Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:38:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
352 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> > You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a theory with
> > little or no scientific validity treated the same way as theories with a
> > great deal of validity and a great deal of observational support, are worse
> > than any Fireman.
>
> Like what theory would that be that we push for that has little or no
> scientific validity?
Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science.
> I admit and apologize - my own personal knowledge of science in general
> is pretty minimal...that doesn't mean the hundreds of scientists out
> there who fully believe in literal creationism are equally ignorant.
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 creationism taught as science, and that's simply wrong.
> Hrmmm...I think you will find that textbooks have been presenting bunkum
> for quite some time (peppered moth experiment
> http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04apt16PepMoth.ram, horse
> evolution:
> http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04bptHorse.ram).....but I guess
> if we eventually prove the bunkum wrong it's still okay that we lied for
> a long time. Seeing that there is overwhelming evidence of intelligent
> design (see original message in this thread), why wouldn't it be a good
> idea to point this out?
Absolutely it should be pointed out, and science textbooks that suppress
this information are as faulty as creationist "science" textbooks for
purveying false information. These errors don't invalidate evolutionary
theory as a whole, any more than (as someone else observed) one bogus faith
healer doesn't invalidate all of Christianity.
You've hit on a key strength of science, though; the ability to reject and
learn from past errors creates an ever stronger method of explanation, which
is the fundamental goal of scientific pursuit.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
