Originally posted by scottishinnzCould you perhaps list such a statistical source?
How ironic it is that, as with evolutionary biology, you plainly know nothing about these "other fields."
Read my answer above, regarding what you 'know' about another's studies. Here's a field somewhat near and dear to your heart, statistics. Do your own study on this field and see what you come up with, as it relates to evolution.
Anyone with a ...[text shortened]... and exploited by evil people for evil means. Evolution is based in statistics.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe terms are employed, as the meaning of the word evolution demand the same, owing to the adoption of the word by true believers. As evolution is observable, one must make the distinction on the level so observed. To do anything less would be to muddy the waters.
Micro and macro-evolution are not terms in the evolutionists handbook. Only you fundy christians use them. Stop trying to muddy the waters with your idiotic claptrap and take your beating like a man.
You were saying something about a beating?
Originally posted by telerionGood God, what a wonderful post.
In an apparent attempt to be snide, you actually wrote the complete opposite of what you intended! I wonder if your irrationality on this issue is spreading to other parts of your brain.
Be honets. You don't know whether evolutionary theory is 'fragile' or not, because clearly you don't have the first clue about the subject. Instead of earnestly stud ...[text shortened]... that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your first asesertion, that America lags behind other countries in basic science draws a conclusion based on a false premise. Do we lag behind other countries in math because (as proffered above) "cultural forces" distrust the same? Geography? World history, current affairs, etc.?
Let's review. I said, "Throughout the twentieth century (an era of science and technology more so than any prior era), Americans were the world's leaders in development of technology, but often lagged behind their peers (sometimes far behind) in basic science." (emphasis added)
Your use of the present tense is already a gross distortion of such magnitude as to suggest that you are incompetent to discuss matters of history. I said nothing about our present deficiency, although I'm willing to concede that it exists (since you insist).
The second part of your first assertion, that the fundamental principles of scientific methodology are being challenged because of the implications of the findings is faulty, as well.
Again, let's review my assertion: "Why do we do so poorly in basic science? Perhaps, because only in America, do powerful cultural forces continue to question and challenge the fundamental principles of scientific methodology because religious leaders dislike the implications of scientific theory."
Note that I said "perhaps." The frame presented here is clearly speculative, and in no way excludes other explanations. Once we have a few hypotheses on the table, we can examine the evidence and weigh the merits of each. In this way, even history might employ a form of the scientific method.
However, since you dispute that challenges to the theory of natural selection are rooted in consideration of its possible consequences, I'll refer you to the second post in this thread. There, Halitose, one of a small number of respectable Christians on this site, ironically celebrated Darwin as he pinned a host of accusations upon the deceased naturalist:
Originally posted by Halitose
Indeed, let's celebrate the man who knowingly or unknowingly gave ideological permission for genocide, racism and eugenics.
Here is at least one person imagining social ills as the implications of the theory of natural selection. Another voice raised the same points Monday evening in that classroom to which I referred earlier. There I replied the same way I did to Halitose here:
Originally posted by Wulebgr
Darwin was thinking of the human race. It was Herbert W, Spencer that perverted his idea to define "favored race" as the English, as opposed to the Irish (for example), and the white races as opposed to the black (for example), and that gave rise to the work of Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton, and the rise of eugenics, and the Anglo and American perversions of Piaget's notions of intelligence testing, as it still exists today.
Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man summarizes this checkered history better than any other single volume.
You then continue: The voice of dissention based strictly on the fundamental principles of scientific methodology is being drowned out by two groups of folks: those ID folks who are attacking the theory based on philosophical grounds (masquerading as science), and those fervent believers of evolution who lump all dissention as part of the wing-nut camp. The non-affiliated group is not heard from, for obvious reasons. This does not discredit their position, it simply explains why it's not being heard in the midst of all the hyperbole.
I acknowledge that the pseudoscientific masquerade of ID does indeed drown out these more rational arguments, themselves rooted in American Pragmatism ("ideas have consequences" William James). As for "fervent believers of evolution," as you describe them, such folks may well exist. But, this caricature of yours does not describe the many hundreds of scientists with whom I have discussed the matter.
Notions of non-affiliation are absurd when we are discussing theories in science. It is not a club or organization that is at issue here.
You then continue, Your overall post considers only two camps, which prevents the possibility for the truth to be revealed. Truth is only found when sought, to the exclusion of any other pre-supposition, of any outcome.
Given the inability for either of the "camps" to satisfactorily provide scientific answers to the questin of the origins of life--- not just to each other, but compared with an objective standard of measure--- perhaps the concession should be made that to accept either is a matter of faith.
I stated, "This perspective was put forth by a historian in my evening history class at a local college on Monday night. The historian has spent twenty-five years investigating this issue, and even embraced creationism for a time, so he has studied the issue from within the camp of "cultural conservatives," as well as from outside this camp."
