Why do people deny evolution?

@Aetherian,

You have an awesome profile Aetherian, I can't bring myself to ridicule it, but you are being asked fair questions about providing evidence.

Aetherian's profile wrote:

I am an old man now of 93 years. I used to be a general practitioner experimenting with acupuncture.

I was born in the UK and after qualifying in medicine I was conscripted into the army and sent to the canal zone in Egypt for two years.

After 8 years of dissatisfaction with the health system I emigrated to New Zealand for 5 years but settled in Victoria Australia where I remain today.

My meeting with George King in 1958 changed my outlook on life completely. I wrote a book "Metaphysics and The New Age" available on Amazon, and is still on the computer for transmission free to any keen enough to ask for it.

It contains my experience with the spiritual aspects of metaphysics, and the occult history of the Earth which narrowly missed being taken over three times in the years following 1949-1945 war. We were about to be totally killed each time, apart from some unfortunates who might have survived when Hell planned to rise up into this world. The frightening thing about that one is how it was planned and could have happened, but we were saved by the sacrifices of Adepts alien to us taking six months in sorties into the lower astral, but safely within a few weeks of the margin allowed by The Lords of Karma.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I see you had to edit my post, removing the rolly-eye in order to make your so very clever rejoinder. You're pathetic.

Hmmm... so your words are dependent on emojis to give them meaning. Why don't you just skip the words?

Actually, that's a bad idea, emojis do not cut and paste in the A2K editor (PC version at least) and I'm far too lazy to fill them in for you, so next time try using just plain English.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

ID is not a religion.

The vast majority of people who talk about ID are using it as an argument to support their religion (overwhelming Christianity). This was demonstrated in the Dover court case.

You are treating it as a generic "intelligence" not necessarily supernatural or religious in nature. Unfortunately, you continue to borrow propaganda from the groups who are using ID to support their religion, so it casts a shadow on your position.

Maybe you should stop referring to your position as "ID", since that's kind of a Trademark at this point.

I will leave it up to you to come up with a better name for your position, since I would probably call it something like "Uselessly Pedantic Philosophical Obfuscation" or something like that Wink

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

an excellent and concise observation. I woulda sed that myself ifn I were smart enuff to think of it.
Betcha he dont get it though.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

And farmerman

Quote:

The vast majority of people who talk about ID are using it as an argument to support their religion (overwhelming Christianity).

The vast majority of people leading academia in the pursuit of determining the origin of all the processes we are observing in science are atheists and are using that belief as an argument to support their view. They then use their lack of ability to understand that the model we observe today which is, "all knew systems are designed by the intelligence of humans or a system that is to old to identify the intelligence that designed that system. (like life, operating according to Darwinian evolution, according to the rules established by some "type of ancient designer thing" that thinks similarly to human intelligence.)

Quote:

You are treating it as a generic "intelligence" not necessarily supernatural or religious in nature. Unfortunately, you continue to borrow propaganda from the groups who are using ID to support their religion, so it casts a shadow on your position.

Well I haven't seen Leadfoot do that as much as I have but, why does that matter if we want to provide historical and scientific evidence that supports that position?

Quote:

I will leave it up to you to come up with a better name for your position, since I would probably call it something like "Uselessly Pedantic Philosophical Obfuscation" or something like that Wink

Quote:

pe·dan·tic
/pəˈdan(t)ik/Submit
adjective
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, over-exacting, perfectionist, precisionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finical, finicky; dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist, scholastic; casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical; captious, hairsplitting, quibbling, pettifogging, fault-finding, hypercritical, cavilling, carping; informalnitpicking, pernickety; archaicovernice
"a pedantic interpretation of the rules"
learned, cerebral, didactic, bookish, pedagogic, donnish, highbrow, ivory-tower, pretentious, pompous;
intellectual, academic, scholastic, scholarly, literary;
informalegghead
"pedantic words like “irriguous”

Quote:

ob·fus·ca·tion
/ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
noun: obfuscation; plural noun: obfuscations
the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"

But, I think that would much easier fit farmerman's responses. Here is an example as he responds to Leadfoot.

