or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial" - Page 8

post #281 of 576
Thread Starter 
I'll respond to the comment below, from the Liberals are... thread, to avoid derailing that thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Nothing good can come from venting exchanges. The discussion can't be had, this is also why the ID debate is failing, by falling into litigation, neither side is willing to put down their rocks and clubs and listen to the other -- and we are supposed to be a modern, enlightened culture.

Yes, and if it weren't for the damn partisan wrangling of the 17th century, phlogiston theory would still be here today, serving all of mankind. We can only imagine what grand phlogiston-based inventions and devices have been sadly lost. Think, were it not for the politics of destruction in the early 20th century, of the of the benefits society might be enjoying from now never-to-be-seen technology based on the unfairly discredited N rays!

Come on now. ID is going down on merit. Read the available court transcripts. (One place to get them is http://aclupa.blogspot.com. If you're worried that the Vast Liberal Conspiracy is corrupting and manipulating the transcripts available there, you're welcome to seek out another source.) When forced to answer questions in the structured environment of a courtroom -- which does not afford easy opportunities to duck and evade difficult questions the way a message board does -- IDs supporters, even prominent leaders in the field like Michael Behe, offered up a very weak defense of ID.

In Behe's own words he had to admit that only changing the definition of science would allow ID to be considered science, and that such a change would make astrology science too! That's a leader in the pro-ID side saying that, not a partisan detractor.

Of course, the US Constitution doesn't have one word to say one way or the other about the quality of science taught in science classes, or the quality and accuracy of anything taught in any subject in public schools. If a school board decided their school should teach that penguins are native to Death Valley and that the Civil War was a dispute over Less Filling vs. Tastes Great -- so be it. That would be an issue for voters to deal with.

But if the Constitution, or applicable state and local law, had requirements for the accuracy and merit of what is taught in public schools, ID wouldn't stand a chance. The Dover trial demonstrated this quite well. The defense team itself admitted that what they essentially were looking for was a kind of "affirmative action" plan for ID: the big, bad, closed-minded world of academia wasn't giving ID a fair shake, so they needed to use public schools to create a generation of ID-friendly students to help them along with a bottom-up, rather than top-down, scientific revolution. And, again in the words of the defense, this special dispensation isn't supposed to be granted based on the current merit of ID, but based on what they imagine the future merit might be, if only we give poor, down-trodden ID some special consideration.

ID would be the only part of the curriculum that has to ride the short bus to school.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #282 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I'll respond to the comment below, from the Liberals are... thread, to avoid derailing that thread.

Yes, and if it weren't for the damn partisan wrangling of the 17th century, phlogiston theory would still be here today, serving all of mankind. We can only imagine what grand phlogiston-based inventions and devices have been sadly lost. Think, were it not for the politics of destruction in the early 20th century, of the of the benefits society might be enjoying from now never-to-be-seen technology based on the unfairly discredited N rays!

Come on now. ID is going down on merit. Read the available court transcripts. (One place to get them is http://aclupa.blogspot.com. If you're worried that the Vast Liberal Conspiracy is corrupting and manipulating the transcripts available there, you're welcome to seek out another source.) When forced to answer questions in the structured environment of a courtroom -- which does not afford easy opportunities to duck and evade difficult questions the way a message board does -- IDs supporters, even prominent leaders in the field like Michael Behe, offered up a very weak defense of ID.

In Behe's own words he had to admit that only changing the definition of science would allow ID to be considered science, and that such a change would make astrology science too! That's a leader in the pro-ID side saying that, not a partisan detractor.

Of course, the US Constitution doesn't have one word to say one way or the other about the quality of science taught in science classes, or the quality and accuracy of anything taught in any subject in public schools. If a school board decided their school should teach that penguins are native to Death Valley and that the Civil War was a dispute over Less Filling vs. Tastes Great -- so be it. That would be an issue for voters to deal with.

