Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 6:02 AM
217 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 213 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,781 Year: 18,604/29,783 Month: 549/2,043 Week: 101/386 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1573 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 106 of 152 (415016)
08-07-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
08-03-2007 6:55 PM


Re: No problem at all
It's fun to watch Rob and NJ 'defend' Behe by conceding the point.

NJ: No matter what Behe says, whether he tries to accomodate the opposition or not, he will inevitably be in the same boat in their eyes.

You bet. And here's the boat: Behe wants a nonscientific point of view accepted as science.

Behe knows it doesn't qualify. He admitted in the Dover trial that ID has the same claim to scientific validity as astrology. He admitted that the definition of 'science' would have to be rewritten for ID to get in the door--and that astrology would be walking in on its arm.

You've stated exactly what Barbara Forrester means when she calls ID 'Creationism's Trojan Horse.' It is a nonscientific proposition dressed up in "accommodating language" in the hope no one will notice the difference between scientific patter and scientific substance.

Stephen knew the difference. He smoked the pseudoscience out of its horse.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 107 of 152 (415041)
08-07-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
08-07-2007 5:39 PM


Re: No problem at all
Please don't try to fish for the answers you want.

I did not think asking point blank questions was fishing for answers.

I am sure not getting any.

The 2 proposed questions as I see it has four possible answers.

Yes, No, I don't know, or I don't care.

Seems your answer was the last one.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2007 5:39 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2007 3:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 108 of 152 (415044)
08-07-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
08-07-2007 5:39 PM


Re: No problem at all
ICANT writes:


So you say his findings are not fact and should not be taught in a science class.

Paulk writes:

That is not what I said. I said that they are not SCIENCE and should not be taught in a science class.

ICANT writes:

So Behe's findings are not scientific fact therefore should not be taught in a science class.

Those are your words, not mine.

Explain what they (findings) are not science means if it does not mean that the facts he presented are not scientific.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2007 5:39 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 10:14 PM ICANT has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 152 (415046)
08-07-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
08-07-2007 9:46 PM


Re: No problem at all
Explain what they (findings) are not science means if it does not mean that the facts he presented are not scientific.

Behe doesn't have findings in regards to ID, because he isn't doing research about ID.

He has arguments, and not very good ones. Not findings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2007 9:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2007 11:11 PM crashfrog has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 110 of 152 (415050)
08-07-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
08-07-2007 10:14 PM


Re: No problem at all
He has arguments, and not very good ones. Not findings.

Whatever his findings or arguments are for whatever he believes they can be no worse that the arguments I have heard for and about singularity and abiogenesis.

There are arguments for both but neither has been proven and probably never will be.

Those 2 are no more a fact of science than whatever it is Behe is pushing if it is false.

Why do they get to make the science classroom when they are not fact? But what Behe is pushing is not allowed because it is not fact.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 10:14 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 11:41 PM ICANT has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 111 of 152 (415051)
08-07-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
08-06-2007 9:44 AM


Re: No problem at all
You're committing a couple fallacies here, but the primary one is that you're attempting a defense by changing the focus of attention. The topic is Behe and ID. If you'd like to discuss whether evolution is actually an effort to promote atheism, despite that people of all religions around the globe including Christianity accept evolution, then open a new thread.

Well, Percy, that HAS been a subject which has come up a few times. The attempted repartee I generally receive is an immediate parallelization between evolution and creation, and or, Intelligent Design. Yet you say nothing then, presumably because at that particular time it suits your own arguments.

The point is that you attempt to stack the deck in your favor, without ever thinking that it might be incredibly hypocritical for you to do so.

You think that a lawsuit against a law FORBIDDING the teaching of mainstream science in science classes is asking for "special dispensation" ?

Evolution was very much a debatable, "hot topic" back in those days, much in the same ID is right now. Try not to look at the theory where it is currently in stature. It was still very much a fledgling theory in those days looking for increased support. In the same way that evolution was seeking some kind of asylum, so ID is attempting to reclaim the footing it lost.

But I will mention once again your rather serious error when you stated that Tennessee had a special law permitting evolution when the reality is that it forbid evolution. You know, Google and Wikipedia are just a click away. You could actually check your facts before inserting your foot in your mouth all the way up to the hip.

Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise? I'm not contending any of that. I'm simply saying that the Dover trial and the Scopes trial were fought for much of the same principles. I was pointing out that you overlook those parallels.

What has memes or Dawkins to do with this topic?

Paul mentioned something about how lousy and unfounded Behe's claims are. So I mentioned one completely unsupported theory that he has not set his crosshairs on. Why not, if scientific truth is the aim?

He hasn't submitted his ideas for scholarly review by submitting papers to scientific journals and conferences, so of course there is no scientific consensus behind his views, but he continues to promote them to the lay public as if they had some scientific legitimacy.

Is that Behe hasn't submitted them, or is it that they are met with virulent hostility or total indifference?

The stuff about scientific frauds is off-topic, it is the same fallacy I mentioned before ("Oh yeah? Well so are you!")

Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies. I asked him at least three times to support his assertion. He couldn't. He just keeps saying that ID'ists are liars, blah, blah, blah. They're just mean-spirited talking points that he's erroneously fashioned in his mind.

Then he gives me some asinine example of the supposed "lies," and attempts to indict ALL of Intelligent Design with it. I then ever-so-gently reminded him of the monumental, demonstrable frauds associated with evolution. Does that mean I indict all evolutionists as liars? No. But running along the same lines as him, I would be totally justifiable in doing so.

Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.

quote:
Look, I'm not trying to get this thread to go in to a tit for tat blame game.

Sure you are! You just did it at least three times in this message alone!

I have no desire to go tit for tat. I would rather we just have a nice discussion, which most of them you are more than capable of. There are other people who just can't do that. They have to immediately meet everything I say, no matter how benignly I put it, with noticeable venom.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-06-2007 9:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2007 4:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2007 1:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 152 (415053)
08-07-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
08-07-2007 11:11 PM


Re: No problem at all
Whatever his findings or arguments are for whatever he believes they can be no worse that the arguments I have heard for and about singularity and abiogenesis.

Then that can only be because you don't understand them. To assert that Behe's ridiculous bullshit has the same kind of legitimacy as cosmology or biology is just nonsense.

Why do they get to make the science classroom when they are not fact?

Because they, in fact, are fact, and your contention about their evidentiary basis (especially as compared to Behe's nonsense) is just fundamentally wrong.

We clearly observe the effects of singularities, if not singularities themselves; and it's sufficient to observe that since life has not eternally existed in the universe, it must have began at some point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2007 11:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 2:49 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 113 of 152 (415059)
08-08-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
08-07-2007 11:17 PM


Re: No problem at all
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

Well, Percy, that HAS been a subject which has come up a few times. The attempted repartee I generally receive is an immediate parallelization between evolution and creation, and or, Intelligent Design. Yet you say nothing then, presumably because at that particular time it suits your own arguments.

The point is that you attempt to stack the deck in your favor, without ever thinking that it might be incredibly hypocritical for you to do so.

Let me get this straight. You're unhappy with the way it went for you in threads about evolution, so that gives you the right to go off-topic and call me a hypocrite to boot. Do I have that about right?

You think that a lawsuit against a law FORBIDDING the teaching of mainstream science in science classes is asking for "special dispensation" ?

Evolution was very much a debatable, "hot topic" back in those days, much in the same ID is right now. Try not to look at the theory where it is currently in stature. It was still very much a fledgling theory in those days looking for increased support. In the same way that evolution was seeking some kind of asylum, so ID is attempting to reclaim the footing it lost.

I continue to wonder if you're ever going to say anything that is actually true. Evolution was not a fledgling theory in the 1920's (it was 60 years old), it was not seeking increased support, it was not seeking some kind of asylum, and no law was ever passed granting evolution a special dispensation.

What is actually true is the complete opposite of what you're saying. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history, but the facts of the matter are that evolution was an accepted scientific theory in the 1920's that was included in textbooks of the period, Christian evangelicals had recently embarked on a "back to the fundamentals" movement, and as part of that the Butler Act was passed prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. That's not a special dispensation, that's a sanction. Them's the facts, NJ, deal with it.

Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise?

Denials like this are rather pointless since everyone can read your words. This is you in Message 81:

nemesis_juggernaut in Message 81 writes:

I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case.

The truth is that *opponents* of evolution passed a special law called the Butler Act that was a *sanction* against evolution, not a special dispensation. And Scopes didn't win the case, he lost it. Scopes' conviction was overturned on a technicality in the appellate courts, the amount of the fine imposed was evidently not according to statute.

