I asked a legitimate question in non-confrontational language, and aired a legitimate grievance against the inane cognitive dissonance which is rapidly rendering Slashdot irrelevant to sensible discussions on a controversial issue.
God (er, I mean random natural processes occuring over very, very long periods of time) help us!
The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.
Well, some of that evidenced is disputed, but that's OK. The real debate is about the interpretation of the evidence, because that's what Evolution is, inference and extrapolation.
The evidence that Michael Behe uses for ID is also factual. It is the inference and extrapolation that his opponents are all worked up about.
I am also prepared to state that there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other "tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that field of science that have yet to be discovered.
Sounds like you're working backwards from your conclusions. Isn't that what the ID'ers are accused of?
No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it.
Which Evolution are you talking about? Where are the observations and measurements of abiogenesis? Where are the observations and measurements of significant new species emerging? There's lots of 'splaining that ain't been 'splained
*We are not allowed to say that a theory is just a theory in school anymore.*
Well, the problem is that our kids are not being taught Evolution as a theory, they are being taught Evolution as fact. OK, perhaps the word "fact" is not being use explicitly, but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent.
I think this is supported by the consistent potrayal of "anti-evolutionists" as stupid right wing fundamentalist extremeists. All we are asking for is a simple disclaimer. The Evolutionists won't even grant us that.
OK people, enough with the name calling. Are you prepared to state that Evolution is fact? NO, that's not the same as saying that it is currently the most widely held explanation for current scientific evidence.
I'm sick of the irrational characterization of all who reject current evolutionary theory as brainless, fundmentalist, redneck idiots. What is especially insulting is the ludicrous assertion that it is OK to be religious, so long as those religious beliefs don't in any way impact your understanding of how humans came to exist.
Is Evolution, as commonly taught, fact? If so, then we are the result of random, natural processes unaffected by any outside intelligence or force or being, in which case religious beliefs ARE stupid. If, on the other hand, Evolution is not fact, but merely the best current explanation for available scientific evidence (which is actually debatable), then religious beliefs are NOT stupid.
In fact, there are a great number of highly intelligent people who question evolution. That is unless you define intelligence as a belief in Evolution, and stupidity as a belief in Creation, which seems to be a common scenario in this forum.
*Anyway... considering how often the bible has been translated and edited and modified by various authorities who felt it necessary to make it fit their views, not to mention a few of the languages originally written in no longer exist, I'd read that book with a grain of salt.*
Wow! Try Googling for "reliability of the Bible". Try clicking a few links. You may not believe the "religious" claims of the Bible, but the extraordinary historical accuracy, and consistency with ancient versions of the text are not in dispute.
*Evolution is an observable fact, you're incorrect here.*
Partially correct. Microevolution - variation within species - is an observable fact. Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed. It is theorized, and that is where the current debate arises.
The evidence for macroevolution is no stronger than that for creation. Evolutionists look at the (ahem) hierarchy of life forms and infer a slow progression from less advanced to more advanced. Creationists look at the complexity of life forms at every level and infer a creator. In both cases the theories are reasonably inferred from scientific observation.
If the definition of science allows only theories incorporating natural processes, then science must either admit that it is a trojan horse for atheism, or that it is potentially doomed to an eternal search for a truth it can never acknowledge.
In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth.
Thank you for a rare intelligent comment! I'm not asking for any favors. I just prefer not to see people who give credence to the likes of Michael Behe shot down in flames of brainless name calling and ridicule.
It takes a mental genius to redefine a term and then bash it.... which is exactly what hundreds of Slashdotties have been doing to ID for the past week. Redefining it then bashing it.
Scientists acknowledge that, for example, we don't know what was around prior to the Big Bang. Scientists acknowledge that we're not sure of the exact mechanism of the beginning of biological life.
Then why not tell kids that in science class. That's all I ask.
Scientists acknowledge that we're still learning bits about how evolution works.
Oops, your bias is showing. You've assumed evolution to be true. That'll help with the objective evaluation of the data.
Are you implying that anyone who believes in ID isn't thinking? How arrogant. There are MANY highly intelligent, highly educated people who do support ID. In anticipation of your next question...
How the heck do you propose to prove that "some intelligent designer" "guides" evolutionary forces?
How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing?
I don't want religion in science classes, but I do want honesty. If scientific observation indicates that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, why would you want to supress that information?
What's funny about hyperbolic rant that grossly mischaracterizes the issue? If scientists were to study Slashdot comments, they may (possibly correctly) presume that Evolution had ceased, and we've begun a slow but deliberate regression back to the primordial soup.