But if the Constitution, or applicable state and local law, had requirements for the accuracy and merit of what is taught in public schools, ID wouldn't stand a chance. The Dover trial demonstrated this quite well. The defense team itself admitted that what they essentially were looking for was a kind of "affirmative action" plan for ID: the big, bad, closed-minded world of academia wasn't giving ID a fair shake, so they needed to use public schools to create a generation of ID-friendly students to help them along with a bottom-up, rather than top-down, scientific revolution. And, again in the words of the defense, this special dispensation isn't supposed to be granted based on the current merit of ID, but based on what they imagine the future merit might be, if only we give poor, down-trodden ID some special consideration.

ID would be the only part of the curriculum that has to ride the short bus to school.

shetline, you're a very intelligent person, but I think you're too invested in the rehtoric to deal with this as it is.

Two things: First, Scott Adams has nailed the issue on his blog. second, the results of not dealing with the root of the issue (other than a lot of venting here and elsewhere) can be found here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #283 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
shetline, you're a very intelligent person, but I think you're too invested in the rehtoric to deal with this as it is.

ID proponents appear to be doing more than enough to downplay how ready ID is for scientific consideration going by their own rhetoric.
Quote:
Two things: First, Scott Adams has nailed the issue on his blog. second, the results of not dealing with the root of the issue (other than a lot of venting here and elsewhere) can be found here.

Both of those articles are interesting, but have little to do with the points I've just made. I've referred to how much merit ID has as science, as told by ID's proponents, not by its detractors. Even ID's proponents don't think ID is ready for prime time -- all they've really got is optimism that if we give ID a chance, then, sometime later, they'll show us all how gosh darn scientific ID will turn out to be.

If you think I'm unfairly characterizing what has been said, or attacking only a weak argument when there's a stronger argument that I could be ignoring, please be my guest and point out those flaws.

The courtroom format of arguing the Dover case helps to do away with a lot of the problems you're claiming (via the articles above) get in the way of a proper debate. The pro-ID defense had a chance to put forward its strongest case, and it had the chance to force the plaintiffs to see evidence and answer questions in terms of how the defense saw things, without much room for the plaintiffs to wiggle away from tough evidence and tough questions in the way that can so easily happen in other venues.

Of course, the plaintiffs had a similar opportunity.

From my view of what I've seen of the trial coverage, the plaintiffs availed themselves of this opportunity far better than did the defense. (The school board members themselves -- not directly a part of the debate regarding scientific merit of ID -- were simply pathetic in their dishonesty about their motives and the events leading to their promotion of ID. The judge was very generous not to slap Bonsell and Buckingham down hard with perjury charges.)

How many different venues of debate does ID have to fail in before it's the merit of ID, and not the merit of the venue or the merit of the rhetoric, which is called into question?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #284 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
all they've really got is optimism that if we give ID a chance, then, sometime later, they'll show us all

Oh wait...nevermind...it sounded like you were talking about the embryonic stem cell research folks there for a moment...
post #285 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Two things: First, Scott Adams has nailed the issue on his blog. ...

He only "nailed it" if you agree with him. I don't, therefor I don't think he nailed anything.

Secondly, I thank you for linking to that, because in the comments section is one of the best posts on this debate I've personally read.

Quote:



The central tenet of Intelligent Design, life is too complex to have developed without a guiding design, is fairly easily disproven.

Drop a handful of dice. The resulting series of numbers is complex. But it wasn't designed. That's because random systems routinely produce complex results.

Simplicity is the hallmark of good design, not complexity.

It may sound like I'm splitting a semantic hair, but I'm not.

Intelligent Design uses non-scientific reasoning to arrive at an answer that scientists don't ask.

Did God cause evolution to happen?

Before we could possibly answer that question, we would have to design a test that demonstrates God exists. If such a test was possible, God would not be supernatural, but simply another creature.

Science does not attempt to define God. Science observes and defines the physical world.

There is nothing in Darwinism to disprove Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is not a scientific idea. Intelligent Design is a religous idea, because anything that attempts to tell us what God does is religion.

The forces who want to preface all discussions of science with a disclaimer that says it may all be bunk and God caused it to happen should consider prefacing the sermon at their church with a disclaimer:

"The Bible is a collection of stories and essays written by people who claim to have communicated with God. However, there is no proof that they are telling the truth and God may not exist."