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
. . . Its more easy to accept epigenetics as both sources for changes to the genome as that which occurs as responses in natutal selection, as well as where no permanent changes occur to the genome yet the effect of methylation, hisones, or RNAi effects are similarly heritable.
Its a whole new world of interpretation resulting in "fast or slow" evolution . BUT, Ill say that effects of such things as biogeographical isolation events or rapid climatic changes are difficult to explain in terms of an Intelligent Design where a "HE" is involved (as was your earlier pronouncements".

Now that you seem (to me at least) to be more inquiring the role that the chemistry of amino acid and protein linkages occur, youre position is moving away from an intelligent designer and more to that of a Darwinian/ Lamarkian.

I think this is one of those times where science will be making some big changes in its own rulebook as it , sort of, welcomes Lamarck back into the fold.

I was a strict anti Lamarkian for years. It was almost a heresy to accept inheritance of acquired characteristics, until data hinted at such heritability , such that kids of obese parents tend to younger obesity, or smokers children have effects several generations after a great grandparent and subsequent generations became non-smokers.

That, and the chemical makeups of biomarkers in sediments tend to be varying through time (in response to environmental changes or even extinction events), but so far, no chemical REPEAT of exactly the same biomarkers had been reported.

Farmerman acts like Leadfoot does not accept epigenetics as both sources for changes to the genome as that which occurs as responses in natutal selection, as well as where no permanent changes occur to the genome yet the effect of methylation, hisones, or RNAi effects are similarly heritable.

Instead I think he does accept epigenetics. And, epigentics is precisely the information that he is suggesting was front loaded into the system during the initiation of life.

But the following is an even better example.

Quote:

Its true that I dont know you at all xcept for hat I read herein. However, I DO know that you quietly like to change your opinions regarding ID., Therefore, as I see it, youve come a long way pilgrim. Whether you know it or not, youve come very close to becoming a "evo-lutionite" .I recall in a few of your past posts where you argued that the "Intelligent Designer" had set it up so that HIS work would be inferred as random evolution and we would be (IMHO) "duped" into accepting naturalistic ways of the rise of life on this planet. Remember that lecture??
Lately youve abandoned the pronouncement of a "HE" and have been more closely approaching science (as in your posing of "front loading" of chemical reactions that are responsible for "creating new information " that resides on genes(as in a bunch of barcodes)

How else is Leadfoot or myself going to get past your obsession with Dover and your infatuation with Judge Jones. If judge Jones can find a way to keep his Catholicism out of the discussion to make his decision palatable to society's one sided view of "all religion is evil because some religious people did and do evil things" why can't we because you can't hold people accountable and discount their opinions for the sins of their fathers. There seems to be a double standard because scientists and non religious people did/do evil things also.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The vast majority of people leading academia in the pursuit of determining the origin of all the processes we are observing in science are atheists and are using that belief as an argument to support their view.

And you say that with yourself as authority??. I think Im waay closer to the science than you and its about 60:40 in favor of Religious v "aetheists" (in which I include a great number of merely agnostics).

Ive taught at Catholic affiliated colleges and a private denominational Ivy League. Ive nver seen a "Vast majority" of aetheism in most of the sciences at any of the schools I was associated with.

Quote:

Farmerman acts like Leadfoot does not accept epigenetics as both sources for changes to the genome as that which occurs as responses in natutal selection, as well as where no permanent changes occur to the genome yet the effect of methylation, hisones, or RNAi effects are similarly heritable.

Why dont you lt him answer bcause that was almot the rank opposite of what I said. (I think you will find h undertns way btter than do you.(qpprently).
Hi arguments are mostly within the controllers hands on the "switches"

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

epigentics is precisely the information that he is suggesting was front loaded into the system during the initiation of life

Exctly!, but ithout anything vintiary, its mere wih list , not a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses (even though they fall well beneath fct and theory) DO have scientific value based upon either observation or evidence (Just not a "preponderance " of evidence)

Just claiming that " chemical front loading" is a real mechanism, without anything that constitutes scientific thinking, an then as Ros suggests
,"conflating his assertions with stuff hacked from the Discovery Institute (Much of it VERBATIM) makes his thinking sound mostly faith based and NOT concluded from evidence.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Any time I bring up Dover its a;ways in response to LF's stubborn enial that the Dover decision is LAW and is settled law (unless someone else wishes to challenge it).
Is that you or LF???
I think if you carefully analyze the decision, you will see its pretty good an complete and full of gret reasoning.