I've had enough of the mindless drivel and group think from the Slashdot crowd. It is apparent from the vast majority of posts that no effort has been made to understand this issue. Name calling and hyperbole carry little weight in intelligent discourse.
Please cancel my subscription.
Oh wait, I don't pay anything for this. Never mind.........
And as far as the teching of Evolution goes, what is wrong with presenting scientific ideas which demonstrate weaknesses in current theory?
Which is why many people so vigorously defend evolution. Not because of the weight of the evidence, rather because they cannot accept the consequences of the Bible being true. Believing in evolution soothes the conscience.
"For the truth about God is known to them instinctively.[g] God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God." Romans 1:19-20 NLT
ID is not an attempt to insert God into science, it is an attempt to force honesty about the weaknessess in evolutionary theory. As Behe has shown, Evolution cannot account for the enormous complexities evident in cellular design. As Hoyle has shown, Mathematics shows Darwinism to be incapable of explaining macro-evolution.
A belief in evolution requires as much faith, if not more, than that required for a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is true that neither can be proven. However, scientific evidence based on what can be observed and measured can be used to lend credence to either. A scientific examination of the world which demonstrates a complexity unexplainable by current theory is valid scientific grounds for challenging that theory.
Evolution becomes a religion when supernatural causes are summarily dismissed. Yes, science must based its theories on observable and measurable data. However, if the only valid "scientific" conclusions on the origin of life are those which credit natural processes, then science becomes nothing more than self-righteous atheism.
But what's to keep all us Slashdotter's from buying up stakes in the company. Then WE could make demands on the company. Let's see, 7 million Linux users, $100 bucks each, $700 million. I doubt Red Hat is even worth that much.
OTOH, if every Fortune 500 company sunk half of what it paid in Win95/NT/Exchange/IIS/SQL licenese in one year into OSS. Where would we be?
Or would it be switch and bait? M$ is working to get everyone all worked up so we'll be all happy when they announce their subscription program and the associated *savings*. What they really want is an annual fee from all of us to cover their *development* costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome link. Thanks for posting this gem. I'd mod you up if I had mod points.
I asked a legitimate question in non-confrontational language, and aired a legitimate grievance against the inane cognitive dissonance which is rapidly rendering Slashdot irrelevant to sensible discussions on a controversial issue.
God (er, I mean random natural processes occuring over very, very long periods of time) help us!
-SHP
The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools
made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those
other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times
to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.
Well, some of that evidenced is disputed, but that's OK. The real debate is about the interpretation of the evidence, because that's what Evolution is, inference and extrapolation.
The evidence that Michael Behe uses for ID is also factual. It is the inference and extrapolation that his opponents are all worked up about.
I am also prepared to state that
there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully
explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other
"tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts
of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that
field of science that have yet to be discovered.
Sounds like you're working backwards from your conclusions. Isn't that what the ID'ers are accused of?
No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is
actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it.
Which Evolution are you talking about? Where are the observations and measurements of abiogenesis? Where are the observations and measurements of significant new species emerging? There's lots of 'splaining that ain't been 'splained
*That's because anti-evolutionists are, in fact, stupid right-wing fundamentalist extremists.*
Would you care to back that statement up with some rational thought, or are you just following the crowd?
*We are not allowed to say that a theory is just a theory in school anymore.*
Well, the problem is that our kids are not being taught Evolution as a theory, they are being taught Evolution as fact. OK, perhaps the word "fact" is not being use explicitly, but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent.
I think this is supported by the consistent potrayal of "anti-evolutionists" as stupid right wing fundamentalist extremeists. All we are asking for is a simple disclaimer. The Evolutionists won't even grant us that.
-SHP
OK people, enough with the name calling. Are you prepared to state that Evolution is fact? NO, that's not the same as saying that it is currently the most widely held explanation for current scientific evidence.
I'm sick of the irrational characterization of all who reject current evolutionary theory as brainless, fundmentalist, redneck idiots. What is especially insulting is the ludicrous assertion that it is OK to be religious, so long as those religious beliefs don't in any way impact your understanding of how humans came to exist.
Is Evolution, as commonly taught, fact? If so, then we are the result of random, natural processes unaffected by any outside intelligence or force or being, in which case religious beliefs ARE stupid. If, on the other hand, Evolution is not fact, but merely the best current explanation for available scientific evidence (which is actually debatable), then religious beliefs are NOT stupid.