Posted by: Elsa Frohman | November 14, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #286 of 576
Quote:
Drop a handful of dice. The resulting series of numbers is complex. But it wasn't designed. That's because random systems routinely produce complex results.

Yes...but it is also random. Randomness does not produce order. Which is one thing we must believe in order to assume evolution.

Quote:
Science observes and defines the physical world.

And, apparently, assumes that all that exists is the physical world. This is the breakdown.
post #287 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes...but it is also random. Randomness does not produce order. Which is one thing we must believe in order to assume evolution.

Evolution doesn't assume order. There cannot be any more order than there was five minutes ago, in fact there has to be less.

Evolution does not disobey the laws of physics.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #288 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh wait...nevermind...it sounded like you were talking about the embryonic stem cell research folks there for a moment...

Show me where anyone is trying to teach, as a scientific theory, that embryonic stem cells can cure this, that, and the other specific disease, is trying to introduce such a theory into public classrooms, is trying to make teachers read disclaimers designed to undermine some other, much better substantiated theory just to make their own theory look better, and is doing all of this with a religious agenda behind them that leads to Establishment Clause issues... then maybe you'll have a point. Until then, all you have is another imagined victory via a meritless "Ooh! Ooh! I gotcha there!" quip of the kind you seem eager to collect in lieu of deeper understanding.

I have absolutely nothing against open-ended research, the benefit of which is only hypothetical. There are certainly ways -- crude and imprecise for sure -- to look at cost, potential societal benefit, and likelyhood of success before deciding if and how much public money should be spent on such things, or how much private money should be invested in hopes of future potential profit.

If the Discovery Instutite wants to embark on a major ID research program -- instead of spending nearly every dollar they get on PR as they do now -- hey, more power to 'em. There's way too much Establishment Clause conflict here to give them taxpayer dollars, so it's going to have to be a private effort.

Oh, and they'll have to finally figure out just exactly what an ID research program would look like -- a minor stumbling point to forming a research program which they haven't managed to address in any substantial way so far. So far they've mostly only figured out how to do PR and politicking with their money.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #289 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes...but it is also random. Randomness does not produce order. Which is one thing we must believe in order to assume evolution.

But this is quite, quite wrong. Evolution doesn't require randomness to produce order.

You're... well, you're not correct.
post #290 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes...but it is also random. Randomness does not produce order. Which is one thing we must believe in order to assume evolution.

No, all we have to believe is well-proven laws of thermodynamics which tell us that a steady flow of energy into a non-closed system... oh, like, say, the sun shining on the earth... is enough to produce order, and that random factors can shape the nature of the order which is expressed.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #291 of 576
I never understood the randomness argument. Evolution is not "random." It's simply variation and reproduction: Some variations will reproduce more than others. That's not randomness.
post #292 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But this is quite, quite wrong. Evolution doesn't require randomness to produce order.

So the process of mutation is not required to be random?
post #293 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So the process of mutation is not required to be random?

Hassan wrote "Evolution doesn't require randomness to produce order." What evolution requires to produce order is energy. Of course, evolution is not just the production of order, it is the production of a variety of ordered forms, and evolution does require random mutation in order to produce variety and change over time.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #294 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Hassan wrote "Evolution doesn't require randomness to produce order." What evolution requires to produce order is energy. Of course, evolution is not just the production of order, it is the production of a variety of ordered forms, and evolution does require random mutation in order to produce variety and change over time.

Seems you two disagree. Let me know when you get it straight.
post #295 of 576
I have an idea! I have an idea! Let's hash this out among laymen!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #296 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I have an idea! I have an idea! Let's hash this out among laymen!

You're right. We should leave it all to the high priests. Us ignorant masses aren't qualified to interpret or understand any of it...no...wait...that is the Bible and the Roman Catholic church (of days past).
post #297 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Seems you two disagree. Let me know when you get it straight.

What disagreement? There is no disagreement between what Hassan wrote and what I wrote.