I mut say though, the IDers, when put to the test, were armed with a "Nerf Cannon" full of fairy tales and pure hokum , "such as "the Supernatural is Science too"

I am betting now that you guys are busy thinking how we can dig up some opinion somewhere that epigenetic trqnsfer, because it can allow for "speedier" evolution, is evidence for your way of thinking.
If thats the case, why does epigenetic gene insertion not "select" for a preferred genotype nd phenotype when the facts are that in the wake of a rapid environmental change, we see that MANY epigenetic transfers in differing individuaals and populations actually prove that selection in nature is actually,chaotic and not intelligent (t least as the way we define intelligent).
I think science is making a big paradigm hift by re introducing the possibility of "wnvironmentally introduced genetic changes" (This was something ed been suggesting at for several decades when it becamse noted that certain organic chemicals(specially chloromethanes and chloro biphenyls) could be affecting fetal development, in utero.

Or we may see Polar Bears not go extinct but "evolve" at a non Darwinian rate due to some external enviironmental pressure.

Why not just sit yer religion by the doorstep and watch what science is dicovering and how it affects conclusions, (not, as you guys wish, to present your conclusions FIRST)

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
ID is not a religion.

ros said:
The vast majority of people who talk about ID are using it as an argument to support their religion (overwhelming Christianity). This was demonstrated in the Dover court case.

You are treating it as a generic "intelligence" not necessarily supernatural or religious in nature.

Thank you for acknowledging that. Farmer has thus far refused to.

Quote:

Unfortunately, you continue to borrow propaganda from the groups who are using ID to support their religion, so it casts a shadow on your position.

I assume you mean the Discovery Institute. They, and I, acknowledge having theological beliefs. Are you saying that proves anything said regarding evolutionary theory is propaganda? If so, it makes discussion moot.

Quote:

Maybe you should stop referring to your position as "ID", since that's kind of a Trademark at this point.

I will leave it up to you to come up with a better name for your position, since I would probably call it something like "Uselessly Pedantic Philosophical Obfuscation" or something like that

We've been around this block before, but both farmer and you treat these discussion as if every day is a fresh start, that we've never encountered each other before, that you have no idea what my background and general knowledge about the subject is. I don't know if that's really how you see it or are just pretending for the sake of the silent peanut gallery.

But you kind of give away your position at the very end there.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Your words seem not to be dependent on honesty or integrity, so why should I care about this stupid quibble?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I believe that he is convinced regarding his "front loaded chemistry" idea. After all, the mechanism isnt really disparate from what Ive been saying concerning the simple reactions that govern how amino acids react and link. The only problem he cannot resolve(or xplain) is this (among other things),
"if life is a product of intelligent design, what then is ones hypothesis about the role of, say, extinction of species?? After all,of all life that ever was, 99.99999% is extinct.
Doesnt that strongly suggest that, no matter what the RATES of evolution may be, the fact that extinction wins out over evolution by a large mathematical range, further suggesting strongly that selection occurs as a result of environmental , as well as populational pressures , and these, by virtue of our geologic record do not seem to follow any recognizable "design plans"

Nother thing, What if the U would suddenly impose some sort of Chritian"Sharia type" law within our governmental day. Would that result in a case before a Fed Ditrict Court?? Id say yes it would.
SO what difference is the Dover Court Case presenting to our (supposedly non denominational) Constitution?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

And you say that with yourself as authority??. I think Im waay closer to the science than you and its about 60:40 in favor of Religious v "aetheists" (in which I include a great number of merely agnostics).

Let me clarify. The "leadership" of academia is mostly atheist or agnostic. But the agnostics act like atheists because Dover forces them to if they want to advance in their careers. An example Sean Caroll "a leading physicist" gave is, papers submitted on quantum gravity are not going to be accepted by physics journals. But, quantum gravity is the solution to unifying physics, and it does by viewing all of space (meaning the space inside an atom and outside of atoms) as a complex system of information storage and information management. And, that system's existence and complexity appears to be impossible to explain without an author. So since the particles that make up that space are invisible to us anyway, they avoid that controversy by not accepting papers on the subject altogether.

Quote:

Ive taught at Catholic affiliated colleges and a private denominational Ivy League. Ive nver seen a "Vast majority" of aetheism in most of the sciences at any of the schools I was associated with.

