Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

It's a case of - Your science bad, their science good.

No, it's a case of His science is specious bullshit, our science is actual science. There's a little bit of a difference there buddy.

I wish your posts weren't so disingenuous so often. You could do so much better.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

No, it's a case of His science is specious bullshit, our science is actual science. There's a little bit of a difference there buddy.

I wasn't making a blanket statement covering everything someone else said, just the current subtopic (Quantum effects in biology). He offered the same credible source as the other side has offered and the other side said nothing to refute it so I call it like I see it. The other side is being hypocritical. And you apparently have a different standard for the two sides.

And you haven't gone any further with the conversation that you started (about what I mean by ID) and that I replied to. I agreed to call it anything you felt comfortable with as long as the conversation stuck to facts. You went silent or as in other cases with you and farmer, just keeps saying that I've presented no arguments at all. If that were true, I'd say it would be idiotic to keep engaging with someone for years (since 2012 I think?) without them saying anything relevant to the argument.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

True, but thats not what they were doing. The two cases were trying to TEACH science from their religious worldview. Am I clear on that??

Teching a subject that is based on a specific worldview is an always will be in violation o the establishment clause.

YOU JUST CANT DO IT IN A SECULAR SCHOOL SYSTEM

We do not have secular public schools. We have public schools that should teach multiple philosophical view points. Secularism is a specific world view based on Naturalism and/or Subjective Idealism.

Intelligent Design (including the malarkey the Discovery institute teaches) is based on Naturalism, Objective Idealism and Naive Realism.

Quote:

Quote:
Is that too much to ask?
Yes it is, Youve just made up the term "Objective Idealism" and it sounds like its hiding a religious base, and you think youre being a smart ass by making up silly titles for something on which youve amply blown your cover.

Why didn't you look this up before you accused me of making it up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

Quote:

Objective idealism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Objective idealism is an idealistic metaphysics that postulates that there is in an important sense only one perceiver, and that this perceiver is one with that which is perceived. One important advocate of such a metaphysics, Josiah Royce (the founder of American idealism),[1] wrote that he was indifferent "whether anybody calls all this Theism or Pantheism". Plato is regarded as one of the earliest representatives of objective idealism. It is distinct from the subjective idealism of George Berkeley, and it abandons the thing-in-itself of Kant's dualism.

Idealism, in terms of metaphysics, is the philosophical view that the mind or spirit constitutes the fundamental reality. It has taken several distinct but related forms. Among them are objective and subjective idealism. Objective idealism accepts common sense realism (the view that material objects exist) but rejects naturalism (according to which the mind and spiritual values have emerged from material things), whereas subjective idealism denies that material objects exist independently of human perception and thus stands opposed to both realism and naturalism.

If subjective idealism locks itself within the sphere of the cognizing individual and the sensuous form of his cognition, objective idealism, on the contrary, lifts the result of human thought, of man's entire culture, to an absolute, ascribing to it absolutely independent suprapersonal being and active power. — Alexander Spirkin. Fundamentals of Philosophy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990. p. 30.

Objective idealism … interprets the spiritual as a reality existing outside and independent of human consciousness.

— Oizerman, T. I., The Main Trends in Philosophy. Moscow, 1988, p. 57.
Schelling[2] and Hegel had forms of objective idealism.

The philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce stated his own version of objective idealism in the following manner:

The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws (Peirce, CP 6.25).

A. C. Ewing is an analytic philosopher influenced by the objective idealist tradition. His approach has been termed analytic idealism.[3]

Note the link is to a list of philosophies. Not, a list of religions. Your philosophy (secularism), my philosophy and the Discovery Institutes philosophies are all on the list.

Why should the government only use your worldview when interpreting the data?

Quote:

You have equal protection. You can start a prochial school nd disallow Darwinian or Lamarkian evolution , genetics, paleo, geo sciences, nuke physics, etc etc. And you can do this all you wish. YOU JUST CANT DO IT IN A SECULAR SCHOOL SYSTEM

We teach all points of view in the Parochial school my kids attend/attended (you pointed that out to be your experience also). Only public, or should I say, secular schools discriminate.

What you are really saying is I get to use your tax dollars to promote my worldview but you have to use your private money to teach your worldview alongside my world view at your school. Sounds like we need a Boston Tea Party and revolt against King (I mean Judge) Jones.

Quote:

2.
Quote:
I am not afraid of the debate at all levels. Are you
totally not the point. Its about establishing a religion, not debating science

What religion is being established when using Intelligent Design, Objective Idealism, Naive Realism and Naturalism as philosophies to interpret data?