That you identified me as the historian who has spent twenty-five years studying this issue was a correct assumption, although you gave no indication that you recognized that you were making such an assumption. You then assume that "outside" refers to a unitary "camp" of the same sort as "within the camp of 'cultural conservatives'." Yet, even the cultural conservatives were acknowleged by me as constituting both Creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design. Furthermore, it should be noted that with the politically powerful alliance of cultural conservatives in America today, not all are disdainful of established scientific theory. A great many perceive no contradiction between their religious faith, which drives their cultural conservatism, and biological science. Why should we accept your assumption that folks who are not cultural conservatives have more cohesion than this very diverse political alliance? We should not, for they are even more diverse than cultural conservatives.
As to your assertion that hundreds of thousands of discrete observations have been made in laboratories, you are referring to micro- not macro-evolution. But, you likely already knew this when you posted it. One wonders if this was meant to add to the discussion, or further muddy the waters.
Do a search of these forums. I've already filled many pages putting this particular red herring to rest.
Originally posted by WulebgrWhew! Glad to know you had your daily ration of fiber. The unfortunate result is that we were on the receiving end of your daily ration of cr@p.
obviously heavily medicinalized
Your use of the present tense is already a gross distortion of such magnitude as to suggest that you are incompetent to discuss matters of history. I said nothing about our present deficiency, although I'm willing to concede that it exists (since you insist).
So you're saying you did not intend to cite America's overall stated deficiency? Apparently, you were just bringing the neophytes up to speed, historically-speaking. You betcha.
Note that I said "perhaps." The frame presented here is clearly speculative, and in no way excludes other explanations.
What in tarnation was I thinking, commenting on your speculation? What an idiot am I!
But, this caricature of yours does not describe the many hundreds of scientists with whom I have discussed the matter.
What, now you're a caterer for conventions?
Notions of non-affiliation are absurd when we are discussing theories in science. It is not a club or organization that is at issue here.
Sounds eerily like what I've been saying. True science does not involve itself in the politics. That some within both 'camps' prefer to battle it out there, tells the observer they lack credibility within the field.
That you identified me as the historian who has spent twenty-five years studying this issue was a correct assumption, although you gave no indication that you recognized that you were making such an assumption.
Sir, please step away from the doobage.
Do a search of these forums. I've already filled many pages putting this particular red herring to rest.
I am fine, presently, but thanks for the offer.
Originally posted by telerionAn honest insightful explanation of the current standing of ID and YEC, cutting remarks that really hit home and it finishes with this masterful simile.
Freak, if anything is 'fragile,' it is not the theory of evolution, rather it is your blind, stagnant faith that cracks like a brittle fossil under pressure of human inquiry.
I'm loving it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThose who clamor to McDonald's-style science and philosophy have pretty much eliminated themselves from the game. Enjoy your Happy Meal.
An honest insightful explanation of the current standing of ID and YEC, cutting remarks that really hit home and it finishes with this masterful simile.
I'm loving it.
Originally posted by Wulebgr"Your first asesertion, that America lags behind other countries in basic science draws a conclusion based on a false premise. Do we lag behind other countries in math because (as proffered above) "cultural forces" distrust the same? Geography? World history, current affairs, etc.?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Your first asesertion, that America lags behind other countries in basic science draws a conclusion based on a false premise. Do we lag behind other countries in math because (as proffered above) "cultural forces" distrust the same? Geography? World history, current affairs, etc.?
Let's review. I said, "[i] ed many pages putting this particular red herring to rest.[/b]
Let's review. I said, "Throughout the twentieth century (an era of science and technology more so than any prior era), Americans were the world's leaders in development of technology, but often lagged behind their peers (sometimes far behind) in basic science." (emphasis added)
Your use of the present tense is already a gross distortion of such magnitude as to suggest that you are incompetent to discuss matters of history. I said nothing about our present deficiency, although I'm willing to concede that it exists (since you insist). "
Indeed! Well put. This is precisely the reason that the development of the atomic bomb (Manhatten Project) was largely conducted by scientists who had fled Europe, not by American scientists. Germany was far, far closer to developing the nuke than the US for most of the war. British military-trained Norwegians had to sabotage the Nazi effort to prevent them from getting the bomb first.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHevolution is evolution is evolution. Micro and macro don't exist. Only evolution.
The terms are employed, as the meaning of the word evolution demand the same, owing to the adoption of the word by true believers. As evolution is observable, one must make the distinction on the level so observed. To do anything less would be to muddy the waters.
You were saying something about a beating?
Originally posted by rwingettAbe Lincoln got the better reward, I'm sure..... 😉
Rejoice, rejoice! I invite all enlightened secularists and all intellectually stunted christian reactionaries to join me in celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin, born on this day in 1809 (the same birthday as Abraham Lincoln). For more things Darwin, you can go to:
http://www.darwinday.org/