Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 6:47 PM
398 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 395 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,373 Year: 16,979/21,208 Month: 2,868/3,593 Week: 335/646 Day: 98/115 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   No evolution/creation debate in Europe
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12772
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 91 of 107 (479940)
08-31-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Beretta
08-31-2008 5:51 AM


Re: Evolution as dogma
quote:

Well the problem is evolutionists are indoctrinating little children into their religious dogma by forcefeeding evolution as fact down their gullible little throats

So the problem is that children are getting a good science education instead of being indoctrinated into your beliefs.

quote:

...this is the thing - we are trying to wake you up to the consequences of your religion by first showing you that evolution is faith-based not factual

Except that you aren't even trying to show such a thing. That would require discussing the evidence, which you are obviously reluctant to do.

quote:

... before getting to consequences of a worldview that is not open to competing hypotheses and is thus dogma.

You're doing a good job of demonstrating some of those. For instance you can be reduced to the situation where your best "argument" is to falsely assert that your opponents are like you !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 5:51 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 92 of 107 (479944)
08-31-2008 6:50 AM


The topic is evolution and creationism in Europe
All messages should explicitly have something to do with the topic theme as presented in the topic title.

If not, it's off-topic.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-31-2008 7:11 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 93 of 107 (479945)
08-31-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Beretta
08-31-2008 5:51 AM


Evolution happens, baby, notwithstanding your desires!
Beratta writes:

Well the problem is evolutionists are indoctrinating little children into their religious dogma by forcefeeding evolution as fact down their gullible little throats.

Evolution is change over time. It is a phenomenon that can be observed. Biological evolution is change in the frequency of alleles over time, and it is a phenomenon that can be observed.

Admittedly some (maybe most) evolutionists are already the victims of the same agenda but this is the thing - we are trying to wake you up to the consequences of your religion by first showing you that evolution is faith-based not factual, before getting to consequences of a worldview that is not open to competing hypotheses and is thus dogma.

We can explain on what evidential basis we believe evolution is the story of life on earth. Your desire to see our view as being based on religious type faith does not make it so. The mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory can all be observed to exist. Right or wrong, our view is based on observations and what we can infer from them, not blind faith.

Hopefully, should you wake up in time, you will be in a position to fix some of the damage done.
Sometimes you don't have to take the Bibles away -you just need to convert them to your religion and the Bible will be relinquished in time.

You make the basic mistake of all the religiously obsessed. You are in competition with other faith based superstitions like Islam and Hinduism and all the rest, and indoctrination is central to that competition, because so far as evidence for veracity is concerned, you are all on an exact equal zero.

We, on the other hand, just need people to look at the growing pile of evidence for our view and understand it. At present, most of the "gullible" little children of the world are indoctrinated with one of a variety of creation mythologies long before they learn any biology. You show yourself up as a delusional Christian by not recognising this. You know very well that the next generation majority of unborn Egyptians will be Muslims, Indians Hindus and Brazillians, Catholic Christians.

That's your evidence of indoctrination. How could I predict that if religions were allowing people to make their own decisions?

The pathetic cry of "teach the controversy" is just an attempt to extend this indoctrination with evidenceless crap into the science classes.

I think you believe yourself to be honest, Beretta, which means that your capacity for self-delusion is enormous.

Pulling this round to the topic, levels of superstition are lower in Europe than in much of the world, so less people here have psychological blocks about descending from other animals. Not everyone agrees that evolution threatens the bible, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who could be seen expressing his support for evolutionary biology on our T.V. screens a few days ago.

Even our clergy aren't very superstitious compared to you. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 5:51 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 94 of 107 (479950)
08-31-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Adminnemooseus
08-31-2008 6:50 AM


Re: The topic is evolution and creationism in Europe
Not an "Evolution is religion" topic, unless you can somehow tie such into the theme of "No evolution/creation debate in Europe".

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: OK, I now notice that Bluegenes did brush upon the topic theme. I guess, please take it from there.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-31-2008 6:50 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 95 of 107 (479959)
08-31-2008 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Otto Tellick
08-27-2008 2:53 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
For the most part, your arguments here are based on a notion that evolutionary explanations are founded on a "faith" or "belief" in a particular "world view", rather than observable supporting evidence. But you systematically dismiss and ignore all the evidence without taking any time to understand what it is.

Actually I understand it all too well – philosophical naturalists, you see, have a worldview that a priori does away with any competing viewpoint. What they are selling is dogma.

Importing an assumption as an essential premise in a modified definition of science results in the prepositional statement: “Science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural causes.” However this statement begs the question. In other words the assertion assumes the truth of the premise that there are only natural causes, and enforcing the assumption excludes the design hypothesis by definition rather than by evidence.

