ID/Creationism challenge

[A'isha]

So when you guys said evo theory had already been proven by Neo darwinian means, that was wrong, right?

Nope. Not any more than the discovery of Radium invalidated the discovery of Oxygen and made the whole concept of a periodic table wrong because Mendeleev didn't include it in his original table.

You really don't know how science works, do you?

Now, you need non-selectionist mechanisms and epigenetics, just as your critics stated, and yet evos still pretend their critics aren't doing real science.

Not a single "critic" of evolution was involved in the discovery of molecular genetics, neutral theory, or the role of non-expressed genes in regulating expressed genes. They didn't even predict any of those (otherwise they'd have discovered those things themselves, and they didn't). Instead, all the work was done by actual scientists, and not a single one of those scientists thought that their work caused "problems" for evolutionary theory.

Really, the only people who think those discoveries are "problematic" are people who weren't involved with them in any way, and whose only contribution to the evolution of the Synthetic Model is to keep saying that it can't do things that it, well, keeps doing. And real scientists continue to ignore them and do real science, making more discoveries like this all time. Because if they stopped to listen to any of these "critics", they'd be completely wrong, just like Denton was about the way the molecular clock worked.

Face it. Neo Darwinism is dying because it was never a good explanation for macroevolution. It was and is "the myth of evolution" as Pierre Grasse called it so long ago.

Selectionism isn't going anywhere. It's not being replaced, randman. It's being added to.

Considering the horrible track record evos have, we will have to see if these new mechanisms fill the holes in their theory or not. Prematurely insisting they do rather than presenting them as a theory that might work (because the old theory does not) is the hallmark of bogus science.

No, ID is the "theory" that says we know all we need to know about something, and so therefore we can stop there. Evolutionary theory says we know some stuff so here's what we think about that stuff, but there's a bunch of stuff we don't know yet, so let's keep looking and incorporate all that new stuff into what we think.

That's why ID has declared several things to be obviously "irreduceably complex" and therefore it must have been designed, only for actual science to yank the rug out from under them by explaining what ID said couldn't be explained.

Admit the weaknesses in evo theory fully. Embrace it and then maybe you can hope to take a more objective view of the facts.

I'm sorry, but I'm rather reluctant to listen to someone telling me that they have "a more objective view of the facts", when they don't even seem to know what the facts actually are.

Keep reading what actual scientists say on PubMed, randman, instead of crackpot sites like Uncommon Descent. It might help.

 

[chipmunk stew]

So teaching kids to look at something from a different angle and so question a theory is NOT critical thinking, but teaching them to never question evolutionism and insist it's a fact and always has been, etc, etc,....and refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of the theory, well, that's actually helping them develop critical thinking?

I understand you are an evo and so don't know the difference. But what you think of as critical thinking is actually indoctrination. Teaching students to question or question details of a theory is teaching them critical thinking, not indoctrination.

ID proponents are not proposing merely that science teachers discuss evolution in a critical way (which good science teachers already do--although you probably wouldn't recognize it), they are proposing that schools require science teachers to introduce a pseudoscientific explanation as an "alternative" to an established theory and lie to students by telling them that there is a major scientific (not just political & religious) controversy about the foundations of the theory of evolution.

I do agree that there is a place for ID in the classroom for teachers who can handle it adeptly. Discussing the "teach the controversy" movement is a great opportunity for teachers to introduce the concept of false equivalence and to outline the differences between science and pseudoscience.

But such a lesson should not be mandated, and it would be over the heads of virtually all grade school students and even most students through high school. Advanced level bio classes and post-high school classes would definitely benefit from such a discussion, though.

edit: BTW, nice strawman/false dichotomy combo. Just because I don't want ID taught in the classroom does not mean I don't want students to poke and probe at evolution. Introducing a ridiculous pseudoscience is totally unnecessary to be able to discuss a theory critically. It sets up a nice false equivalence/false dilemma designed so that a student who starts to doubt the prevailing theory will fall back on the pseudoscience, because if the theory is false, then (so the reasoning goes) the "alternative" MUST be true. This is not a way to teach critical thinking. It's a way to teach someone how to *SHORT CIRCUIT* critical thinking. Without the fall-back position, a student has to keep pushing for an answer or just live with the discomfort of an unanswered question. THAT is the *hallmark* of critical thinking.

 

[randman]

Just because I don't want ID taught in the classroom does not mean I don't want students to poke and probe at evolution.

Really? So you want them to poke and probe just as long as they accept it uncritically and you insist that no weaknesses of the theory be taught and by all means, ID must be silenced?

 

[Wowbagger]

I've given you a ton of evidence contradicting Neo Darwinism; for example genetic drift reducing genetic variation for starters.

