Kansas anti-darwinism

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Here's an open letter from my favorite evolution-has-problems scientist, Phil Skell:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...SC - Views and News&callingPage=discoMainPage

~~ Paul
Read it and found this.
1. Is this quote true?
---Quote------------------------------------------------------------
"None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note he mentioned "Darwinian evolution". What is the definition of "Darwinian Evolution"?

Question to those who are familiar to "Darwinian Evolution", is it a fair statement?

Is this following site based on "Darwinian Evolution" ?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

If "yes", it seemed that Evolution is going to be practically relevant.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/index.shtml

2. ---Quote------------------------------------------------------------
"For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From here ...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIAFamilytree.shtml
It seems phylogenetic & cladograms provided a framework for building testable scientific hypothesis with regard to evolution.
So I'm puzzled as to why he say there is no testable scientific hypothesis.
 
CurtC said:
What's Bush got to do with it? He has no authority, and a president has never taken sides in school debates.

There was an interesting interview on NPR yesterday, in which Slate's Will Saletan makes the case that the Creationists are evolving, and it's the evolutionists who can't see it. From the interview:You can hear the interview at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4648173

Also be sure to read the Slate article at http://slate.com/id/2118320/

Read this: http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

Essentially, Meyer and company are just lying so as to avoid admitting that they are fundamentalist who strongly oppose science and democracy. They say one thing and do another. They actually blame science and "materialism" for the problems in our society. Never mind that things were and are actually much worse under theocracies (the Taliban comes to mind.)
The Slate article you mention is totally wrong. Supporters of science did not testify as the board had already made up its mind, the ID'ers such as Meyer did not have to answer any questions about ID (and actually refused to do so.) They are not open minded, nor did they hypothesize any falsifiable theories with any hard evidence. None of their beliefs fit with observed reality. So, no the journalist was likely part of the "wedge" strategy, straw men all over the place.
The real question is, will people take the time to examine the arguments? Or will they listen to uncritical journalists, or be seduced by the propaganda of the Discovery Institute?
As for presidents interfering with education, just look at Bush with sex ed, and setting the national school standards via No Child Left Behind. He threatens to take away all federal support from schools that go against his whacky plan. The standardized testing only checks science every four years, effectively eliminating it a a priority for schools which need to greatly increase their scores to receive federal funds (NCLB is another anti-science law.) There are many other examples, such as the President sending federal troops to southern universities to allow african american students to attend in the 1960's. Further, Bush needs to at least make a public statement, such as former President Carter did during Kansas I.
Dembski, Meyer and company said of their wedge document that it will cut off evolution and topple the tree of scientific materialism. The problem is that democracy lies on top of that trunk. You believe exactly what they want you to, in order to sway the moderates and fence sitters, but their ultimate goal (which they say so themselves) is to remove the american democracy and institute a fundamentalist theocracy based on the Bible. So I strongly disagree with your position.
 
Jyera said:
It seems phylogenetic & cladograms provided a framework for building testable scientific hypothesis with regard to evolution.
So I'm puzzled as to why he say there is no testable scientific hypothesis.

Because he hopes some people will believe that blatant lie. And some will too. He'll get quoted. Folks don't care to check the facts, they just want to believe evolution is a "philosophy" and pass on the misinformation. Believe believe believe. If any would bother to observe...but even then they'll put blinders on. It's a lost cause. They simply don't want evolution to be plausible because that would wreck their own personal philosophy.

It's like this, You get used to basing your reality on fantasy, so to keep that fantasy you reject a factual observable phenomenon. You aren't used to the idea of "reality". Reality to the believer is not as wonderous as some alleged "heaven".

Thing is, once you dig into the observable you realize how wonderous this world really is. Reality is mindblowing. You can SEE with your own eyes what life is composed of.

Ignorance causes people to miss out. Then they push for everyone to miss out on the education that can bring miracles. Fact based science is what saves lives and improves standards of living. Evolution is a piece of that puzzle. One must know the background to explore results of evolution. We understand the human body by knowing its history and its link to the rest of the life on the planet. Only then can we really appreciate and understand what an amazing result humanity really is. It's not simply some magical impossible god waving a wand that brought to where we are at now.

