U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 02-02-2009, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,998,222 times
Reputation: 3631

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemiahmooDude View Post

Ignorance? I have years in academia - and have witnessed first hand the persecutory nature that is so deeply rooted in that world. Stein gave a fair and accurate portrayal of a particular example of persecution that has taken place for decades.

Semiahmoo, I don't dispute you may have "years in academia", but in which subject area(s)? Advanced genetics and evolutionary theory? Can you give us a quick summary of some of the key elements of mutational adaptation (also known as speciation?).

You, of all people, should defend against such biased stuff you link us to. Nevertheless, I took a long hard look, and made some notes as follows. Not on the whole article; that would have taken three post-pages here. but you'll get the drift soon enough. I did.

I also note this distinquished "professor" was, in fact, tossed.

You should perhaps check out these people as critically as you can surely expect us to.


Here is an article you would do well to read. Its primary focus is on Professor Caroline Crocker, who is one of a growing number within the halls of higher learning willing to look at the possibilities of how life originated - something Darwin himself left open for speculation. The world would be a far better place with more educators of Crocker's talent and bravery - not less.

Eden and Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Years in academia does not equate to the relevance of scientific publication. Are you a scientist, a scientist in academia, that has fallen to the knees of this 'global conspiracy'? Science is global. It is unlikely that every single journal on the planet is at the beck and call of alledged american politics in our uni's.

Claims of evolution being a religion is simply an appeal to drama. It has nothing to do with science. The saying 'put up or shut up' rings hollow in ID'ers ears. Ime in the day-to-day, scientists don't care one way or another when we're doing our work. The sensationalism of the debate is a matter of entertainment value, nothing more. The <0.015% of physicial scientists that (may or may not, who knows) subscribe to ID rightfully have to succumb to the process of research and publication. Claims 'I didn't get tenure because of my beliefs' or similiar is so lame. But, if you have a specific, valid example with evidence, please provide it.


First of all, lets be clear in that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. All the Darwinianism hoopla aside, they are different debates. And there isn't an evolution debate within the scientific community. I'll read the article and respond...

rifleman notes: Nonetheless, Braunwyn, it seems to be their continuing deflection in the argument to try to tie the two together. No matter how many times we point out it's not. The mysteries of The Origins of Life remain, for now. Perhaps it was by some wonderous spark, some nose-waggling by an ID, or by an alien PhD student leaning out of his hovering spaceship and pouring some DNA precursors into the roiling primordial broth. Now and then, as is often recorded in the popular media, they return to check up on the experiment. Problematically, they may return some day, shiney new PhD in hand, and toss out the now used-up experiment. And place us in The Cosmic Autoclave! Oooopppsss!

"Crocker was about to establish a small beachhead for an insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin's view that humans and apes are distant cousins."
I'm not an evolutionary biologist but last I knew, humans are apes. We are members of the great ape family. Of course, I realize the article is written by a journalist.

Next we have Caroline Crocker...who was a p/t faculty at a uni. She decides to teach ID in a science classroom. Er, for whatever reasons stated by the uni, it's good that she got canned. ID is not science. Lets stick to teaching science in the science classroom. She has no business in CC either as far as I'm concerned.
Rifleman's cursory review and comments in green:

From a Washington Post layman’s popular article, written by an author with an agenda, but lacking in ANY formal science or biological expertise:

Quotes, followed by my comments.


“A new, resistant strain of bacteria would have evolved. While such small changes are well established, Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.”

The last sentence is of course, tripe of a particularly odious kind. People who expect their housecat to evolve overnight into a new Chihuahua are particularly ill-informed. It takes multi-thousands of years of the accumulation of mutations, which, by the way, happen at various speeds, which at least Crocker accedes to. It’s defined as an organism’s Evolutionary Vector: one chance beneficial mutation may then have a facilitating effect on other previously ignored or useless mutational benefits, but then they confer a real benefit. This leads to rapid evolution of entirely new species, especially if a new previously unavailable or non-existent niche appears. A volcano transforms an island’s geo-morphology, it’s vegetation (more rain due to a new mountain range, etc.) and, voila, a packrat becomes a tree-dwelling pre-monkey. Obvious, logical and true.

Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.

This underlined highlight is properly called "Opinion". Crocker should be appropriately sanctioned for displaying her apparently vast mis-understandings about Biology.

