Deceiving Evolutionists

[Tiggy]

To repeat, being tied to a Neo-Darwinian(or yes, even the standard ICR) view of the progression of life on earth is not merely an unfairness, it's a weakness. It will cause you to downplay data counter to the accepted conclusion among your peers and ignore other ways of looking at the problem that might have been a good idea after all. Like front loading an initial complex cell, use of the most common mutations likely to occur as a method of intrinsically controlling the evolution of the species, coding using a method that just happens to select for increasing hydrophobicity in a way that actually gives mutations a direction, and even (may Sarfati strike me down!) progressive creation.

Pity that you don't have the tiniest iota of positive evidence for that IDiot woo.

- T

[rogue06]

No! I'm saying that promulgating your model as the One True Model For All Life On Earth to children during their formative years, letting its assumptions inform all aspects of biology, and then making little to no noises about it when certain central aspects of the process by which that model works don't work out in reproducible experiments in the here and now is the worst failing.

To repeat, being tied to a Neo-Darwinian(or yes, even the standard ICR) view of the progression of life on earth is not merely an unfairness, it's a weakness. It will cause you to downplay data counter to the accepted conclusion among your peers and ignore other ways of looking at the problem that might have been a good idea after all.

Ah yes, the “teach both sides” argument surfaces. Poor children are being indoctrinated and not allowed to make up their own minds. And of course so selectively applied as always.

Do we present both sides in a balanced and unbiased way and let kids decide on whether the Holocaust took place or not in History class? Do the pro-Nazi side* holocaust deniers get to present their view so the kids can choose? There are actually more historians who doubt the Holocaust percentage wise than there are scientists in the pertinent fields who doubt biological evolution. This being so then certainly for it as well we should teach the controversy.

Maybe we could follow with class presenting the pro-Slavery arguments so that after a fair and equal treatment kids could decide for themselves whether slavery is a good thing or not.

And how about the 9/11 Truthers or the Moon Landing was faked crowd getting a turn so the kids can make up their own minds? Should the pro-Osama bin Laden/Jihadist side also be given equal time in our schools? NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) be allowed to teach both sides in gym class or a health class?

If you want to get picky and complain those aren’t valid comparisons since those topics aren’t taught in science class then how about giving astrologers and geocentrists equal time in astronomy classes to fairly present their views. And maybe an old fashioned alchemist in physics class for good measure.

Why should Creationists only object when it comes to biology (and geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, botany, zoology, cosmology, paleontology, history… never mind)?

TeachBothSides2.jpgTeachBothSides3.jpgteach the controversy.gifTeachBothSides1.gifTeach Sides (stork).gifTeach_Both_Sides.jpgteachthecontroversy5.jpgTeachCreationScience.png

And considering that most of those opposed to the Theory of Evolution describe it as being evil (“at the foundation of communism, Fascism, Freudianism, social Darwinism, behaviorism, Kinseyism, materialism, atheism, and in the religious world, modernism and Neo-orthodoxy.” --Henry Morris), their claims that they merely want to students to hear “both sides” is difficult to accept on face value.

Evilution3.jpgEvilution1.jpgEvilution2.jpgEvilution4.jpg
Looks like all they want is a fair and balanced treatment

Finally, what seems to get lost in these bogus cries for fairness is that scientific discoveries aren’t viewpoints. It isn’t a matter of opinion whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa. Indeed, some viewpoints are actively and earnestly discriminated against in science. Physicists, for instance, vigorously discriminate against so-called perpetual motion machines


In fact “teach the controversy” really amounts to “teach that scientists dispute evolution” – which is patently false as noted in the comment about historians who doubt the Holocaust.

But the cold truth of the matter is that the ToE is now as much in doubt in biology as quantum mechanics is in physics, which is considered by many to be the single most successful scientific theory ever produced due to how it accounts for so much and the high degree of accuracy in its predictions. Yet physicists still don’t know how to reconcile it with Einstein’s theory of relativity which in some cases makes predictions that conflict (behavior of Black Holes). But this motivates physicists to search for solutions rather than give up in exasperation declaring “God did it.”

To reiterate the point about the importance of and nearly universal support for biological evolution one need only keep in mind the famous statement (and essay) by the Russian Orthodox Christian geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was central in shaping the modern evolutionary synthesis (Neo-Darwinism), Theodosius Dobzhansky when he said: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Ernst Mayr, like Dobzhansky, another key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, put it this way in “Animal Species and Evolution”

“The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolutionary theory. There is no area of biology in which that theory has not served as an ordering principle.”

Or, in the words of molecular biologist Maxine Singer, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in a recent column for the “Washington Post,” omitting evolution from biology is comparable to leaving the U.S. Constitution out of civics lessons. Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world..."