Are you masking your religion in the term "world view"? I think it is time to change the meaning of the word religion.

Quote:

re·li·gionDictionary result for religion
/rəˈlijən/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

It should read," the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or the belief and worship that Atheistic worldview can replace God or gods as the controlling power in society.

Or, we could leave the first definition in place and just say,"human intelligence is a secularists substitute for a "god" and call it a religion so King Jones can outlaw it also. But wouldn't that make him God then?

Maybe we should just quit regulating philosophical debate from the federal bench except to say all reasonable views should be discussed and let local communities define reasonable based on guidelines established by each state legislature. I am sure Nebraska and California would both do just fine without the Feds being involved. Don't you think?

What could that hurt?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

What a maroon.

What is a maroon? That is an adjective not a noun.

Quote:

You lay out your unsupported assumptions, and they try to suggest that others have to disprove them.

Who are "they". The assumptions are the "they" suggesting something. What is your native language?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Try to stay within the subject ,QM is a series of governing reaction modes, not some trivial effects that may not even be occurring within organisms.
To date, in one of my references that even discuss it, was where it was playfully described as "The only effects visible within the world of animals or plants is Schroedinger's cat"

Read all the links. The system keeps getting more complex the more it is understood how qm factors into the equation. I think Leadfoot could back me up on this statement, "It appears that the interior of an atom is more like a microchip than a storage space for a jumbled up mess of energy". People doing research on superconductors and Bose Einstein condensates will attest to that too.

The question is, "How did all these "microchips" atoms appear out of nothing?"

Shroedinger's cat was just a thought experiment saying that it appears the universe is making decisions even when we are not. The universe had decided when the cat died (suggesting algorithm or artificial intelligence), we just found out the universe's decision when we opened the lid and obtained more local information from the entangled quantum world we experience before the measurement is taken. The measurement forces our mind to look at the data locally and at an instant rather than universally over a period of time.

Does this make sense to you Leadfoot?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

A2K is only a side joint for me. I have to spend most of my time paying the bills and taking care of my daughter.

I don't read Brian's posts any more because I was able to determine (a long time ago) that a significant number of his posts are complete nonsense and a waste of my time even to read and consider. I came to that decision after reading through all of his stuff for over a year, so it's a well considered choice.

I don't have you on ignore because you are not an idiot, and many of your posts contain valuable perspectives that are worth my time to consider, even though I don't agree with a lot of them. I've known you for a long time now (on A2K) and I think I understand you pretty well. We've both made our arguments and presented our cases and mostly just end up disagreeing. Those conversations are done and I don't really want to rehash them. Which is why I don't always go back into the discussion even if I happen to have a bit of time available.

So now I prefer just to go for the low-hanging fruit you periodically offer, and let Farmerman do most of my talking. He and I generally follow the path of mainstream science so we are usually pretty close in agreement, and our arguments are easy to support because all the hard work is already done for us.

If you come up with something new I'll try to devote some time to it. But until then I'll probably just be an annoying little fly that buzzes around any rotten low-hanging fruit you put out there.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

No, it's a case of His science is specious bullshit, our science is actual science. There's a little bit of a difference there buddy.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha

The sheer stupidty and arrogance in his shitty piece of posting!!!

lol. qed

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Before I get totally buried in your "Obfuscation via word salad" Let me try ONE LAST TIME to try to present some facts surrounding the Dover case and Juge Jones decision.

1. You assert that with Judge Jones decision, he has effectively "cut off" speculation and (my words) investigations from all corners. I say, TWADDLE--its just the opposite, for you see, lets say Judge Jones found for the Dover SChool board. Tht would, of course opene the science programs to be taught from an ID standpoint. THT would have effectively CLOSED DOWN all sciences based upon the scientific method, based on Methodological Naturalism. ID would then be able to be taught IN ALL SCHOOLS, PUBLIC , PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL. (Ill let someone else deliberate the consequences to payment of the schools via taxes).

Gone would be discovery based science where conceptual models and theories would be developed based on such findingsWHY? because youd already presume the answer (IDidit)

2."Evolution would (according to LF's beliefs) become mere "pre deterministic anagenesis" (This means that we just sit and wait because everything is always "progressing upward") despite what history has shown.

3. Science is that which can be falsified. We often plan research based on that premise. If Judge Jones would have found for the School board, falsification would be ass backward.