How does that contradict Neo Darwinism?!

Genetic drift still fits under the umbrella of natural processes involved in Evolution.

It certainly isn't evidence for an Intelligent Designer, I'll tell you that much.

At worst it cheapens any confidence in the neccesity of a Designer.

 

[randman]

Already told you how it conflicts but you didn't want to address it.

 

[Wowbagger]

Neo Darwinism is dying because it was never a good explanation for macroevolution.

Why don't you meet the thread's challenge, and come up with positive evidence for a Designer...

...without invoking reference to Evolution or Darwinism or whatever.

(Besides, what part of "macroevolution is the result of lots of micro-evolutions" is a poor explanation? We already know the process of Natural Selection is capable of doing this. I already presented examples in another thread. The explanation is good enough to rely on, when it comes to saving endangered species. Can't say the same for I.D.)

 

[Wowbagger]

Already told you how it conflicts but you didn't want to address it.

We addressed the flaws in your arguments.

Your evidence, so far, has not been reliable for gaining fresh insight into the science of biology.

For example, you cite papers by Darwinists, that use a fundamentally Darwinistic process to explain something - as evidence against Darwinism?!

How is that productive?

If I.D. is such a superior science, where are its findings? How come you can't refute Neo Darwinism using evidence for a Designer?

 

[randman]

We addressed the flaws in your arguments.

No you didn't. Prove your claims.

 

[randman]

For example, you cite papers by Darwinists, that use a fundamentally Darwinistic process to explain something - as evidence against Darwinism?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

Maybe an analogy would help. A guy takes the stand and says he is innocent but admits to a fact that makes him look guilty. By your logic, it is quote-mining or something amiss to bring up the fact he admitted to. After all, he says he's innocent?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

 

[respect]

Evos wouldn't resort to the courts if their theory was so obviously and reasonably true. They'd welcome ID to be taught because their ideas would be so clearly superior in a factual level but since that's not the case, they resort to the courts and seek to indoctrinate kids rather than to teach them to think critically.

Right, and medical schools should teach that leeches are the cure for everything just to show that they aren't. School time and resources are limited, we don't have the time or money for your stupid crap to be taught alongside reality just to show that your stupid crap is stupid crap.

 

[respect]

Really? So you want them to poke and probe just as long as they accept it uncritically and you insist that no weaknesses of the theory be taught and by all means, ID must be silenced?

Why would ID garbage be viewed as an alternative?

 

[respect]

Why don't you meet the thread's challenge, and come up with positive evidence for a Designer...

He can't.

 

[randman]

Already met the challenge in detail but you guys started bringing up evo theory and so bashed that as well.

Typically, evo training prevents critical analysis and so you guys resort to outdated evo claims, totally inept, and then bash someone for showing how those are wrong.

 

[respect]

Already met the challenge in detail but you guys started bringing up evo theory and so bashed that as well.

Typically, evo training prevents critical analysis and so you guys resort to outdated evo claims, totally inept, and then bash someone for showing how those are wrong.

It would help if you quoted what you meant your garbage to address.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Typically, evo training prevents critical analysis and so you guys resort to outdated evo claims, totally inept, and then bash someone for showing how those are wrong.

I'm sure that if you repeat this enough times and wish really, really hard then it'll become true.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Really? So you want them to poke and probe just as long as they accept it uncritically and you insist that no weaknesses of the theory be taught and by all means, ID must be silenced?

How about you address what I actually wrote instead of trying to shoehorn me into your "evo" strawman?

 

[dafydd]

Already told you how it conflicts but you didn't want to address it.

And because you tell us,it must be true. I don't think so. Stop using that inane term evo, It's very silly of you.

 

[Dinwar]

Typically, evo training prevents critical analysis and so you guys resort to outdated evo claims, totally inept, and then bash someone for showing how those are wrong.

I'll admit to not reading everything in this thread, but if the other threads are any indication the only one posting outdated information is randman.

 

[catsmate]

I love the idea pushed by creationists (and other woo-woos) that revisions and challenges to a theory make it weaker, rather than stronger.

They're too used to religion where any modification to embrace reality does weaken it.

 

[catsmate]

You're so full of denial you'd rather see a multinational conspiracy than consider you're wrong?

........
Randman's problem is that he knows the truth, that's why his arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. He's started to ignore those who destroy his arguments, isolating himself from these dangerous ideas. Cultists feel very insecure when challenged, and Randman is showing theses signs.

Hence his conspiratorial silliness in the water from fuel thread; he thinks he's right and therefore all of science must be wrong because it disagrees with him.
He just can't face the reality of his own erroneousness.