In fact, there are a great number of highly intelligent people who question evolution. That is unless you define intelligence as a belief in Evolution, and stupidity as a belief in Creation, which seems to be a common scenario in this forum.
-SHP
*Anyway... considering how often the bible has been translated and edited and modified by various authorities who felt it necessary to make it fit their views, not to mention a few of the languages originally written in no longer exist, I'd read that book with a grain of salt.*
Wow! Try Googling for "reliability of the Bible". Try clicking a few links. You may not believe the "religious" claims of the Bible, but the extraordinary historical accuracy, and consistency with ancient versions of the text are not in dispute.
Sigh
o n=view&ID=342o n=view&ID=227o n=view&ID=338
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
*Evolution is an observable fact, you're incorrect here.*
Partially correct. Microevolution - variation within species - is an observable fact. Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species has NOT been observed. It is theorized, and that is where the current debate arises.
The evidence for macroevolution is no stronger than that for creation. Evolutionists look at the (ahem) hierarchy of life forms and infer a slow progression from less advanced to more advanced. Creationists look at the complexity of life forms at every level and infer a creator. In both cases the theories are reasonably inferred from scientific observation.
If the definition of science allows only theories incorporating natural processes, then science must either admit that it is a trojan horse for atheism, or that it is potentially doomed to an eternal search for a truth it can never acknowledge.
In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you for a rare intelligent comment! I'm not asking for any favors. I just prefer not to see people who give credence to the likes of Michael Behe shot down in flames of brainless name calling and ridicule.
It takes a mental genius to redefine a term and then bash it. ... which is exactly what hundreds of Slashdotties have been doing to ID for the past week. Redefining it then bashing it.
Then why not tell kids that in science class. That's all I ask.
Oops, your bias is showing. You've assumed evolution to be true. That'll help with the objective evaluation of the data.
Are you implying that anyone who believes in ID isn't thinking? How arrogant. There are MANY highly intelligent, highly educated people who do support ID. In anticipation of your next question...
Michael Behe.
How the heck do you propose to prove that "some intelligent designer" "guides" evolutionary forces? How the heck to you propose to prove that life spontaneously emerged from nothing? I don't want religion in science classes, but I do want honesty. If scientific observation indicates that current theories are inadequate to explain the complexities biological structures, why would you want to supress that information?
What's funny about hyperbolic rant that grossly mischaracterizes the issue? If scientists were to study Slashdot comments, they may (possibly correctly) presume that Evolution had ceased, and we've begun a slow but deliberate regression back to the primordial soup.
I've had enough of the mindless drivel and group think from the Slashdot crowd. It is apparent from the vast majority of posts that no effort has been made to understand this issue. Name calling and hyperbole carry little weight in intelligent discourse.
Please cancel my subscription.
Oh wait, I don't pay anything for this. Never mind.........
And as far as the teching of Evolution goes, what is wrong with presenting scientific ideas which demonstrate weaknesses in current theory?
Which is why many people so vigorously defend evolution. Not because of the weight of the evidence, rather because they cannot accept the consequences of the Bible being true. Believing in evolution soothes the conscience.
"For the truth about God is known to them instinctively.[g] God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God." Romans 1:19-20 NLT
ID is not an attempt to insert God into science, it is an attempt to force honesty about the weaknessess in evolutionary theory. As Behe has shown, Evolution cannot account for the enormous complexities evident in cellular design. As Hoyle has shown, Mathematics shows Darwinism to be incapable of explaining macro-evolution.
A belief in evolution requires as much faith, if not more, than that required for a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is true that neither can be proven. However, scientific evidence based on what can be observed and measured can be used to lend credence to either. A scientific examination of the world which demonstrates a complexity unexplainable by current theory is valid scientific grounds for challenging that theory.
Evolution becomes a religion when supernatural causes are summarily dismissed. Yes, science must based its theories on observable and measurable data. However, if the only valid "scientific" conclusions on the origin of life are those which credit natural processes, then science becomes nothing more than self-righteous atheism.
But what's to keep all us Slashdotter's from buying up stakes in the company. Then WE could make demands on the company. Let's see, 7 million Linux users, $100 bucks each, $700 million. I doubt Red Hat is even worth that much.
OTOH, if every Fortune 500 company sunk half of what it paid in Win95/NT/Exchange/IIS/SQL licenese in one year into OSS. Where would we be?
Or would it be switch and bait? M$ is working to get everyone all worked up so we'll be all happy when they announce their subscription program and the associated *savings*. What they really want is an annual fee from all of us to cover their *development* costs.
Ever heard of the (sic) Open License?