Children will be denied, are denied this journey and experience because a belief system is threatened? Why can't it be incorporated and appreciated in spiritual way? I get that feeling of awe when I delve into genetics and evolution. There is a much bigger "force" in action, but it's not something paranormal. It's real, it's describable, it's amazing, and uplifting. It's our only hope.

I want my children to have this gift of knowledge. It must be defended over some simple explanation for a complex yet observable reality. This rock we call earth won't be around forever. No god will transplant us when the sun burns up the planet. We need to learn and expand on what we know in order to preserve life. We have the tools, we have to use them. ID is as suppression of advancements that are vital. Reality is scary, it looms over us and encourages us use what we've got in order to survive it (yet causes some to stick their heads in the sand...as a survival tactic?). Denial might be good for some temporary bliss, but it won't help in the long run.

Keep your simple minded IDiotism for those who don't want to face reality in their own havens. Schools are there to provide the tools for our children to use to sustain their futures. Nobody has the right to push some IDiot ideas in the place of science. My kids have the right to learn facts in a school setting. If I want my kids to learn fantasy I'll take them to some church or whatever suits my worldview. Your "controversy" has no leg to stand on.

ID is not science. Period. Evolution is observable. Show me your "intelligent" designer of life. Pony it up. Dress it up. Whatever it takes, but show me it. I can show you evolution.

/rant.
 
Quasi said:
The Slate article you mention is totally wrong. Supporters of science did not testify as the board had already made up its mind, the ID'ers such as Meyer did not have to answer any questions about ID (and actually refused to do so.) They are not open minded, nor did they hypothesize any falsifiable theories with any hard evidence. None of their beliefs fit with observed reality. So, no the journalist was likely part of the "wedge" strategy, straw men all over the place.
The journalist was pointing out that in 1999, it was a Young Earth Creationist push to change the science standards, but this time around 21 of the 23 "witnesses" for ID agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a major change, which he calls "evolution" of the creationist argument. They agree that the Bible can't be taken literally. Now, he argues, they're on the slippery slope to accepting the truth of the principle of evolution. I agree with you that I haven't seen very much rhetoric about falsifiability coming from that side, but the fact that they accept radiological dating over the Bible has to be a good sign. Surely you can't accuse this guy of being part of the "wedge" effort? He thinks they are completely wrong, but are showing signs of coming around to seeing the truth.
As for presidents interfering with education, just look at Bush with sex ed, and setting the national school standards via No Child Left Behind.
So where was Clinton in 1999 when the school board pushed through the YEC agenda?
 
Eos of the Eons said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jyera
It seems phylogenetic & cladograms provided a framework for building testable scientific hypothesis with regard to evolution.
So I'm puzzled as to why he say there is no testable scientific hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because he hopes some people will believe that blatant lie.
As a staunch Darwinist, what is your favorite testable scientific prediction that would cast doubt on, say, the single ancestor hypothesis?

Or if you have some other testable prediction concerning some other aspect of Darwinism, what would that be?
 
hammegk said:
As a staunch Darwinist, what is your favorite testable scientific prediction that would cast doubt on, say, the single ancestor hypothesis?

What do you consider the "single ancestor hypothesis" to entail?
 
Originally posted by hammegk
As a staunch Darwinist, what is your favorite testable scientific prediction that would cast doubt on, say, the single ancestor hypothesis?
Some life form with a system of replication employing something other than DNA=> RNA=> AA=> Protein would be compelling.
 
For Earth, do you consider that within any realm of reasonable possibility?

And I don't see that your scenario would necessarly say anything specifically for or against postulated single-ancestor dna/rna based darwinism.
 
hammegk said:
As a staunch Darwinist, what is your favorite testable scientific prediction that would cast doubt on, say, the single ancestor hypothesis?

Or if you have some other testable prediction concerning some other aspect of Darwinism, what would that be?

What's a staunch darwinist? Prediction? I don't work with "predictions".

See my website:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/philosophical.html
 
hammegk said:
As a staunch Darwinist, what is your favorite testable scientific prediction that would cast doubt on, say, the single ancestor hypothesis?
The single-ancestor idea is an artifact of our observation of countless species, but it's not a supporting pillar of the theory of evolution. We could find another self-replicating, non-DNA based life form tomorrow, and evolution would still stand just as strongly. I'm not even sure why you're asking.
 

Back
Top Bottom