And they have backed up their beliefs by teaching how their world view can be used as a logical philosophical interpretation of science?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Exctly!, but ithout anything vintiary, its mere wih list , not a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses (even though they fall well beneath fct and theory) DO have scientific value based upon either observation or evidence (Just not a "preponderance " of evidence)

The evidence is in the modeling of intelligent design that seems to be revealed as we try to understand the information in the universe by viewing it overtime and then comparing models and systems to one another to develop hypothesis's. The main model being what we as humans do every day with our limited intelligence and physical capabilities in our short life spans to create and understand.

We can observe our human model of intelligence creating complexity, but we have not "observed" or modeled complex systems coming into existence from anything but other complex systems that are operating using artificial intelligence.

We have observed the results of biological evolution through natural selection. But, that is not the same as saying we have observed or modeled a process that has come anywhere close to fulfilling the claims you keep making which is, "natural evolution of matter, without intelligent guidance of some sort (whether it is natural or supernatural), is capable of explaining the existence of matter, and all the life forms we observe today".

Quote:

Just claiming that " chemical front loading" is a real mechanism, without anything that constitutes scientific thinking, an then as Ros suggests
,"conflating his assertions with stuff hacked from the Discovery Institute (Much of it VERBATIM) makes his thinking sound mostly faith based and NOT concluded from evidence.

And similarly, just claiming that the proposals suggested by Evolution through natural selection is a complete scientific theory because you did not use the Discovery Institute's philosophical point of view (which is illegal anyway now as you proudly point out) does not lower the bar for your burden of proof to "we can accept pure speculation and call it science because these same scientists have determined that their philosophical point of view has been determined and codified as the only acceptable view academia will consider as valid.

If intelligence is a required element to a model that fully explains evolution and unifies physics how are we going to find out if it won't be accepted as a possibility by mainstream academia because of fear of no career advancement by merely suggesting a hypothesis. (Like I pointed out about Sean Carroll in my previous post.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Any time I bring up Dover its a;ways in response to LF's stubborn enial that the Dover decision is LAW and is settled law (unless someone else wishes to challenge it).

Dover was poorly argued and poorly decided because it has lead to the extreme bias of not discussing good scientific hypothesis's And, you and Leadfoot keep revealing it. You correctly point out that the Discovery Institute might go to far in pushing their philosophical view by making it too religious (and I think unscientific) but Leadfoot does not go there (anymore anyway). Leadfoot is now treading where Jones wanted the DI to be so that they would be in compliance with the constitution.

Quote:

Is that you or LF???
I think if you carefully analyze the decision, you will see its pretty good an complete and full of gret reasoning.

I accept your challenge. Here is my first challenge.

Could it be that you could be applying Dover in a radical way that Jones never intended?

I say that because overtime Leadfoot has made the adjustments necessary in his verbiage (and it appears to be a corresponding adjustment in his view) that should satisfy you and Jones. So why the pushback?

Quote:

Is that you or LF???
I think if you carefully analyze the decision, you will see its pretty good an complete and full of gret reasoning.

I would suggest that is true for DI not Leadfoot and hopefully not myself. Just so happens they were the only game in town and Dover being taken to radical extremes is guaranteeing it stays that way. What do you think?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I am betting now that you guys are busy thinking how we can dig up some opinion somewhere that epigenetic trqnsfer, because it can allow for "speedier" evolution, is evidence for your way of thinking.
If thats the case, why does epigenetic gene insertion not "select" for a preferred genotype nd phenotype when the facts are that in the wake of a rapid environmental change, we see that MANY epigenetic transfers in differing individuaals and populations actually prove that selection in nature is actually,chaotic and not intelligent (t least as the way we define intelligent).

You are assuming the designer of the system is omnipotent and the corresponding system of AI is equally omnipotent when you say,"why does epigenetic gene insertion not "select" for a preferred genotype nd phenotype when the facts are that in the wake of a rapid environmental change, we see that MANY epigenetic transfers in differing individuaals and populations actually prove that selection in nature is actually,chaotic and not intelligent (t least as the way we define intelligent)".

Defining intelligence that way is not what Leadfoot or I have done you are transferring the Discovery Institutes's interpretation of intelligence to our arguments.