“Crocker believes that biological systems cannot grow more complex on their own any more than a novel, through chance typographical errors, can turn into a different book, with a different story. How could anyone think that new books get written because of typos in old books?

"How" indeed! Irrelevant Opinion, but it does cater to the hoped-for validation of ID theory. (BTW, there is no known way for books to self-mutate their typography in any way as far as I know, but if they could, you would thus see some changes. What deflective nonsense!)

Organisms, subject to known and observed high rates of mutation in the tricky task of near-daily replication of DNA in cells through transcription RNA, fall prey to a whole host of fatal mistakes. Fortunately there’s a lot of those cells all trying to just get along. It only takes a few good ones, coupled with a few million years, and, bingo! Monkeys, weasels, orchids and men!


It’s far more like a child new to Lego. His first few efforts are pretty basic. Some ideas won't work; the parts don't quite fit. But others do work. Through constant experimentation, he eventually ends up with a three-foot long model of The Spaceship Enterprise.

And then, even though it’s now quite complex, in his imagination, he wants a new spaceship that can go visit his imaginary planet Glorgon. So he modifies it’s landing gear, removed the weapons (not needed on peaceful Glorgon, after all…), and makes it much more efficiently sized. He applies some Evolutionary Vectoring; mutations in a specific direction, at high speed, because a new niche has opened up. Ergo, a new species of Spaceship. Crocker would say “Impossible!”

Well, bunk, I say to her. But wait… she goes on to incriminate herself and expose more of her highly biased (but "brave") ideas:


Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.

Not so "many", actually. This is a common ploy to suggest that some silent majority of scientists, holding the true truthful true-ness to their knowledgeable god-loving bosoms, are, as Mulder puts it "Out There". It's just not so. A few hundred scientists who have abandoned the "method scientifica", and who were brought up as Christians long before they attended university, and quiver at the sound, in their minds, of their Lord God's threatening voice. Many of those then attended a Christian University. Funded bu The Church and/or the congregation. Unbiased?

Yep, those ones believe in the ID sham.

By comparison, there are literally millions of biology and science students who graduate annually, world-wide, who quite simply know that Evolution is a fact, a law, not, in the true sense of scientific terminology, “just a theory”.

Only some form of intelligence -- most people read that phrase as "God" -- could have accounted for the origin of life from nonliving matter, or the existence of complex structures within cells and organisms that rely on many parts functioning together. While many advocates of the theory of intelligent design, including Crocker, are religious, some are not. What unites these advocates is not religion but the belief that supernatural forces are active in everyday life.

Ahhh.. and there you have it. An admitted advocate for shammery and hidden Godly Creationism. That part is thus proven. A belief in supernatural forces? Teaching that in a pure science class? What the heck? Somebody in the Administration of her school should be "canned" besides her!

Well, I could go on. This so called "proof" is a sham, a highly biased and non-scientific bit of popularized journalistic tripe. The rest of the article is chock-full of the same sort of unsupported speculative statements. If she tried to teach science in our town, her philosophical and biased approach to the teaching of true science would get her a free ride out of town.

I hear she's actually out there as we speak, riding the rails of discredit, looking for a new home to pedal her personal biases.

C'mon semi... you're too good for this!

(I just know it pleases some IDTs no end that this sort of researching and posting can be quite tiring. Prob'ly also why they don't bother to read it, but just change the subject.....)

Last edited by rifleman; 02-02-2009 at 02:57 PM.. Reason: typos, clarity

 
Old 02-02-2009, 02:55 PM
 
472 posts, read 452,952 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDTD View Post
It's as scientific as any of the science we got going so far. At least...It has proven as much regarding "the big question".
Your premise is correct.
 
Old 02-02-2009, 02:58 PM
 
472 posts, read 452,952 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Rifleman's cursory review and comments in green:

From a Washington Post layman’s popular article, written by an author with an agenda, but lacking in ANY formal science or biological expertise:

Quotes, followed by my comments.

“A new, resistant strain of bacteria would have evolved. While such small changes are well established, Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.”

The last sentence is of course, tripe of a particularly odious kind. People who expect their housecat to evolve overnight into a new Chihuahua are particularly ill-informed. It takes multi-thousands of years of the accumulation of mutations, which, by the way, happen at various speeds, which at least Crocker accedes to. It’s defined as an organism’s Evolutionary Vector: one chance beneficial mutation may then have a facilitating effect on other previously ignored or useless mutational benefits, but then they confer a real benefit. This leads to rapid evolution of entirely new species, especially if a new previously unavailable or non-existent niche appears. A volcano transforms an island’s geo-morphology, it’s vegetation (more rain due to a new mountain range, etc.) and, voila, a packrat becomes a tree-dwelling pre-monkey. Obvious, logical and true.

Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.

This underlined highlight is properly called "Opinion". Crocker should be appropriately sanctioned for displaying her apparently vast mis-understandings about Biology.

“Crocker believes that biological systems cannot grow more complex on their own any more than a novel, through chance typographical errors, can turn into a different book, with a different story. How could anyone think that new books get written because of typos in old books?

"How" indeed! Irrelevant Opinion, but it does cater to the hoped-for validation of ID theory. (BTW, there is no known way for books to self-mutate their typography in any way as far as I know, but if they could, you would thus see some changes. What deflective nonsense!)

Organisms, subject to known and observed high rates of mutation in the tricky task of near-daily replication of DNA in cells through transcription RNA, fall prey to a whole host of fatal mistakes. Fortunately there’s a lot of those cells all trying to just get along. It only takes a few good ones, coupled with a few million years, and, bingo! Monkeys, weasels, orchids and men!

It’s far more like a child new to Lego. His first few efforts are pretty basic. Some ideas won't work; the parts don't quite fit. But others do work. Through constant experimentation, he eventually ends up with a three-foot long model of The Spaceship Enterprise.

And then, even though it’s now quite complex, in his imagination, he wants a new spaceship that can go visit his imaginary planet Glorgon. So he modifies it’s landing gear, removed the weapons (not needed on peaceful Glorgon, after all…), and makes it much more efficiently sized. He applies some Evolutionary Vectoring; mutations in a specific direction, at high speed, because a new niche has opened up. Ergo, a new species of Spaceship. Crocker would say “Impossible!”

Well, bunk, I say to her. But wait… she goes on to incriminate herself and expose more of her highly biased (but "brave") ideas:

Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.

Not so "many", actually. This is a common ploy to suggest that some silent majority of scientists, holding the true truthful true-ness to their knowledgeable god-loving bosoms, are, as Mulder puts it "Out There". It's just not so. A few hundred scientists who have abandoned the "method scientifica", and who were brought up as Christians long before they attended university, and quiver at the sound, in their minds, of their Lord God's threatening voice. Many of those then attended a Christian University. Funded bu The Church and/or the congregation. Unbiased?

Yep, those ones believe in the ID sham.

By comparison, there are literally millions of biology and science students who graduate annually, world-wide, who quite simply know that Evolution is a fact, a law, not, in the true sense of scientific terminology, “just a theory”.

Only some form of intelligence -- most people read that phrase as "God" -- could have accounted for the origin of life from nonliving matter, or the existence of complex structures within cells and organisms that rely on many parts functioning together. While many advocates of the theory of intelligent design, including Crocker, are religious, some are not. What unites these advocates is not religion but the belief that supernatural forces are active in everyday life.

Ahhh.. and there you have it. An admitted advocate for shammery and hidden Godly Creationism. That part is thus proven. A belief in supernatural forces? Teaching that in a pure science class? What the heck? Somebody in the Administration of her school should be "canned" besides her!

Well, I could go on. This so called "proof" is a sham, a highly biased and non-scientific bit of popularized journalistic tripe. The rest of the article is chock-full of the same sort of unsupported speculative statements. If she tried to teach science in our town, her philosophical and biased approach to the teaching of true science would get her a free ride out of town.

I hear she's actually out there as we speak, riding the rails of discredit, looking for a new home to pedal her personal biases.

C'mon semi... you're too good for this!

(I just know it pleases some IDTs no end that this sort of researching and posting can be quite tiring. Prob'ly also why they don't bother to read it, but just change the subject.....)
Do you believe in a Higher Power Rifleman? Be it "God", or some other label as such, do you believe in a Grand Design?
 
Old 02-02-2009, 06:19 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,581,190 times
Reputation: 13237
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemiahmooDude View Post
The Intelligent Design debate is ongoing withing the scientific community, and within that arguement, there is little if any denotion of the theory belonging to any one religious group.
This is incorrect. It's not within the scientific community. It is the scientific community arguing against psuedoscience.

Quote:
In fact, it is not a debate regarding religion, but rather the still vast unanswered questions on the origin of life - a topic as yet unanswered with certainty within the scientific community.
Again, you are incorrect. The debate largely consists of aruging against evolution for ID when the debate should be against abiogenesis (origins) for ID.

Quote:
Intelligent Design does not trap itself within the context of the Genesis Creation model
Quote:
, but rather is an open-minded approach to the clear biological patterns of life on earth.
Lies.

Quote:
Intelligent Design is an appeal to science, not a distraction from it.
Lies.

Quote:
To those who attempt to link Intelligent Design with the Biblical (or other religious text) version of creation are announcing to everyone you actually have no knowledge or understanding of Intelliegent Design - and likely just as little understanding of Darwinian Evolution theory as well.
Um, you really aren't in a position to charge anyone about knowledge of this debate. You clearly fail, as most ID/creationists, to understand the differences between evolution and abiogenesis. As I stated yesterday, this state of being uniformed is at the heart of ID troubles.

Quote:
The vast majority of Americans believe in a Higher Power. Our public schools should not ignore this fact, but be willing to explore it. Push the boundaries of belief, marvel at the rich and varied history of humankind - some it positive, much of it negative, but almost all of it incredibly interesting.
At your uni, what do you teach? Are you an english prof? If so, how would like it if your TA decided to teach ebonics in comp I&II? Answer my earlier questions, should astrology be taught along side astronomy? Should alchemy be taught along side chemistry?

Quote:
So on that note, I offer up a link to a list of those within the scientific community who are willing to question the confining outline of Darwinian Theory:
No, this is a lie. Their views are not within the scientific community. The community considers their views as fringe quackery. What you are doing here is engaging in unethical dialog, intentional or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemiahmooDude View Post
While I understand your frustration, I would much prefer a society with the confidence to continue exploring the possibilities of the age-old questions of human existence.

Sadly, such confidence is greatly lacking, as many of the posts in this forum so readily point to.
Again, you have no business charging anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Intelligent Design is not science. It's not an appeal to science, it's a challenge to science. Science is a progression, theories are replaced by better ones, methodology is steadily improved, standards are refined. Darwin is just a footnote in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is science, doing what science does, evolving to incorporate new information, responding to new data and findings. Science is about what is observable, what is provable, what we know. Theories take the increments of evidence and try to explain them. Evolution is not about the origins of life, only about how life adapts and develops in an environment.

Intelligent Design is not a theory that is amenable to being discarded as new evidence and data arises. That's why it is not science. It's masquerades as a scientific theory because it borrows data and evidence from science, but it doesn't embrace its own fallibility. Science, the empiric method, embraces that fallibility. While science seems to offer answers that go beyond our understanding of our world, the scientists who propose these explanations are not asking for a leap of faith. They are testing the limits of human understanding, pushing outward. Intelligent Design isn't pushing against limits, it's trying to reign in scientific inquiry. Go no further, you cannot hope to understand the complexity of life, and because it is so complex, it can only be explained by the existence of something greater than ourselves. Science is the hope that we can go beyond just appreciating the complexity. That step by step, piece by piece, study by study, we can understand the universe we live in, how it works, how we function within it.
Well said.
 
Old 02-02-2009, 07:07 PM
 
472 posts, read 452,952 times
Reputation: 194
No, this is a lie. Their views are not within the scientific community. The community considers their views as fringe quackery. What you are doing here is engaging in unethical dialog, intentional or not.

_____

So because that rather substantial list of scientists and professors are open to the concept of Intelligent Design, they are, by your standards, "not within the scientific community"? I suggest you contact the numerous universities they are employed at to make them aware of this fact!

And you are also speaking for "the community" as well? Please elaborate on what community this might be? Are you stating that Black Americans, due to the overwhelming importance they place on religion in their lives, not able to participate in your version of community? http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1099/rel...ican-americans

Lastly, how is presenting ideas, engaging in exchange of views, and contemplating that exchange, unethical?

It would appear you have no respect for academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, or freedom of expression. If I am incorrect, please by all means remedy this appearance as I find it quite troubling.

Thank you!
 
Old 02-02-2009, 07:45 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,581,190 times
Reputation: 13237
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemiahmooDude View Post
So because that rather substantial list of scientists and professors are open to the concept of Intelligent Design, they are, by your standards, "not within the scientific community"? I suggest you contact the numerous universities they are employed at to make them aware of this fact!
They are <0.15% of physical scientists. Do you realize this? If their ID research is not published, if it does not undergo peer-review, it is not a view held by the scientific community. That's just how it goes.

