 | | In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established, but I came across this piece in the local paper today. (URL) Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so the inclusion of this article shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how life cameinto existance and 'progressed'. The intelligence often pointed to is often (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Hope away. Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the processes of science and what science represents, your assessment of the alleged merits of Dr. Behe's theories is meaningless. (...) Yeah--just like begging the question of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The article stated: "What distinguishes intelligent design from creationism is that it has won the backing of a minority of scientists" To my way of interpreting things "a minority of scientists" does not imply "the major scientific (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The major scientific community? Are you basing this on Behe's statements or maybe the intro to the article? Most of the major scientific community that I know have dismissed Behe-- I know I have. He has flaws in many if his arguments. One of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I've heard nothing about it in the Pittsburgh area, other than a poorly-written editorial in the Gazette. Be assured I will personally burn every textbook, funded by my tax money, that espouses creationism or intelligent design as viable (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Go get em' Dave you crazy text book burning machine! I'm getting these mental images of you as one of the firemen in "Farenheit 45" walking around Pittsburgh with a big flame thrower raiding schools to burn books. (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) 8^) Okay, maybe I was exaggerating a little. And anyway I wouldn't be burning quality textbooks--just books that purport pseudoscience to be the equivalent of science! Dave! (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) That's OK, since that's the vision I have of every Literal Creationist. You don't have to physically burn a book to destroy knowledge or worse, destroy the very ability to think. You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) EGAD! A Clone! What is the world coming to!?! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to think. It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more evolved humans....your (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe Chris Tracey (or someone else) can explain this a bit better, but I think it's important to point out the main flaw in "intelligent design". To take Behe's mousetrap analogy: it's true that half a mousetrap isn't much of a mousetrap. But (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
The author of this article also reveals science illiteracy at best and bias at worst in describing evolution as positing a "random" force at work in shaping variations. Darwin's theory of descent with modification postulated the principle of natural (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The spanish inquisition didn't "control" Galileo, but it did destroy the ability to think in a host of lesser folk. You haven't grasped the pernicious damage that pushing a bunkum "theory" into impressionable kids, placing it as equally valid (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science. (...) No one is blaming you for the ignorance of others, but others' ignorance doesn't excuse them, either. The fact is that certain people are pushing an agenda to have (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I think you mean "Fahrenheit 451." I don't think 45 degrees F is going to burn much in the way of reading matter. :) best LFB (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I certainly agree-- but who? Let's say we discovered that, oh, I dunno, Rome didn't 'fall' to the Visigoths, but instead some disease infested the city and they were forced to relocate. But the Romans, not wanting to appear as though Gods (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth. For that matter, in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I realise the limits of taking an analogy too far...but since you already did it.....what you've just said is still intelligent design. What are the chances of a moustrap forming if you put all the parts into a box and shake it - that's not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) "do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you going to say this Larry? (...) First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all "Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see it (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) You're quite correct. (Maybe if you gave it BILLIONS of years at that temperature though (note tongue-in-cheek....sort of)) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Repeatedly shaking such a box is simply re-randomization. If somehow you could discard every faulty physical combination of the elements and preserve the useful ones (as traits are discarded or preserved through evolution) your chances at (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) This is a good start. I have some additions to this but I'm late for an event I have to go to. I'll send my comments ASAP. -chris (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The breaking point with both analogies is that they refer to human-invented artefacts (leading to the spurious conclusion that the universe is _necessarily_ a God-invented artefact). Re the scaffolding, I can give an example from embryology. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