You know, you could look up this information yourself.

Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise? I'm not contending any of that. I'm simply saying that the Dover trial and the Scopes trial were fought for much of the same principles. I was pointing out that you overlook those parallels.

I don't think it helps your cause to continually dissemble. The parallel you claimed was that just as ID is claiming a special dispensation today for inclusion in education, so did evolution back in the 1920's. But your claim is completely wrong because it is completely backwards. Once again, evolution did not receive a special dispensation, it received a prohibition.

Is that Behe hasn't submitted them, or is it that they are met with virulent hostility or total indifference?

Good, let's get back to the topic. Behe hasn't submitted any papers on ID. If you doubt this, here's the Wikipedia article on Michael Behe quoting from the Dover trial transcript:

Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

That's because he's not doing any research on ID. If he actually had ID papers that had been rejected then he could publish them at his website or at the Discovery Institute website, but he hasn't. All he's done is written popular press books. That's because he's not trying to convince fellow scientists, he's trying to promote an illusion to the lay public of a controversy within science.

There's neither "virulent hostility or total indifference" from the scientific community, only a desire for papers describing research conducted in a scientific manner.

Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies.

Sure he did. We both did. Once again, Behe falsely portrays to the lay public the impression that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, but as came out at trial, Behe knows this is not true, as related by Judge Jones here in the Dover ruling (this is from the Wikipedia article on Michael Behe):

Judge Jones writes:

Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

...

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

...

What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

...

We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

Behe's other lie is to claim that ID deserves representation in science class when he knows very well that what is taught in science class is accepted scientific views, and he knows very well that ID is not an accepted scientific view. Just to link this back to your earlier point, this is the special dispensation you were referring to, only it is ID that is demanding it, not evolution.

Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.

You are stacking the deck against yourself. If you'd like at least a snowball's chance in hell of turning the tide then I suggest you stop defending the indefensible and denying the undeniable, because unless you actually go back and edit your old posts all the evidence of what you actually said is still there. If you want a better outcome, I suggest you start figuring out how to say things that are actually true.

I have no desire to go tit for tat. I would rather we just have a nice discussion, which most of them you are more than capable of. There are other people who just can't do that. They have to immediately meet everything I say, no matter how benignly I put it, with noticeable venom.

Yeah, I've noticed that too. People get all kinds of huffy in the face of dishonesty. Can't understand it.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Added another Wikipedia excerpt, then noticed some poor grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-07-2007 11:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 114 of 152 (415077)
08-08-2007 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
08-07-2007 11:41 PM


Re: No problem at all
Because they, in fact, are fact,

Only in your mind.

Do you care to furnish the information to back up that assertion.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2007 11:41 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AdminNosy, posted 08-08-2007 2:55 AM ICANT has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 115 of 152 (415079)
08-08-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
08-08-2007 2:49 AM


Sorry, but not in this thread.
Can we take the big bang and abiogenesis to another thread. This is because they are large topics on their own and because:

I think Behe (the topic here) is an expert in biochemistry and the bulk of his work is about evolutionary details (clotting, flagella etc.).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 2:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:24 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 116 of 152 (415080)
08-08-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
08-07-2007 9:28 PM


Re: No problem at all
You've had your answers. You keep trying to rewrite one to suit your argument. And you don't seem to like the others enough to actually pay attention to what they say.

So I conclude that your further posts which keep going on about the same questions ARE fishing for answers. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my answers just because it would help your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 08-07-2007 9:28 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 117 of 152 (415094)
08-08-2007 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
08-07-2007 11:17 PM


Re: No problem at all
quote:

Well, Percy, that HAS been a subject which has come up a few times. The attempted repartee I generally receive is an immediate parallelization between evolution and creation, and or, Intelligent Design. Yet you say nothing then, presumably because at that particular time it suits your own arguments.

I really have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that evolution is an attempt to promote atheism is usually countered by a reference to all the theists who accept evolution. To be honest what you're describing sounds more like your tactics.

quote:

The point is that you attempt to stack the deck in your favor, without ever thinking that it might be incredibly hypocritical for you to do so.

