Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 08:42 am
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/02/12/darwin-believers-hide-fears-of-intelligent-design-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule.html

Huge article. Small sampling:

Quote:

Strategy 4: Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution
Richard Katskee says that "Unlike creationists, real scientists aren't afraid to change their hypothesis if the facts don't support it," but Katskee himself preaches the dogmatic viewpoint that "the debate is over." Moreover, who seems unwilling to change their viewpoint? Last year, the staunchly pro-Darwin U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, proclaiming that "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution" because "no new evidence is likely to alter" it. They sure sound like they are unwilling to change their minds. In fact, it's only the Darwin-skeptics in this forum"myself and Candi Cushman"who wrote op-eds supporting teaching multiple scientific views on evolution. So who here is on the side of freedom and allowing people to change their minds?

Katskee further tries to stifle debate, saying that we "pretend that there are controversies in science, when in fact there aren't." I anticipated this argument, stating in my op-ed that:

"Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism).. The real losers here are students and scientific progress."

Again, Katskee's goal is to prevent you, the reader, from investigating the evidence for yourself. Yet my op-ed discussed a number of scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian evolution. Instead of discussing the science, Mr. Katskee appeals to authority: he wants you to accept evolution simply because many scientists do, so he asserts that, "Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists in this nation." Katskee wants to turn science into a voting contest. In science, votes don't matter, only the evidence matters, which is why I noted, there are significant, well-credentialed scientists who dissent from neo-Darwinism. We have an obligation to ourselves to investigate the evidence and make up our own minds. Based upon the types of arguments he makes, that's the last thing Katskee wants you to do.

Katskee does discuss a little science, asserting that "Major advances in medicine, biology, and the study of human origins hinge on evolution. Understanding evolution is thus becoming more important than ever as we look to biotech industries and medical breakthroughs to combat disease and improve our quality of life."

Of course he's right that evolution does accomplish small-scale changes in microorganisms that create problems when we try to fight diseases. But no one in the ID movement says that we should stop teaching the evidence for evolution. In contrast, it's Katskee who wants to censor the views of those scientists who dissent from neo-Darwinian evolution.

Moreover, Katskee isn't telling the whole story about how evolution relates to the fight against disease. When trying to fight anti-biotic resistant bugs, Darwinism provides little guidance beyond the truism that bacteria that are insensitive to a drug will produce more offspring, while those that are susceptible to a drug will die off. It is probably for this reason that evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in Nature that "if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say." What Katskee doesn't tell his readers is that to actually outsmart superbugs, biomedical researchers must intelligently design drug cocktails that rely upon the fact that there are limits to how much microorganisms can evolve.

So what Katskee means when he says "teach evolution properly" is really that we should teach evolution like a dogma that can't be questioned. This is will hamper the ability of students to understand science accurately.

Who now is behaving dogmatically and trying to squelch debates?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,599 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:27 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnaKKKe wrote:
Last year, the staunchly pro-Darwin U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, proclaiming that "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution" because "no new evidence is likely to alter" it. They sure sound like they are unwilling to change their minds.

No, it sounds like it's unlikely they'll change their minds. And with good reason: it's unlikely that any credible evidence will appear to challenge evolution.

gungasnaKKKe wrote:
Who now is behaving dogmatically and trying to squelch debates?

Is that a trick question?
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 09:29 am
@gungasnake,
gunga, Pope Gore will have you excommunicated from the Church of Science for questioning their theory ( see faith) of evolution!

HEATHEN!!

You must repent before global warming rains down hellfire and brimstone upon you, raising the seas to levels not seen since Noah!

0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:05 pm
It never fails to amaze me that some people are so brainwashed as to accept the Bible as science and no amount of facts will sway their opinions. Sometimes we believe what we want to believe.
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:14 pm
@NickFun,
I would say the same of some scientists and their desperate clinging to theories/beliefs/faith as facts.

The "theory" of evolution is just that...a theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true.

The "theory" of global warming is just that...a theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true.

Theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true...Sounds like the basis for many other religions in the world....
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:39 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:
The "theory" of evolution is just that...a theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true.

Evolutionary theory has been considered a scientific fact for over a hundred years now. Did you go to school in Texas by any chance?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:41 pm
@BigTexN,
Quote:
The "theory" of evolution is just that...a theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true.


Obviously, you don't know what theory means when used in a scientific context. Since science is so rigorous, a scientifically established theory is as close to truth as scientists are ever willing to stipulate. Words like hope, belief and faith apply to religion, not to science.

Quote:
The "theory" of global warming is just that...a theory/hope/belief/faith that it might someday be revealed to be true.


There is no theory of global warming. Climate change is hypothesis, precisely because there is insufficient data to make predictive models of climate change.

You really are very basically ignorant of scientific topics, aren't you?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:42 pm


ITS ONLY A THEORY but I think that gungass delusions are taking over his entire life.

rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
ITS ONLY A THEORY but I think that gungass delusions are taking over his entire life.

I think Gunga's delusions ARE his entire life.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:44 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
ITS ONLY A THEORY but I think that gungass delusions are taking over his entire life.

Still trying for the ignore list aren't ya? You may have to do better than that, I think Gunga likes ya Smile
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:48 pm
@Setanta,
It just scares the daylights out of you to have the similarities staring you in the face doesn't it? theory=faith=speculation=hope=contemplation=belief

Thats ok...religions often argue that other religions are in a state of denial...

And, just like other religions, Pope Gore preaches that if all do not convert then all will burn in global warming...sounds like hell to me!
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 02:55 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Did you go to school in Texas by any chance?


Did you go to school by any chance?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:27 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Did you go to school by any chance?

Of course. But not in Texas.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:31 pm
@rosborne979,
Sorry if there was any confusion. My comment was a modification of your question, Ros. But the question was still being addressed to BigTN.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:44 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Sorry if there was any confusion. My comment was a modification of your question, Ros. But the question was still being addressed to BigTN.

Ahh, that makes more sense. I thought you were talking to me for a second there Smile

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:45 pm
Again, a small sampling of a big article. Anybody interested should check out the whole article on the linked site.
rosborne979
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 10:47 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Again, a small sampling of a big article. Anybody interested should check out the whole article on the linked site.

And such a lovely article it is too. Written by this guy:
Quote:
Guest blogger Casey Luskin is cofounder of the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center and program officer in public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

A "Guest Blogger" from the DI. Good f*cking GOD, what will Gunga dredge up next.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:43 pm
Quote:
user ignored (view)....


Still works! Often the idiots start to find ways around things like that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:03 am
@BigTexN,
There is absolutely nothing scarey about your profound ignorance. Gore is not a scientist, and i don't look to Gore for scientific commentary, and certainly don't expect him to provide evidence from scientifically rigorous study.

The fear lies with those who can't give up their death grip on the book of middle eastern fairy tales and accept that what mommy and daddy taught them and what they "learned" in Sunday School is bullshit.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:53 am
@Setanta,
Getting some Al Gore on your shirt , is deroven from the same brown round that gunga craps out his associations between Darwin and , say, Hitler.
These guys have major anal -cranial inversions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Darwinists hide fears
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 02:15:47