* Yeah I know. Godwin's Law

[Kelp]

And considering that most of those opposed to the Theory of Evolution describe it as being evil (“at the foundation of communism, Fascism, Freudianism, social Darwinism, behaviorism, Kinseyism, materialism, atheism, and in the religious world, modernism and Neo-orthodoxy.” --Henry Morris), their claims that they merely want to students to hear “both sides” is difficult to accept on face value.

So, apparently the TOE has been around for millenia ?...

[magellan004]

Having asked this -

Do we present both sides in a balanced and unbiased way and let kids decide on whether the Holocaust took place or not in History class?

You immediately descend into an unbalanced and biased diatribe against all sorts of people and issues.

I'm more interested in how you (Rogue) answer your own question- Do we present both sides in a balanced and unbiased way and let kids decide on (whatever the issue is)?

If not, why not?

Magellan

[rogue06]

Having asked this - You immediately descend into an unbalanced and biased diatribe against all sorts of people and issues.

I'm more interested in how you (Rogue) answer your own question- Do we present both sides in a balanced and unbiased way and let kids decide on (whatever the issue is)?

If not, why not?

Magellan

But I'm beyond caring what you're interested in m004 except maybe to wonder which of the following groups or people I supposedly maligned: In order, Nazis, Slavers, 9/11 Truthers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, Islamic Jihadists, North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), astrologers, geocentrists or alchemists.

[franktalk]

Rogue06,

I am not sure we need to teach all available theories but we should be respectful of peoples beliefs. Many people in the world have beliefs that don't agree with currently held views in science. Now science offers some explanations of the past and these are based on observational science not science based on the scientific method. So these are stories that are not or can't be proven or repeated. So we should be mindful that observational science does not sit on equal footing with any science that uses the scientific method. If you wish to see this described in detail then I suggest you view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psGVZ...feature=relmfu

About 36:30 into the video the professor talks about the scientific method.

And as I have pointed out before on different threads the factual basis for declaring some of the stories of observational science as fact are a stretch. So if we are honest to the students and tell them how astronomy and evolution (and others) are observational sciences and as such do not have the same weight that the hard sciences do. I would be happy with this explanation. But in science there are alternative theories in the observational sciences. I think that these should be taught as well. This would show how the science is not settled and that there are different views linked to the same observations. I do not think that our science classes do a good job in giving the larger picture of opinions.

[Tiggy]

Rogue06,

I am not sure we need to teach all available theories but we should be respectful of peoples beliefs. Many people in the world have beliefs that don't agree with currently held views in science. Now science offers some explanations of the past and these are based on observational science not science based on the scientific method. So these are stories that are not or can't be proven or repeated. So we should be mindful that observational science does not sit on equal footing with any science that uses the scientific method. If you wish to see this described in detail then I suggest you view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psGVZ...feature=relmfu

About 36:30 into the video the professor talks about the scientific method.

And as I have pointed out before on different threads the factual basis for declaring some of the stories of observational science as fact are a stretch. So if we are honest to the students and tell them how astronomy and evolution (and others) are observational sciences and as such do not have the same weight that the hard sciences do. I would be happy with this explanation. But in science there are alternative theories in the observational sciences. I think that these should be taught as well. This would show how the science is not settled and that there are different views linked to the same observations. I do not think that our science classes do a good job in giving the larger picture of opinions.

Sorry FT, but science isn't a democracy. Everyone's opinion isn't equally valid and deserving of equal respect. Only opinions that are well supported by positive evidence command respect in science, and the theory of evolution qualifies in spades. Evolution is every bit as much a 'hard' science as any other you can name. The weight of the consilient evidence from dozens of different scientific fields is overwhelming. Anyone with the proper training can do genetic studies and verify phylogenetic trees. Anyone can do statistical analysis of morphological features from the fossil record and come up with the same underlying patterns and relationships. To study an event scientifically doesn't mean the event itself must be repeatable - just that experiments done on the evidence the event left behind must be repeatable.

Trying to cast doubt on ToE by trying to differentiate between 'observational' science and 'hard' science is nothing more than a Creationist cheap rhetorical trick. It gets zero respect from the scientific community because it has earned zero respect.

- T

[franktalk]

Tiggy,

How nice to chat with you again. You are right that science is not a democracy it is a dictatorship. Well at least in some circles it is. But there are still many who use common sense when they go about their work. Did you happen to view the video I linked? I happened to run across this while I was doing some background study on dark matter and dark energy.