So actually , should the school board hve won, science(speciifically biology and paleontology) would be pretty much a waste of our time. Sciences would be the losers and, by law, we would go back to the way it used to be in the US in the early 20th century when Evolution was mostly forbidden to be taught in school science courses.
( I have quite a collection of biollogy text- books that were in use in the early last century, they are mostly
1. stupidly argued
2. Racist in content
3. Valueless in their conclusions
4. Religious based from a Fundamental Christian standpoint (They even denied that sects like Catholics were Christians in several texts)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Science is that which can be falsified.

oh, ok. uhhhhh I mean really?
Come on man, read some good books on science philosophy.
It really isn't that simple.

Quote:

A conceptual analysis of falsificationism is performed, in which the central falsificationist thesis is divided into several components. Furthermore, an empirical study of falsification in science is reported, based on the 70 scientific contributions that were published as articles in Nature in 2000. Only one of these articles conformed to the falsificationist recipe for successful science, namely the falsification of a hypothesis that is more accessible to falsification than to verification. It is argued that falsificationism relies on an incorrect view of the nature of scientific inquiry and that it is, therefore, not a tenable research methodology.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-004-5922-1

0 Replies

@farmerman,

1. The court case was never about teaching evolution in school or eliminating it. What makes you think that if you teach one you can't teach the other . You keep talking about how you worked in parochial schools where both were taught.

2. Deterministic only from Gods point of view and only if the intelligence is omnipitent. The discussion can be had.
3. I know the big bang is not the beginning of the universe and matter is not created inside of stars. How do we falsify that. I know macroevolution cannot happen without intelligence. How do we falsify that? Macro evolution has never been replicated, Therefore falsifying it.

What makes you think both can't be taught side-by-side till when is definitively falsified ?

Some believe in ID. And Some believe in evolution with intelligent guidance. Therefore some form of evolution will always have to be taught. Some believe in purely natural evolution. All would be taught until one is falsified.

Are you afraid Macroevolution by natural selection has already been falsified?

And the only way to keep it in schools is by outlawing the competition?

Quit setting up these strawman arguments that hav already been settled. And so what if a new generation has to have another discussion on the same topic, life is a learning process. Learning critical thinking skills is an asset learned from experience.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

you worked in prochial chools where both were taught

I did not. I was in parochial schools wherein ONLY science was taught, not ID.

Quote:

The court case was never about teaching evolution in school or eliminating it.

You know this how?? A court case, should it prevail, never reveals its plans for full implementation at the time of the adjudication . Dont talk like you dont understand.

Quote:

. Deterministic only from Gods point of view and only if the intelligence is omnipitent. The discussion can be had

Really? I rest my case about your supposed "scientific
views"

Quote:

I know macroevolution cannot happen without intelligence. How do we falsify that? Macro evolution has never been replicated, Therefore falsifying it.

Well, then you better get to work. If you feel that only an Intelligence can affect macro evolution, the responsibility is yours to falsify that statement. SCience is basically silent on those "value" pronouncements. Thats why ID is kind of annoying in its cluelessness.

Quote:

What makes you think both can't be taught side-by-side till when is definitively falsified

Why not include teaching about the flying spaghetti monster also? Then when it is ultimately shown to be unfalsifiable (among a myriad , of other inconsistencies)only then do we stop teaching it?? You work for the Trump administration?? Thats sounds like something they would propose and expect folks to "Buy its logic"

Code: Are you afraid Macroevolution by natural selection has already been falsified?

macroevolution has effectively been falsified by evidence and prediction. That does NOT mean that its FALSE.(you seem to be heading on that track and I would like to send you back to a main line). Since science doesnt concern itself with your way of thinking, I dont think that anyone (except Creationists and IDers) has conducted reserch governing whether "design plans" are in our purvue. Thats kinda your game. You are doing all the asserting, it appears to me that you oughta have a big bag of evidence to convince me why I should buy your wordview.

Your wanting me to sustain my worldview when I have no reason to defend it , all the research results seem to support my view. The only way you can help your fading system of belief is to come up with something that approaches evidence. Youve already shot yourself in the foot regarding falsifiability (I think you should have though that out better)

Quote:

And the only way to keep it in schools is by outlawing the competition?