I for one, think the system of natural selection was purposely designed to adjust to the environment in the same way that engineers and marketing departments adjust product design to adapt to a constantly changing environment in the marketplace. There too, there are more losers than winners. (I will let Leadfoot speak for himself on what he thinks though.)

Quote:

I think science is making a big paradigm hift by re introducing the possibility of "wnvironmentally introduced genetic changes

The environment is a very complex system of selection of newly introduced information. That by definition is a system of artificial intelligence.

Quote:

Wikipedia
Artificial intelligence

In computer science, artificial intelligence (AI), sometimes called machine intelligence, is intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals.

Natural selection of new traits introduced into the genome is not being done by an animal nor a human but by a living program interacting with the data it receives as input from the environment. I think that fits the definition of AI. Whether or not, the introduction of new information is purely random, or the new information has a natural or supernatural origin should be open for discussion.

Don't you think?

Quote:

Or we may see Polar Bears not go extinct but "evolve" at a non Darwinian rate due to some external enviironmental pressure.

I guess that depends on how smart the system is getting to be. In the past it use to create new species faster than they went extinct.

What do you think changed to reverse that process?

Quote:

Why not just sit yer religion by the doorstep and watch what science is dicovering and how it affects conclusions, (not, as you guys wish, to present your conclusions FIRST)

I hope I have done that. If not I hope you can still dialogue with me since this is not an academic teaching environment and therefore I don't think Dover applies here.

1 Reply

Dialogue is a noun, not a verb. Why don't you try talking with him, and while you're at it, drop all the bullshit assumptions with which you cripple your feeble arguments at the outset.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

And, that system's existence and complexity appears to be impossible to explain without an author. So since the particles that make up that space are invisible to us anyway, they avoid that controversy by not accepting papers on the subject altogether.

So when youre unsure of a concept you change the subject?? I see. I think you need to explain fully why something appears to need an author.

Quote:

they avoid that controversy by not accepting papers on the subject altogether.

, who is this "They". Ive known many in yeomans roles of reviewing papers and where do you think we get some of the more iconoclastic paprs from??
I recall when I was a kid and Continental Drift, originally the pastime of madmen, became science by several papers published with their data all layed out for others to examine and repeat or refute.
SCience is often a big barfight among participants.
I recall the early evolutionary arguments between Drs Woese and MArgulis who, each advanced science while hating each others guts.
I am somewhat conversant in p"rofessional iconoclasm" because Ive asked many students to research the histories of several areas of natural science and its amazing how often the students believe that papers are avoided by some means of "controlling thought".

We actually need the thoughts and findings of people who dont agree with science (as long as the methodology is sound, for example, a paleo journal gave space to some outfit that was "proving" that Cretaceaous fossils were only 100000 yers old or less(all done by C14). Then the journal committees of folks familiar with the lab methods tore the paper apart after giving it a respected day in the sunlight.
(Their methods were bogus basically)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

So when youre unsure of a concept you change the subject?? I see. I think you need to explain fully why something appears to need an author.

Same subject because the underlying order necessary for biochemistry to operate as precisely as it does (and has for millenium) requires an understanding of quantum mechanics, quantum biology, and how they relate to quantum gravity.

There are layers of entangled information in a nucleus of an atom. That information is element specific and (except for radioactive decay or nuclear reactions) remains that way for millions to billions of years.

The nucleus of some atoms are entangled in a less permanent, but equally complex way with the higgs field through the weak nuclear fields. This interaction gives us nuclear decay. Nuclear decay is also element specific and that is why Carbon 14 decays at a very specific rate for eons no matter where it is located on earth and more than likely everywhere else in the universe.

The nuclei of atoms as a whole are also entangled with the Higgs Field in an even less permanent way (ionic forms of elements change often and sometimes easily) through the electromagnetic field. We know it is complex though because every element's interactions with the higgs field can be explained by the same equations using the same physical constants everywhere in the universe at anytime in the past and future.

Finally all the atoms of a piece of matter (like the Earth) interact with the Higgs field using the same mechanism but on a scale much larger that combines all the elements in a large piece of matter through the gravitational field. That gives us gravity but Eisenstein showed the same constants still apply and they are the same everywhere all the time in the entire universe.