Maybe you can answer a question for me. It seems that in astronomy astronomers in America have no respect for the views of Arp. But in Europe the astronomers do have respect for his views. If indeed the science of astronomy is based on observation and each person can observe these same things then why the difference in accepted theory? Just because we go across the Atlantic is no reason for science to change. Could it have something to do with a clique of like minds and little to do with the opinions on how to interpret the observations?

http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Advent...rpredshift.htm

Of course to believe Arp someone would have to call the statements made by Hubble into question. Can't have that I mean Hubble stands on firm ground just like Aristotle and his glass spheres. We are still using the glass sphere theory aren't we?

[Tiggy]

Tiggy,

How nice to chat with you again. You are right that science is not a democracy it is a dictatorship. Well at least in some circles it is. But there are still many who use common sense when they go about their work.

Like 'common sense' tells us the sun and stars orbit the earth, and that heavier objects always fall faster than light ones. Right?

The main purpose of science is to remove the reliance on subjective 'common sense' and replace it with objectively determined knowledge.

Maybe you can answer a question for me.

Not that one. I am not up on astronomy controversies enough to give an informed analysis. Unlike others here I could name when I don't know a topic I shut up and don't bluff about it. My point in answering before was to correct your quite poor understanding of how science operates, and to clue you in about why Creationist opinions on the theory of evolution are not given the same weight as the well supported mainstream science ones.

- T

[franktalk]

Not that one. I am not up on astronomy controversies enough to give an informed analysis. Unlike others here I could name when I don't know a topic I shut up and don't bluff about it. My point in answering before was to correct your quite poor understanding of how science operates, and to clue you in about why Creationist opinions on the theory of evolution are not given the same weight as the well supported mainstream science ones.

- T

I understand that you think you have your arms wrapped around evolutionary theory. That is fine. But I have always stated that I saw a difference between what I call the soft sciences and the hard sciences. Then I ran across this video that a Yale professor shares my feelings about some areas of study. Not that they don't deserve our respect for the hard work but they are different. He calls them observational sciences. He pointed out that certain areas of study just can't have all of the theories verified by experiment.

Creationist opinions on the theory of evolution should be allowed to compete with all of the other theories and the ones that best explain the observations should rise to the top and the ones that fail to align with the data should sink. But some times the rules change from strict science to creationist. Where science excludes God from the analysis the creationist would include God as an active variable. So this causes an apple and orange kind of comparison. In this case the theories can't be weighted against each other. And of course a science class should not include theories that don't use the rules of science. But a science class should be taught so that the rules are known to the students.

[Tiggy]

I understand that you think you have your arms wrapped around evolutionary theory. That is fine. But I have always stated that I saw a difference between what I call the soft sciences and the hard sciences. Then I ran across this video that a Yale professor shares my feelings about some areas of study. Not that they don't deserve our respect for the hard work but they are different. He calls them observational sciences. He pointed out that certain areas of study just can't have all of the theories verified by experiment.

Of course there are certainly specific areas where the fine details of a theory are the topic of legitimate scientific debate. But that doesn't somehow negate the overwhelming evidence for the overarching main tenets. The simple facts are the Earth has been here for some 4.5 billion years, and life has been here for the last 3.3 billion, and that the life forms we see today are the result of evolution over time through common descent. That's what the evidence indisputably shows.

Creationist opinions on the theory of evolution should be allowed to compete with all of the other theories and the ones that best explain the observations should rise to the top and the ones that fail to align with the data should sink.

Creationist ideas are allowed to compete, and have been for over 150 years. Without exception they have failed miserably and sunk like lead. No one is stopping Creationists or IDers from presenting new positive evidence if they find some, but to date their total is zero point squat.

But some times the rules change from strict science to creationist. Where science excludes God from the analysis the creationist would include God as an active variable. So this causes an apple and orange kind of comparison. In this case the theories can't be weighted against each other. And of course a science class should not include theories that don't use the rules of science.

Then why are you surprised Biblical creationism is excluded from science? By definition science doesn't include supernatural causes.

But a science class should be taught so that the rules are known to the students.

They are, especially at the college/university level. Not sure what your point is here. I agree the quality of high school science education could use improving, which is why I find Creationist attempts to 'dumb down' science standards and get their retarded anti-science views sneaked in so repugnant.

- T

[franktalk]

Then why are you surprised Biblical creationism is excluded from science? By definition science doesn't include supernatural causes.
- T

I am not surprised at all. But you must realize that if supernatural events have taken place then the theories and stories associated with evolution can be totally wrong. Yet they could be totally consistent with the rules of science. So based on how one feels about the nature of creation one could believe in a rule set different than science and not be "wrong" in their personal belief. And of course the same holds for science, they could be true to their rules yet be totally "wrong" in their conclusions. This is why we have these opposite views and heated debates. Where you may feel a rule set that includes God is nonsense I may see it as a reasonable addition since I know that God exist. (not for science but for myself) But that is on a personal level and not society wide.