You know, if you are going to make accusations like that it would help to be more explicit so at least we could see if you have the evidence to back up your assertion.

quote:

Evolution was very much a debatable, "hot topic" back in those days, much in the same ID is right now. Try not to look at the theory where it is currently in stature. It was still very much a fledgling theory in those days looking for increased support. In the same way that evolution was seeking some kind of asylum, so ID is attempting to reclaim the footing it lost.

It was 1925. Within science the hot topic relevant to evolution was the mechanism - Darwinism, Lamarckism or orthogenesis. Mendelian genetics had been rediscovered and the work that lead to the New Synthesis had already begun. Probably the biggest recent issue would have been the fraud at Kammerer's lab and the shadow it cast over Lamarckism.

Evolution was accepted - and, as I pointed out, it was already in the State-approved textbook. Compare that with the Kitzmiller case where they had to bring in a text written by the ID movement - a creationist text that had been rewritten to substitute "intelligent design" for creationism - where even the definition of "intelligent design" was the definition that the previous draft had used for "creationism". Even then two defendants tried to hide the facts about where the money to buy the books came from - to the point of perjury.

quote:

Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise? I'm not contending any of that. I'm simply saying that the Dover trial and the Scopes trial were fought for much of the same principles. I was pointing out that you overlook those parallels.

Obviously you are NOT familiar with the material. The cases are not parallel in the way that you mean. The biggest parallel is that in both cases religious believers tried to manipulate the science curriculum of the public school system to better suit their beliefs - in violation of the US constitution.

Your alleged parallels aren't overlooked. They are rejected as the fabrications that they are. If you really know the material then you know that what you are saying isn't true.

If they were fought for the same principles, the sides didn't change. The evolution side still fought for a sound education in science and the religious believers still fought for their religion against science.

quote:

Paul mentioned something about how lousy and unfounded Behe's claims are. So I mentioned one completely unsupported theory that he has not set his crosshairs on. Why not, if scientific truth is the aim?

Because it's not much of an issue. Memes are an interesting idea that - to the best of my knowledge - haven't really been treated rigourously enough to be considered fully science (although there's no doubt that memes - in the general sense - actually exist). But memes are just a fringe idea in science. There's no equivalent of the DI pushing memes into schools or trying to discredit rival ideas through spin and press releases.

quote:

Is that Behe hasn't submitted them, or is it that they are met with virulent hostility or total indifference?

It's that Behe hasn't submitted them. If he had and met with such virulence as you suggest the DI would be splashing that about as evidence of the persecution they claim. Behe and the DI wouldn't keep that quiet.

quote:

Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies. I asked him at least three times to support his assertion. He couldn't. He just keeps saying that ID'ists are liars, blah, blah, blah. They're just mean-spirited talking points that he's erroneously fashioned in his mind.

You're trying to rewrite the discussion again. My point was that Behe is being dishonest in trying to pass off his writings as science when they are better classed as religious apologetics. Behe is enough of a scientist to know that his arguments are weak and flawed (and the fact that he doesn't submit his work to the scientific community strongly suggests that he does know it). He has to know that his motivations are religious.. He has to know that the DI is in the business of pushing religion. He has to know that the DI includes creationists - who he does not shun.

The points about the DI have been backed by evidence. THe only other accusation of dishonesty I made that I can think of is the reference to Wells - but you were the one who brought up his false accusations. You shot yourself in the foot there.

quote:

Then he gives me some asinine example of the supposed "lies," and attempts to indict ALL of Intelligent Design with it. I then ever-so-gently reminded him of the monumental, demonstrable frauds associated with evolution. Does that mean I indict all evolutionists as liars? No. But running along the same lines as him, I would be totally justifiable in doing so.

If you bother to look back to the relevant messages you'll find that the textual history is rather more complicated than you let on. Your reference to evolutionary "frauds" is in Message 81. The quoted comment preceding it comes from my Message 36 - and it refers not to Behe but to the DI organisation. It is not even offered as an example of Behe's lies - in part because I never said that Behe directly lied !

My point is elaborated in Message 60. The quotes from the Wedge document appear in Message 78

But there's demonstrable dishonesty on your part.

I did not directly call Behe a liar.

I have answered all challenges to what I actually said with regard to Behe.

Your examples were produced in response to comment about the DI that was NOT offered as an example of Behe lying. A comment that had already been supported with evidence.