Read again carefully. Make sure that you understand the difference between what evolution needs to produce order, what evolution need to produce variety, and that evolution encompasses both order and variety. There is no disagreement unless you're mixing up separate ideas.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #298 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You're right. We should leave it all to the high priests. Us ignorant masses aren't qualified to interpret or understand any of it...no...wait...that is the Bible and the Roman Catholic church (of days past).

Indeed. Screw the people who actually know something about the subject! The ignorant masses are way gooder at understandiming evolution than some stupid scientistic guy!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #299 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. Screw the people who actually know something about the subject! The ignorant masses are way gooder at understandiming evolution than some stupid scientistic guy!

You said it. Not me.
post #300 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes...but it is also random. Randomness does not produce order. Which is one thing we must believe in order to assume evolution.

Not really, no. But this point is being addressed by others above.


Quote:
And, apparently, assumes that all that exists is the physical world. This is the breakdown.

And ID assumes some invisible guy did it all, assumes there is a mechanism by which instantaneous creation can occur, assumes that things so complex must have been designed and not occured on their own, and so on.

This is the breakdown.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #301 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You said it. Not me.

No. For real! I want laymen working on nuclear physics! I want laymen doing surgery! Laymen cops! Laymen firemen! Laymen construction workers!

You cannot sit there behind your feeble little "interpretation" red herring and seriously argue that regular joes are just as capable as experts at things that the experts are experts at.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #302 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So the process of mutation is not required to be random?

This one is easy to explain. Yes, genetic mutations are (mostly) random. However, evolution is not random because the outcome of the random mutations are selected. It is the difffernce between playing Yatzee and throwing 5 dice over and over again and waiting for patterns to develop. Sometimes when your lucky you may throw a full house in a single toss, but if you select some dice then your odds of getting a full house improve.

Bottom line, evolution is not at all random.
post #303 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No. For real! I want laymen working on nuclear physics! I want laymen doing surgery! Laymen cops! Laymen firemen! Laymen construction workers!

You cannot sit there behind your feeble little "interpretation" red herring and seriously argue that regular joes are just as capable as experts at things that the experts are experts at.

I have always beleived in the idea that any scientist should be able to explain their work. The problem with this whole evolution debate is that there is so much to discuss and so much that is not known. The way these dabates run is that a question/criticism of evolution gets tossed out and as it is being addressed a new question gets tossed out. Although the evidence for evolution is vast and multifaceted, there will always be holes that have yet to be filled. ID folks concentrate on the holes, those of us who beleive in evolution concetrate on the beuatiful picture that we have put together to describe how life evolved. The history of life on this planet is so long and complex that we will never be able to describe every last detail. Hence, there will always be something we haven't fully described yet.
post #304 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
and seriously argue that regular joes are just as capable as experts at things that the experts are experts at.

I didn't.
post #305 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
ID folks concentrate on the holes,

Shouldn't scientists do that too?

Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
those of us who beleive in evolution

Thank you. Whew.
post #306 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Bottom line, evolution is not at all random.

Okay then...let's see...the opposite of random is...ordered? systematic?
post #307 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Thank you. Whew.

Thank you indeed. It's nice to see people believe in something that actually has evidence that suggests it exists, even if that evidence is OBVIOUSLY trivial at best.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #308 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
It's nice to see people believe in something that actually has evidence that suggests it exists,

I agree.
post #309 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I have always beleived in the idea that any scientist should be able to explain their work. The problem with this whole evolution debate is that there is so much to discuss and so much that is not known. The way these dabates run is that a question/criticism of evolution gets tossed out and as it is being addressed a new question gets tossed out. Although the evidence for evolution is vast and multifaceted, there will always be holes that have yet to be filled. ID folks concentrate on the holes, those of us who beleive in evolution concetrate on the beuatiful picture that we have put together to describe how life evolved. The history of life on this planet is so long and complex that we will never be able to describe every last detail. Hence, there will always be something we haven't fully described yet.

