Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:19:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 boisterous when you're using it to support your "facts" and
then sweep it under the rug when it's no longer a convenient lie. That's
irresponsible, and such witnesses in a court of law would be dismissed as
invalid.
As someone who's not as versed in science as you all, I resent the fact
that I was led astray by the public school system with this bunk. Someone
owes a whole bunch of people an apology, regardless of whether you think the
evolutionary model is still valid.
Markus
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