Your examples of "fraud" included:

A 19th Century embryologist working to back up his own ideas - not those of modern evolutionary theory or even Darwins.

A hoax carried out by an unknown person for an unknown reason (maybe Dawson to make his career although there are other possiiblities).

An honest mistake

A fraud carried out to obtain money FROM evolutionists

False accusations invented by an ID supported and backed by the ID movement.

None if this is comparable to the actual evidence I put forward. As seems to be your usual practice you invent a strawman of my argument and use that as a basis for a tu quoque argument.

quote:

Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.

It's hard to see what you are talking about. Surely you are responsible for your own behaviour. Nobody's forcing you to act this badly.

quote:

I have no desire to go tit for tat. I would rather we just have a nice discussion, which most of them you are more than capable of. There are other people who just can't do that. They have to immediately meet everything I say, no matter how benignly I put it, with noticeable venom.

Yet you make tit-for-tat arguments quite happily. And often not even honestly. As we've seen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-07-2007 11:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1573 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 118 of 152 (415100)
08-08-2007 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
08-05-2007 3:34 PM


ID in Rhythm
Ah, the two-step. An oldie but a goodie.

First we're told a 'controversy' exists among scientists. When it's established that none does, we're told a 'monopoly' exists.

Then repeat.

The cure for both? Teaching religion in science classes, of course. All roads lead to Rome.


Fundimentals, fundimentals,
At last they've got you
On the map
With a new tune
A wedgie blue tune
With a flagellic snap!
You may not be able
To think or teach
Research, publish, or even preach
If you ain't got science
On your side
Just grab a panda
Stroll and stride

New ID! New ID!
Made by fundimentals!
Some dance, some prance
But nothing makes you move your pants
Like new ID, new ID
Gee, how you can shuffle!
Every step you do
Leads to something new
Man, I'm telling you
It's a how-you-do

YEC, OEC
Will be a back number
But new ID
That new ID
That dance is surely a comer!
Sometime
You'll dance to it one time
That dance is here to play
Made in Dover PA!

http://www.carlinamerica.com/titles/sf/CHARLESTON.rm

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2007 3:34 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 11:17 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 119 of 152 (415114)
08-08-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by AdminNosy
08-08-2007 2:55 AM


Re: Sorry, but not in this thread.
Hi AdminNosey,

Can we take the big bang and abiogenesis to another thread.

TBB was not a question.

Singularity and abiogenesis was.

My reason for asking the questions was that they are taught in a science classroom.

They are not a fact of science. They are notions, and beliefs.

Behe's

clotting, flagella
Is notions and beliefs.

My contention is that if Behe's notions and beliefs do not belong in a science classroom then singularity and abiogenesis do not belong in a science classroom.

Then they all would belong in a philosophy class.

I do know that singularity and abiogenesis is being taught as fact by some teachers that do not know better, or either do and don't care since it is their belief they teach it as fact anyway.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AdminNosy, posted 08-08-2007 2:55 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 11:27 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 11:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 120 of 152 (415119)
08-08-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 7:19 AM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Hi Archer,

First we're told a 'controversy' exists among scientists. When it's established that none does,

If we stick our heads in the sand and say there is no controversy then there is no controversy.

Paulk Message 71

One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts -

Percy [msg74]
But let's just assume for the sake or argument that I'm wrong to deny that there's a controversy within science. Let's say there's actually a tremendous controversy, and that scientists have actually come to blows over the issue at scientific meetings and conferences. It is still less than 1% of scientists who accept ID, and most of these are not practicing biologists.

Maybe 1% would not make a controversy.

But if there is that much controversy I don't see how you could say there is NO controversy. I thought no controversy would mean everybody is in 100% agreement.

we're told a 'monopoly' exists.

You did not deny that a monopoly exists. But lets face the truth, either you are in the brotherhood or you are on the outside. To be in the brotherhood you are not allowed to speak against what the brotherhood believes to be the truth.

The cure for both? Teaching religion in science classes, of course.

Lets get one thing straight this pastor does not think religion should be taught in a science classroom. I have never advocated or even suggested so.

If Behe's notions and beliefs is religion it does not belong in the science classroom.

Neither does a lot of the notions and beliefs of a lot of other scientist (which becomes their religion) that are being taught in the science classroom as a fact of science.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 7:19 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 08-08-2007 11:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 11:53 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 138 by nator, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018