Yes, a scientist should be able to explain his or her work. But what if that work requires a vast amount of expertise just to understand? Should we expect them to be able to dumb it down? My point in all of this is that we have a debate that is playing out among the laymenso much so that they're all frothing at the mouthand not among the experts. Why is that? I mean, of what value is this "debate" when someone says "But how do you account for TALKING POINT #4?!?" and you have to respond "I DON'T KNOW! I'M A PLUMBER!"

Sure, there's a handful of scientists here of various stripes. But we certainly don't seem to have amongst us a Stephen Jay Gouldat least, not that I've seen.

And then to complain that my pointing this out is tantamount to undoing the Protestant Reformation...good lord. A stunningly anti-intellectual position to take, and one that sounds great until you put it into practice: "Man, anyone can interpret the Bible/Darwin/"Science"/particle physics!" or "My neighbor Bob understands how quantum mechanics works. He's got your cat in a box and everything!" or "George Bush may not be the smartest guy on earth, but he's a regular fellah and let's give him a shot at the Presidency!" or "I read the Time/Life series on Orthoscopic surgery, so lemme take a look at that wound!"

And I read last night somewhere an IDer comparing the situation to Copernicus or Gallileo, COMPLETELY WITHOUT IRONY. It's like foxes complaining about not being allowed in the hen house and comparing themselves to the hens who are oppressed by the foxes.

Gah. This shit drives me nuts.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #310 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I didn't.

Then kindly explain what you were arguing, what with all that returning to the Catholic Church business?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #311 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Shouldn't scientists do that too?



Thank you. Whew.

As usual you go right past my point and play word games. Maybe explaining evolution to the non-scientists of the world is too big of a task.

believe, accept, agree with, subscribe to, whatever - you know what I mean.

As for those holes: scientists have been filling them since Darwin's day. It is good to be questioned and have to address questions. However, some of the most pertinent research to the study of evolution is not that highly funded. I'm referring to botany, zoology, ecology etc. Human research, like the genome project, is better funded because of the medical science aspect. My point is that a ton of very feasible research into comaprative genomics can be done, but it will take a long time because money for sequencing the genome of a lobster is not that high on the priority list.
post #312 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes, a scientist should be able to explain his or her work. But what if that work requires a vast amount of expertise just to understand? Should we expect them to be able to dumb it down? My point in all of this is that we have a debate that is playing out among the laymenso much so that they're all frothing at the mouthand not among the experts. Why is that? I mean, of what value is this "debate" when someone says "But how do you account for TALKING POINT #4?!?" and you have to respond "I DON'T KNOW! I'M A PLUMBER!"

Sure, there's a handful of scientists here of various stripes. But we certainly don't seem to have amongst us a Stephen Jay Gouldat least, not that I've seen.

And then to complain that my pointing this out is tantamount to undoing the Protestant Reformation...good lord. A stunningly anti-intellectual position to take, and one that sounds great until you put it into practice: "Man, anyone can interpret the Bible/Darwin/"Science"/particle physics!" or "My neighbor Bob understands how quantum mechanics works. He's got your cat in a box and everything!" or "George Bush may not be the smartest guy on earth, but he's a regular fellah and let's give him a shot at the Presidency!" or "I read the Time/Life series on Orthoscopic surgery, so lemme take a look at that wound!"

And I read last night somewhere an IDer comparing the situation to Copernicus or Gallileo, COMPLETELY WITHOUT IRONY. It's like foxes complaining about not being allowed in the hen house and comparing themselves to the hens who are oppressed by the foxes.

Gah. This shit drives me nuts.

I know what your saying. There is a level of expertise that really requires one to work in the field to know what the issues are. Very often I hear criticisms of evolution based on debates that go on in within the scientific community. The outsider say 'look they can't even agree so it must be wrong' whereas the sccientists agree on 99% and are passionate about there 1% differences.

Either way, good programs on the discovery channel or the recent article in National Geographic can make a pretty good case for evolution in terms that the non-expert can understand. That was my point. That the non-expert doesn't want to hear it is a another issue.

