at all; what does worry me is that someone put it there as a "wedge" to allow the introduction of ID and Creationism to the science classroom. Deceit among people who are chartered with educating our children always worries me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    ... And even if there was such evidence, how much could it cost to buy a judge and have it "ruled" invalid?
    What are you implying? Do you think that "someone" bought off the judges in the Edwards v. Aguillard or Kitzmiller v. Dover cases mentioned above? Or in any case that ruled Creationism and ID to be unacceptable topics for a science class?

    If you do, present your evidence. If you don't, why bring it up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    But am I to suppose you're saying if such evidence did exist, it should be absolutely banned?
    Of course not! Please stop trying to give a meaning to my words that is obviously not there.

    If... IF you or anyone can show that ID is science, then it should be presented in science class. If... IF you or anyone can show evolution is not science, then it should not be taught in science class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    And no, the press didn't tell the truth at all. Do a search and see for yourself. At least you took the time to look at the standards. I respect that. I'm not impressed if you equate this clause to "requiring the teaching of religion".
    Based on your reply to me, I am even more convinced that you have misread the reporters' stories and given them the meaning you want them to have. Nowhere did I say it "requir(es) the teaching of religion." I said - quite plainly I thought - that it opened the door to teaching ID, and with it Creationism.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    No and no.

    ... "We have an objective of to help" is just wrong.

    And, yes, if you have more than one, you should pluralize.
    Sigh. And these are the folks in charge of educating our children.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    I think you'd be really surprised. There's some very high quality CS science going on right now.
    This would be an excellent place for a reference to support your point. What I've seen is foolish propositions like "irreducible complexity", which is a wish not a theory and is refuted in many biological systems whose components are traceable to other functions along the way.
    Kids who aren't subjected to public education, and get to learn both CS/ID and evolution score so much higher on evolution tests it's not even funny.
    Again, these are empty claims. Where is your data, where are your controls? Are you comparing students who score similarly on other tests like mathematics and English? Not everyone is in an economic position to use home schooling, in case you hadn't noticed. But if you're right, then the good news is that many of these children may simply tell their parents they are all wet and reject creationist science compared to real scientific methodology.


    I wasn't aware I was arguing.
    Now you are being positively disingenuous. My comment came after you stated clearly that evolution is "utterly bankrupt". I would say that is being argumentative, and without substantiation, not to mention melodramatic and scientifically dishonest. Descent with modification has been observed to occur, I'm sure you are aware of this, even if you pretend not to be in your more hyperbolic moments.
    But you don't accuse the "evolution is fact" folks of logical fallacy, so maybe you're just a tad biased, hmmmm?
    I can't judge the fallacy there until I see the definition they are using of "fact". That word is quite a tricky one.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,303
    The word "fact" isn't at all tricky when the thing has been observed. When it's just an idea someone thought of, maybe, but observations trump ideas and remove doubts. And evolution has been observed.

    The only "theory" is over how it happens, not whether or not it does.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Dons View Post
    These are Federal Court decisions that trump any State Court or state constitution.
    Actually, the Kitzmiller decision is only on the district level and, strictly speaking, has no applicability outside that district. However, Judge Jones's verdict is so magisterial that it's likely to have broad influence, akin to some of the other creation-evolution court decisions that never made it to the Supreme Court but have nevertheless held up.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    Actually, the Kitzmiller decision is only on the district level and, strictly speaking, has no applicability outside that district. However, Judge Jones's verdict is so magisterial that it's likely to have broad influence, akin to some of the other creation-evolution court decisions that never made it to the Supreme Court but have nevertheless held up.
    What ToSeek refers to is the weight of legal precedent. Many times decisions in some jurisdictions can be swayed based on citation of examples in other jurisdictions. This is a HUGE thing in Constitutional law, which this decision is very solidly under. Its not a guaranteed slam dunk, but given the judiciary's desire to judge cases consistently and fairly, its not without its legal weight.

    Courts are one of the few places where people with backbone and literally stop cold supposedly unstoppable forces. Its one of the reasons many judges are utterly terrified of setting them. They can be quite powerful in ways they never imagined.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103

    There's one of me - one

    Doesn't look like I'll be able to get around to all of this tonight.

    I'll work by priority, giving weight to the good faith I've noticed from some parties.

    I don't intend to get into a heated debate here. There are too many issues, and one could easily divide things up into a dozen threads. I think three is about the minimum if one wants to even give the illusion of organization.

    I will not be baited or sidetracked easily. I'm done talking about judges. It should be clear to you by now that their opinion has no value when trying to convince me of anything. As appeals to authority go, it's about as weak as they come.

    Now I'll try to get started.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    103
    "Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Charles Darwin

    here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

    The point: Irreducible Complexity is nothing new. Darwin clearly knew about it, and it must surely have been known before his day. What we have that is new is a simple term for this powerful concept.

    The arguments against it haven't improved much: "We know it looks impossible that such a thing evolved, but it did anyhow", usually strung out into many more words.

    So how can a putdown of this concept not be a putdown of the most basic human observational capacity? Some things (quite a few actually) just won't work without all their parts. Duh!

    In shop class, irreducible complexity can be easily learned even if the teacher never brings it up. It's pretty well present in machinery. Doesn't take a genius to see that living things are more complex than any of our creations.

    But the evolutionists are enraged by it. Hmm... Not so confident in Darwin after all, are they? He explained it away... or did he?

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,438
    The arguements in favor of irreducible complexity were never impressive to begin with, "Its too hard for me to figure out, so it must be impossible".

    The arguement against, as like any good wedge fighter you've blatantly misrepresented it, is, "We're not sure how it did that, but we'll figure it out in time".

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Illwill View Post
    "Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Charles Darwin
    Oh, for heaven's sake. Darwin himself explained it in the very next paragraph!

    You see, in the written language, there's this thing called a "rhetorical device." In this case, the one Darwin most frequently uses in On the Origin of Species is posing a question and then answering it himself. To those who are ignorant of the text, it seems as though he's suggesting that he himself is not really sure of things. However, those with the intellectual integrity to study the text itself soon recognize what he's doing and aren't fooled.

    So the next question is, "Is Darwin's hypothesis as to the origins of the eye plausible?"

    Yes.

    After all, there are currently-extant species with every one of the various possible eye precursors that he suggested; I could be wrong on this, but I'm fairly sure at least some of them were discovered after he posited the transition.

    You're really going to have to work hard at your quote-mining.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Similar Threads

  1. evolution of man
    By doc k in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-26, 12:45 AM
  2. help with evolution
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-20, 09:35 PM
  3. Evolution
    By Valiant Dancer in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2002-Jan-02, 08:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: