Re: Evolution in Education
rosborne979 wrote:A better one than you are apparently. The starter motor isn't a necessary part of a running engine, it can be removed completely once the engine is running without effect. It's only necessary to begin the process. Thus the analogy is fine.
An even better statement of the analogy would be to refer to the early automobiles which were started with a hand crank. You had better remove that once the engine was running, because if you lost it while driving, you'd have to get another one before you could start you car again, and you be obliged to walk to the dealership to get one.
****************************************
Quote:Is anyone else having trouble following this, or is it just RL?
The member "real life" probably doesn't really have any problem following the argument, it is more likely a case of his typical stubborn insistence on his polemic, which he is only able to defend by a selective examination of the principles involved.
This is reminiscent of the "Evolution? How?" thread, in which the author very quickly disappeared. These religious types who initiate these kinds of discussion are not really interested in actually defending their positions, they just want to cast scorn upon something with which they disagree, but which they are not prepared to argue about point for point. The author of this thread may reappear, but i doubt it.
The member "real life" is prepared to argue, but not in a sensible fashion. He is only prepared to discuss this issue in his own terms, and especially to only argue on the basis of his own definitions, and his own distorted misstatements of scientific principles.
The initial poster asks why origins have to be discussed at all. A salutary question, and one which the scientists answer honestly by saying that they don't know to a certainty how life originated, that being a subject for speculation. The "real life" types in this world find that offensive, because they "know" the origin of the life--POOF ! ! ! it appeared when their imaginary friend willed it.
A theory of evolution describes a process. It is not concerned with origins. The member "real life" wants to insist upon a discussion of origins, because he is so ill-equipped to argue the fine points of a theory of evolution unless he intends to be obtuse, and to distort the terms of the science involved. There can be two methods of discussing the origins question. One is to discuss cosmic origins, which he loves to do, with all sorts of stupid and false references to physical "laws," such as his famous and idiotic references to the second law of thermodynamics. He is much more comfortable with that discussion, because he thinks he can more easily discredit scientific speculation on the subject by using the very words of science. It does not disturb him that he must practice deceit and willfully distort, because that's his stock in trade anyway.
But a theory of evolution does not specify nor rely upon any principle or statement of cosmic origins. For the practical purpose of discussing the evolution of life forms, evolutionary theory "doesn't care" what cosmic origins one stipulates, which is why there are theistic believers in a theory of evolution. So "real life" would rather discuss the origins of life. He is on no more solid ground, of course, because "poofism" is hardly the least absurd thesis which one can offer for the origins of life. But he scents an area in which he can heap ridicule on his interlocutor, because, if you get sucked into "real life's" game, you will be answering his questions, but he won't be answering yours.
,couldn't you just not deal with origin?