I think Ive been quite patient with you and Im now in a state of unbelief as to your unwillingness to accept simple facts. IT WAS THE SCHOOLBOARD;s motion to adopt ID because it stated that "evolution is only a theory in which many scientists are claiming to be false" The 8 families sued because they didnt want their children to be in direct violation of the state Education boards own policy regarding teaching "SCience" from a presumed religious foundation

Quote:

Quit setting up these strawman arguments that hav already been settled

Ive just posted several repeats of arguments youve used over and over . All of which are kinda without base because th underlying case has, indeed, (not been sttled but adjudicated, and your entire bag of pronouncements has been found to be unsupportable. AND, I may add, no one else has since tried to smack down the Jones Decision. SO, , apparently youre the one whose posting all the "Straw People"
I think Ive said on several occasions that you sound ignorant of the entire Dover Case. I repeat that admonition. There are several really good books (Even one by the Discovery Institute where theyve tried to argue why they caved in the middle of the case). My favorite remains to beMONKEY GIRL, by Edward Humes, a "creative non-fiction author" who, writes mostly on societal issues that predominantly affect the US .
Hes not a scientist but an investigative reporter who untangled the purposeful schmear that the IDers tri to affix to the whole thing after the Jones decision was presented.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It appears to me that the discovery Institute has done more harm than good. I will agree their interpretion of the evidence is very poor science. It appears to me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Because of Its complexity it appears that the universe is designed. It appears that evolution is a fact but since it isn't replicatable without intelligence intelligence could be part of it. For that philosophical and non-religious reason alone ID should be discussed. I think that will get pushback from both the discovery Institute and evolutionists . What do you think ?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

If you come up with something new I'll try to devote some time to it. But until then I'll probably just be an annoying little fly that buzzes around any rotten low-hanging fruit you put out there.

Fair enough about not engaging every argument, I don't feel the need to defend against weak arguments either. I did appreciate the effort to get farmer to engage on it because he is one of the few to challenge ID (my version) with anything other than insults.
I value these conversations for the same reason you do. A theory or belief is pretty worthless unless you can defend it against worthy opposing ones.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

I dont share the belief that complexity requires intelligence. Your, and others comparisons with electronic gear and airplanes is mere "bumperstickery" to make readers draw towards conclusions of ID. Yet, in reality, ID "researchers" have not produced any evidence in support of ID's "substructure" (like irreducible complexity which, as you know, has been severely debunked by mere observations of life at its simplest.

Quote:

It appears that evolution is a fact but since it isn't replicatable without intelligence intelligence could be part of it

Science is always on the block to make sure we have EVIDENCE before pronouncement as fact. If your gonna play that game then you too need to follow the rules. Wheres your proof of your "replecatable only through intelligence" assertion. So far youve gotten away with statements like "Its obvious..." or "because life is so complex it must have had a designer..." . You need to produce more rigorous thinking and evidence than just statements of your worldview.

I hear that, this yer There will be a paper that is now going through review by tech editing boards ,regarding "nucleic acid free" organisms.

Whether you know it or not, there are usually several discussions regarding the origins and rise of life that include support by its supporters . These discussions occur in break-out sessions in several annual conferences.

These are welcomed because they draw much discussion and focus on research needs and what constitutes evidence.

Im going to a "Darwin Days" (Feb 11 and 12) in which 2 of the main sessions are frank discussions of what constitute an origin of life using the Iron/Sulfur models and tightly supported by IDers who are trying to co-opt the Margulis/Woese concepts of archean symbiosis and/or lateral gene transfer. SO we ill have plenty of representation by an ID (non Creationist) contingent. I am anxious to hear whats going on .

Its the first event in which Ive actually seen a work plan by which to approach such evidence gathering.

0 Replies

just read "icons of evolution".

1 Reply

For those who understands. fm and others are, unknowingly, in a deep state of hypnosis with regards to evil-lotion.
The posthypnotic suggestion is of course: "evolution is true, true, true"
If one delves into the world of clinical hypnotism. one can see the parallels with the answers from someone like, e.g., famerman.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

read :Icons..." several times. Nice pictures, well presented to cheat readers into thinking theres something important, but its the same old tired crap where Welles makes arguments from 60 to 100 year old junk that has been either bolstered by new data or else discarded with much better evidence.

another ID argument bathing itself in self assurance by sounding like science. You Creationists really need to feel needed.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

It appears to me that the discovery Institute has done more harm than good. I will agree their interpretion of the evidence is very poor science. It appears to me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Holy **** dude, its you that are stepping all over your own argument.

If you are going to criticize a source, you should give a reason, but if you give a reason and the reason is not true, you belie the fact that you know nothing about the source and most would then also assume you know nothing about the subject of the argument.

Where the **** did you get the idea that the Discovery Institute believes in a young earth as your statement implies?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

meaning no disrespect to your "uncoordinated" positions but I have always asked you guys to read specific pieces of opinion, from
judge Jones , to the Discovery institutes wedge document to Phil Johnson's "Darwin on Trial".

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know