Quote:
And you are also speaking for "the community" as well? Please elaborate on what community this might be?
It is a fact that if work is not peer-reviewed, it is not acknowledged. This obviously has little meaning for you and that's ok, provided you aren't interested in becoming a scientist.

Quote:
Are you stating that Black Americans, due to the overwhelming importance they place on religion in their lives, not able to participate in your version of community?
What are you talking about? What does being black or white have to do with the scientific community?

Quote:
Lastly, how is presenting ideas, engaging in exchange of views, and contemplating that exchange, unethical?
You aren't engaged in exchanging ideas as far as I've seen. At best, you ignore questions asked of you. Parroting ID drama rhetoric without taking the time to understand what and how science is/works is unethical and distasteful.

Quote:
It would appear you have no respect for academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, or freedom of expression. If I am incorrect, please by all means remedy this appearance as I find it quite troubling.
Again, this amounts to a whole lot of fibbing. Not you, not those you consider an authority, not the entire ID movement has produced anything in the way of scientific evidence. Do not expect a scientist to embrace pseuoscience. It's too much to ask. If you have evidence, actual peer-reviewed, published research, than present it. If you want to argue evolution, that pick a talking point and lets discuss it. I'm not going to give any weight to fluff.
 
Old 02-02-2009, 08:03 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,581,190 times
Reputation: 13237
SemiahmooDude, lets entertain some basics here.

I have two questions that should be easy for you to answer if you actually understand science and ID.

1. Is anything asserted by ID falsifiable? And to naturally follow-

2. Does ID make predictions?

eta: fyi (or maybe you already know), irreducible complexity has been debunked thoroughly, in case you felt the urge to pull that one out of the hat.
 
Old 02-02-2009, 08:14 PM
 
Location: An absurd world.
5,162 posts, read 5,811,448 times
Reputation: 1960
If they want to teach creationism, that's fine, however, it isn't science and should not be taught in a science class. It also shouldn't be a required class.
 
Old 02-02-2009, 08:36 PM
 
472 posts, read 452,952 times
Reputation: 194
[quote=Braunwyn;7293484]They are <0.15% of physical scientists. Do you realize this? If their ID research is not published, if it does not undergo peer-review, it is not a view held by the scientific community. That's just how it goes.


It is a fact that if work is not peer-reviewed, it is not acknowledged. This obviously has little meaning for you and that's ok, provided you aren't interested in becoming a scientist.

_____________

You are aware that Darwin's Origin of Species was published as a book and as such, did not undergo peer review in the modern sense, yes?

As to your assertion that no Intelligent Design-supportive papers, books, theories, etc have not been published or undergone peer review, well, do you really wish to stand on that specific claim? There has already been evidence to the contrary within earlier posts in this very thread.

As to evidence of persecution within the scientific community regarding those who are open to the concept of Intelligent Design, you need look no further than the controversy surrounding the Sternberg case. Here is the good old Wicki abbreviated version:

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this brooha-ha, more examples of Intelligent Design influenced papers are appearing within the scientific mainstream:

What of John Davison's "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" (2005)

His PEH proposal is gaining some grudging traction from within the scientific community you appear to be so supportive of. It first appeared in the peer-reviewed science journal Rivista di Biologia Forum 98.

http://john.a.davison.free.fr/wp-content/davison_prescribedevolution_110804.pdf (broken link)


You also have D.A. Axe ScienceDirect - Journal of Molecular Biology : Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors1

And a number of others appearing. (Take a little time to look them up!) I will not dispute the fact that these scientists are meeting with considerable resistance from the mainstream science junta. That does not disregard the work itself though, but rather reinforce the perception that any work outside of this mainstream is challanged and demeaned at every step. Such is the history of academia!

Einstein knew this well - and left us with a particularly appropriate quote regarding opposition both from within, and outside, the science community.

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source - they are creatures who cannot hear the music of the spheres.

Albert Einstein



I simply ask for you to listen to the music of the spheres...

 
Old 02-02-2009, 08:51 PM
 
339 posts, read 481,210 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaziq View Post
If they want to teach creationism, that's fine, however, it isn't science and should not be taught in a science class. It also shouldn't be a required class.
They shouldn't be teaching inconclusive "science" either (IMO) but they do. Maybe they can teach all of this as an elective. They could cover a lot of topics in a debate class, but they should make everyone debate from both sides of every argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top