Your story of the ID person comparing themselves to Gallileo and Copernicus is rather amazing. I think it is better to laugh than to go screaming into the streets...maybe.
post #313 of 576
In the past 2 weeks I've noticed a LOT of programs on the Discovery and Science channel about biological evolution and planerary evolution. Good stuff. Good timing.
post #314 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay then...let's see...the opposite of random is...ordered? systematic?

Is your mind limited to black and white opposites? There is a random component to evolution. Evolution is a "bounded stochastic process". Learn something and look it up.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #315 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Is your mind limited to black and white opposites? There is a random component to evolution. Evolution is a "bounded stochastic process". Learn something and look it up.

But what about TALKING POINT #7?!?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #316 of 576
Guys,

this whole thread has been very entertaining, but why oh why is it worth arguing/debating with Chris? For reasons that he has never made clear in any of the threads I've read, he wants (or needs) to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I asked him many times to explain this need/want in the Ark thread, but he never did.

As such, anything that contradicts the Bible has to be wrong. Hence, even though the body of evidence for evolution is huge, because it cannot be proven to the same degree as, say, Newton's theories, CC will just keep on repeating his mantra 'it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction, so I'll prefer to believe in Creationism, or rather ID'.

I don't actually care if CC believes in ID. Let him. Free world, let's live and let live. He can believe the world is flat for all I care.

These beliefs only become an issue if he (or others like him) try to teach that ID is as valid a theory as anything else out there. I realise that I've just stated the obvious, and that's why the court case is occurring, but its worth repeating to remind everyone that the 'debate' that's been raging is unwinnable when one party (CC) has a fixed belief system that cannot be changed by anything anyone says. That's both the strength, and weakness, of religeon.

David
post #317 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
but its worth repeating to remind everyone that the 'debate' that's been raging is unwinnable when one party has a fixed belief system that cannot be changed by anything anyone says

Widen the "one party" beyond just me and you are right. Stop pretending it is just me...I know that makes y'all feel better...but it is a lie. And stop pretending that "one party has a fixed belief system that cannot be changed by anything anyone says" exists on only one side of these discussion. That is also a lie.
post #318 of 576
Chris,

you're doing it again! Just playing with words. I'm referring to the the debate in this thread - I'm pretty sure I read it all and you are the only pro IDer I noticed.

Therefore of course I'm referring to you! How can you possibly imagine that I think you are the only IDer in the world?

Secondly, the pro-evolutionists have given plenty of evidence to support it. You have given no evidence to support ID other than pointing out Evolution is not a complete theory. It is hard to reject one decent theory for another when there is no evidence presented for it.

Thirdly - there are many many examples where scientists have discarded theories WHEN BETTER ONES COME ALONG! You are the one who cannot accept that.

Fourthly - I could play with words and read into your reply an acceptance that you won't change your mind no matter what anyone says. I read that when you write "and stop pretending that 'one party [...]' exists only on one side". Implies you think they exist on both sides ergo you won't change your mind.

Fifthly - why won't you answer the question - why do you need/want the Bible to be the literal truth?

David
post #319 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
you're doing it again! Just playing with words.

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Secondly, the pro-evolutionists have given plenty of evidence to support it.

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
You have given no evidence to support ID other than pointing out Evolution is not a complete theory. It is hard to reject one decent theory for another when there is no evidence presented for it.

You assume that I need to present evidence for creation or ID in order to question evolution. This is absurd.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Thirdly - there are many many examples where scientists have discarded theories WHEN BETTER ONES COME ALONG! You are the one who cannot accept that.

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Implies you think they exist on both sides

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Fifthly - why won't you answer the question - why do you need/want the Bible to be the literal truth?

It hasn't really be relevant to this (or the previous) discussion. It's a straw man. If you want to turn start a Bible discussion thread we can discuss it there. This thread isn't about that.
post #320 of 576
Chris, you cannot be the judge of any of the science in dispute because you cannot bring yourself to take things at their face value. Anything with reference to supporting evolution, you deny wholely, totally, even if it is truth.

You don't need to keep proving your faith to us. We know you are a scizo-Christain.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"