Evolution? How?

cicerone imposter wrote:

One can lead a horse to water....

"You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

0 Replies

the Passion of the Penguin

'Supporters of intelligent design think that if they see something they don't understand, it must be God; they fail to recognise that they themselves are part of evolution. It appeals to ignorance, which is why there is a lot of it in American politics at the moment.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1572642,00.html

0 Replies

real life wrote:

My response was to Pauligirl. She is the one who objected that I had named a scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who was 'religious'.

I loved the way your loaded question backfired, Farmerman. Really I did. It's ok with me if you want to ask 'em that way, but as I told you, it doesn't serve your argument well.

There are lots of well known scientists just like him, men who laid the foundation of the modern scientific world we inherited, that we could discuss who believed that God created the world. We both know it. You agreed that this was the almost universally held view until the past century or so. (Even then it was very commonly held as it continues to be today.)

Nope, I was objecting that you didn't answer the question as it was asked.
Once again, you missed the point of farmerman's question. An "advance that has come about directly related to Creationist views".
P

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Haeckel's Lie: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Big words make us smarter.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wells_and_haeckels_embryos/

P

0 Replies

What is also fascinating is the fact that creationists are able to rationalize all the contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible, but continue to question evolution with all the evidence available. It is indeed remarkable that so-called intelligent people are able to accept these contradictions and logic.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What is also fascinating is the fact that creationists are able to rationalize all the contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible, but continue to question evolution with all the evidence available.

Different world views.

Creationists proceed from an assumption of divine intervention and use magic and mystery to build their theories. Within a world of supernatural possibilities, anything is possible, and the value of reason is dulled.

Scientists proceed from the assumption of naturalism and use physical evidence to build their theories. Within a world of natural rules, evidence and logic can mean something, and the ability to reason has a value.

0 Replies

rosborne, I think we're saying the same thing with somewhat a different twist.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
What is also fascinating is the fact that creationists are able to rationalize all the contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible, but continue to question evolution with all the evidence available.

Different world views.

Creationists proceed from an assumption of divine intervention and use magic and mystery to build their theories. Within a world of supernatural possibilities, anything is possible, and the value of reason is dulled.

Scientists proceed from the assumption of naturalism and use physical evidence to build their theories. Within a world of natural rules, evidence and logic can mean something, and the ability to reason has a value.

http://paulag.home.coastalnet.com/gifs/creationist.gif

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, I think we're saying the same thing with somewhat a different twist.

Possibly.

I was just acknowledging that the two arguments are derived from different core assumptions of reality (naturalism vs the supernatural). And that trying to evaluate one, from the value system of the other impossible.

You seem to be pointing out that there is an inconsistancy in their stance:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What is also fascinating is the fact that creationists are able to rationalize all the contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible, but continue to question evolution with all the evidence available. It is indeed remarkable that so-called intelligent people are able to accept these contradictions and logic.

In other words, why would a rational person accept the ambiguity of magic as support for the bible on one hand, but then turn around and challenge the veracity of evolution using the details of empirical evidence on the other? It seems inconsistent.

But I think the idea is to try to "hoist us by our own petard". And it's not a bad strategy, except that you have to understand the petard before you can hope to hoist someone by it. And I have yet to see even a *single* creationist on *any* thread so far anywhere, who can demonstrate a basic understanding of the modern theory of evolution, much less challenge it.

What we are left with is a group of people who are attempting to invalidate science using the rules of science when they don't understand the rules, or even the theory they are objecting to.

0 Replies

Precisely! It's rather frustrating to realize their inability to understand how all the evidence provided for evolution can be trumped by their belief in a bible that has nothing to support it except "faith."

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Haeckel's Lie: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Big words make us smarter.

Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. It's unfortunate that those errors remain in the texts, however, the fact that there are errors in the text books, does nothing to discredit the validity of Evolution (as noted at the end of the article which Satt quoted). The evidence which supports evolution remains unchanged.

Or to put it a little more succinctly, Rosborne, just because public schools are deliberately including information that is known to be false in textbooks doesn't mean they are lying, does it?

0 Replies

You mean something like Bush telling everybody about Iraq's WMDs.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Or to put it a little more succinctly, Rosborne, just because public schools are deliberately including information that is known to be false in textbooks doesn't mean they are lying, does it?

The errors in the textbooks should be fixed. Of that there is no question.

Unlike you however, I won't impugn the integrity of our public schools by assuming that these errors are intentional lies.

The battle over textbooks

Just for fun Smile

0 Replies

"...deliberately including information that is known to be false in textbooks..." I must conclude from this statement that the school is deliberately lying to our children.

0 Replies

Is this the only instance where public schools have been known to massage the truth?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Or to put it a little more succinctly, Rosborne, just because public schools are deliberately including information that is known to be false in textbooks doesn't mean they are lying, does it?

The errors in the textbooks should be fixed. Of that there is no question.

Unlike you however, I won't impugn the integrity of our public schools by assuming that these errors are intentional lies.

The battle over textbooks

Just for fun

Please.

How many DECADES has it been known that Haeckel had faked his drawings on which the 'Recapitulation theory' was based?

(It was before you or I was born, if you need a hint.)

If this issue is representative of the integrity that you expect of public schools, I am hoping you are not a public school teacher or employee. (Of course if you are, it might explain your willful blindness.)

0 Replies

HAeckels recapitulation hypothesis was discounted by most science before 1900 as genetics became better understood. I tried to find some earlier evolution texts used in Universities. I noted that in Ehrlichs first edition of the "Process of Evolution"(1963), it contained a summary dismissal of recapitulation
"(recapitulation) , a crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination... However, even though its shortcomings have been universally pointed out by modern authors, the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology"

I feel that strict adherence to some of Haeckels racist thinking contained the seeds of its own continued existence. Its easy to see that, if you follw on with HAeckel and read his "Anthropogenie", you can see that he would be difficult to dismiss by certain clades of the European and US population.

0 Replies

I was trying to read PAuligirls post about HAeckel and was laughing a bit at how this otherwise good piece of writing was affected by being written as if the author were a pirate..

Gould and MAyr were not as dismissive as Ehrlich because, as they state, "particular organ structures are recapitulated in response to the gentic markers for a feature, but not the entire adult form of the ancestor"

They meant that features like gill arches are indeed, a common feature of most embryos. Strickelberger (1996) has included, in his text, an updted version of HAeckels drawings that are, indeed correct.

0 Replies

"You mean something like Bush telling everybody about Iraq's WMDs."

It's funny how Bush gets the wrap for that, even though the rest of the world thought Saddam had them too.

"They meant that features like gill arches are indeed, a common feature of most embryos. Strickelberger (1996) has included, in his text, an updted version of HAeckels drawings that are, indeed correct. "

The gill features in human fetuses have nothing to do with breathing, right?

0 Replies

They are just a feature that gets repeated in an embryos development. Its probably an expression of one of the HOX genes. Nothing to do with fetal breathing.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know