Understanding these underlying layers of order is what is necessary to make biochemistry, evolution of matter, and evolution of living DNA possible. (see quantum biology)

Those papers on quantum effects appear as nonsensical without an author, as a novel being written by a random word generator. There lies the problem.

Quote:

who is this "They". Ive known many in yeomans roles of reviewing papers and where do you think we get some of the more iconoclastic paprs from??
I recall when I was a kid and Continental Drift, originally the pastime of madmen, became science by several papers published with their data all layed out for others to examine and repeat or refute.

These papers will require a rewriting of Big Bang cosmology. The only way to make it work the cosmology requires the Big Bang to to be a transition from a perfect universe with one temperature throughout to the one we view today as Roger Penrose and Alan Guth both hypothesized. The other problem they both realized is it then requires a quantum creation event to be the starting point of the universe rather than the Big bang event.

That phrase "quantum creation event" is illegal in scientific communities precisely because of radical interpretations Dover carrying over into the scientific community as a whole. So people like you are the "they".

Quote:

We actually need the thoughts and findings of people who dont agree with science (as long as the methodology is sound

I agree.

I think Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose and Alan Guth are considered to be scientists that are grounded in reality (at least some of the time anyway).

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The evidence is in the modeling of intelligent design that seems to be revealed as we try to understand the information in the universe by viewing it overtime and then comparing models and systems to one another to develop hypothesis's.

I really dont understand what you mean by "modelling". I ve got maybe 30 + years of expperience at math modelling of hydrologic systems for mining systems (FE, FD or hybrid ). NOONE that I know has ever done designing from a model. Its always a "best guess" based upon someones biases drawn from some limited batch of information. "Experts" hired for court hearings , will many times do models as if using math will add some kind of reality. It doesnt, because often, a model will just confuse the system nd draw it away from scientific facts.
SO I kind of chuckle at you thinking that math (or the underlying conceptual models) models are an ultimate truth.

At best, a model will come close to reality if ALL the inputs and independent variables are chosen honestly and objectively and not ass backwards . Ive taken models apart in court proceedings where my team had shown that the modell had been based on BS values that were chosen just to give the answer the modellers wanted to see.

We used to call it "Applications of Finnegan's Finegling Factors" (where the modeller selects numbers which when added to, subtracted from , multiplied by or divided by the real number , will give you the answer you wanted.)

I think you should talk to some folks experienced in math models to give you advice as to how and hell you feel that you even have enough known values to propose doing a model in the first place. You would, I submit, hve to "make up" most of your constants and variables. (Let alone the entire field equations).
Sorta like the DRAKE EQUATION. We all use it and talk through it , but e all know that every steenking variable in that equation is pulled out of the air with not even an idea of reality. We have one planet with known intelligent life (or even life at all) SO, using the well known(and dead wrong) concept of doing mapping by a one point contour base, from which Drake has assigned a math ratio for other life bearing planets.
I think the Drake equation is fun, but I really dont think many take it too seriously.(Why?? cause none of it shows any basis of being evidence based). Thats the thing about you entreating "modelling" as support for ID. your "model" becomes your evidence because the rest of it has NO evidence upon which to base your model. Am I understood? I think that anyone who comes up with an ID model, is peddling bullshit by the carload.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

you did not use the Discovery Institute's philosophical point of view (which is illegal anyway now as you proudly point out) does not lower the bar for your burden of proof to "we can accept pure speculation and call it science because these same scientists have determined that their philosophical point of view has been determined and codified as the only acceptable view academia will consider as valid.

Nice try, blqme science for what you guys expertly do. THE ONE big difference is that science theories have only been concluded AFTER evidence is found that shows the way it appears to pan out. For example, the revision of Darwinian theory to include that of Comte de Lamarck (as an example) is something that science is now dealing with.
ID, on the other hand, without any evidence that hasnt been debunked starts with a conclusion and hopes that science can find something that will keep the ID movement going for a couple more years.

Quote:

Discovery Institute's philosophical point of view (which is illegal anyway now as you proudly point out)

You playing stupid? or are you just ignoring facts??
Discovery Institute is protected by the Constitution s is anyone else POV. You just seem to want to deny the findings o the courts about taching a state religion in public schools. TRY TO KEEP UP or just quit trying to converse about things you have little knowledge or interest in.

Were going out to brunch with friends, Ill get back sometime later

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know