So on a test in science I could see the following questions:

Evolution is (T/F)?
Science believes evolution is (T/F)?

One question respects the personal beliefs of the student and one does not. Today science does a terrible job in respecting the views of the students.

[Tiggy]

I am not surprised at all. But you must realize that if supernatural events have taken place then the theories and stories associated with evolution can be totally wrong. Yet they could be totally consistent with the rules of science.

Sure supernatural events could have taken place. It's just there is not one speck of evidence that they did.

So based on how one feels about the nature of creation one could believe in a rule set different than science and not be "wrong" in their personal belief. And of course the same holds for science, they could be true to their rules yet be totally "wrong" in their conclusions. This is why we have these opposite views and heated debates. Where you may feel a rule set that includes God is nonsense I may see it as a reasonable addition since I know that God exist. (not for science but for myself) But that is on a personal level and not society wide.

By definition science does not include any supernatural fiddling with results. It can't. If there was some capricious deity fooling with experiments every time we ran them we'd never learn or be sure of anything. How would you safely fly an airplane if some Loki God changed the force of gravity 3-4 times a day?

So on a test in science I could see the following questions:

Evolution is (T/F)?
Science believes evolution is (T/F)?

One question respects the personal beliefs of the student and one does not. Today science does a terrible job in respecting the views of the students.

You'd never see that on a science test. Science does not believe evolution is true, science accepts that the current theory of evolution is correct based on the preponderance of evidence. The two statements are not the same.

Science is not in the business of respecting unsupported personal opinions, nor should it be. Personal opinions don't change facts. Would you respect my personal view that gravity was really only a tenth of what scientists claimed, so therefore I'd like to teach kids they can jump off a 20' roof and not get hurt? Shouldn't you respect all personal views?

There's a big difference between respecting someone's personal opinion and teaching that personal opinion to others, especially children who haven't yet developed the critical thinking skills to tell fact from woo.

- T

[rogue06]

I understand that you think you have your arms wrapped around evolutionary theory. That is fine. But I have always stated that I saw a difference between what I call the soft sciences and the hard sciences. Then I ran across this video that a Yale professor shares my feelings about some areas of study. Not that they don't deserve our respect for the hard work but they are different. He calls them observational sciences. He pointed out that certain areas of study just can't have all of the theories verified by experiment.

Is there any area that all the theories can be verified by experiment? That would sort imply that we pretty much knew all there was to know about a given topic. I don't think there are too many scientists, including the Yale prof. in the video, would care to make that claim.

Take for instance gravitational theory. It has a number of unresolved difficulties, contradictions and is demonstrably incorrect. For instance, it incorrectly predicts how Mercury orbits the Sun. While Einstein’s Relativity replaced Newtonian Mechanics, and modified again since then it still assumes things about particles proven to be false or otherwise QM wouldn’t work.

But nobody is out there demanding that since we don't know everything about gravity that we should therefore be teaching other theories as equally valid. There is no call to teach "Intelligent Falling" or "Intelligent Attraction."

Creationist opinions on the theory of evolution should be allowed to compete with all of the other theories and the ones that best explain the observations should rise to the top and the ones that fail to align with the data should sink.

Actually it did. That's why the ToE is accepted by virtually every scientist in the relevant fields.

But some times the rules change from strict science to creationist. Where science excludes God from the analysis the creationist would include God as an active variable.

It would help if creationists could establish a way of measuring divine participation if they want scientists to accept it. Otherwise we're stuck with one side going "Goddidit" and packing it up and another side determined to find the mechanisms and such behind various phenomena and continuing on proposing potential ways it could happen without divine intervention.

So this causes an apple and orange kind of comparison. In this case the theories can't be weighted against each other. And of course a science class should not include theories that don't use the rules of science. But a science class should be taught so that the rules are known to the students.

Can't argue with you there. Teaching the scientific method in a science class would seem to be a great place to start.

[ericmurphy]

Having asked this - You immediately descend into an unbalanced and biased diatribe against all sorts of people and issues.

Really? You think Holocaust deniers should be given a hearing in high school history class, Magellan?

I'm more interested in how you (Rogue) answer your own question- Do we present both sides in a balanced and unbiased way and let kids decide on (whatever the issue is)?

If not, why not?

No. Kids (kindergarten to high school, and arguably to the undergraduate level) have neither the training nor experience to "decide for themselves" on scientific topics. Science isn't a matter of opinion, or personal preference, Magellan. It is a matter of fact and justified inference. You seem to have this notion that anyone, no matter how uneducated or ignorant, is just as qualified to determine scientific validity as recognized experts in the relevant fields. This is why you believe that you, who shows no evidence competence in any area of science, are somehow qualified to critique the findings of Nobel laureates like Albert Einstein.