Your distinction between "historical" and "experimental" science is a false one. Both are based on observation, both involve positing hypotheses that lead to specific predictions about what further observations can be expected to show, and in both cases, those further observations are doable and will either support or falsify the hypotheses in question.

“Historical events that cannot be recreated or tested by experimentation cannot be falsified by classic experimental methods, and must be tested against competing hypotheses.
This method of testing against competing hypotheses is the method used in forensic science, archaeology etc.When a crime scene leaves circumstantial evidence, forensic scientists must work from inferences based on the evidence to formulate hypotheses. Under these circumstances, the only remaining test is the one that seeks to rule out competing hypotheses on the basis of the evidence. Hypotheses are challenged, reformulated, and possibly falsified by other competing hypotheses.” (Carol Cleland, Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method )

“ID theory posits intelligent causation for living things. Like evolution, ID is a science that can be studied even if it cannot be directly observed or experimented on.
Like evolution, ID hypothesizes about something that happened in the past and should not be off limits for scientific study. Like evolution or any study of origins, ID is subject to the scientific activity of testing hypotheses, rather than being strictly held to laboratory experiments.
Thus to be scientific, the no-design hypothesis of evolution, the design hypothesis of ID or any origins related scientific enquiry must be practiced as defined –by making inferences from observations. Because these enquiries inherently involve historical events, the testing component must include at least the testing of competing hypotheses. Otherwise, a lone hypothesis is not an hypothesis, but an implicitly accepted, non-objective conclusion.
What purpose can possibly be served by steadfastly insisting on a view of reality that does not admit certain lines of scientific enquiry, regardless of how reasonable?
Discussing theories of origins may make for wearisome academic debates, but the truth of the matter (ie. the actual historic happening of the origin of living beings) has profound implications with respect to all areas of life –legal, political and ethical –to name a few. At bottom, the fact of our existence requires a theory of origins that is either matter-focused –matter is all that exists, or intelligence focused –there is intelligence behind the matter.” (Roddy M Bullock –“The Cave Painting”)

for those who understand the evidence, it makes no sense to say "genetics works perfectly well apart from evolution". Genetics is the very basis for evolution -- it is the thing that inescapably entails evolution as a process intrinsic to life.

It all depends on what you mean by ‘evolution’ since the meaning of the word changes without notice as if genetic variation somehow extrapolates naturally to include everything that exists and how it got there. ‘Genetics is the basis of evolution’ works if you’re referring to variation or adaptation but it does not automatically follow as the explanation of how life arose or how different biological organisms came to be. That remains to be proven – we need some proof that mutation can give rise to new and complex organs. It can’t just be assumed.

As for your long list of questions –it seems that you would like to know how allowing a non-material approach to origins would change things practically. The fact of the matter is that if ID is true then evolution (apart from variability within a particular kind of organism) is false as an explanation of origins and that would have profound influences over so many aspects of life including law, psychology, politics and ethics etc.

“Institutions of science must be open to competing hypotheses to prevent evidence from becoming subject to the dictates of dogma rather than the precepts of principle. When proponents of the hypothesis of no-design in nature ie. proponents of Darwinian evolution refuse to permit challenges of a contrary hypothesis, such proponents have ceased being scientific and the scientific method has been displaced by the dictates of dogma.” (Roddy M Bullock)

Trying to "balance" evidence-based explanations with Bible-based explanations in a science class can only lead to a failure to educate students in the scientific method, and a failure to give them a coherent basis for understanding and exploring the physical world.

Keeping students protected from a competing hypothesis that is generating a large amount of controversy is not the way to educate students either. Nobody is suggesting putting the Bible into the science classroom –all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it and allowing Darwinism to be scrutinized more closely than has been allowed in the past. Educate kids rather than indoctrinating them in a particular viewpoint that fears contrary evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-27-2008 2:53 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coragyps, posted 08-31-2008 8:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 100 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2008 2:16 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 6:14 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-31-2008 7:00 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 08-31-2008 7:43 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 96 of 107 (479961)
08-31-2008 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it

I see your problem, Beretta. There is no competing hypothesis that has scientific evidence. I don't know about SA, but most of Europe is, according to the surveys I've seen, more aware of this than the US.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3513
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 97 of 107 (479962)
08-31-2008 9:43 AM


The European politics of creationism/ID
My question to our European members:

Can and do significant political figures speak out, saying something along the lines of "Creationism and intelligent design do not have any substance and support in what we can and do observe in reality"?

Nationwide, and probably in most local jurisdictions in the U.S., to do such would be political suicide.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 10:01 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 107 (479963)
08-31-2008 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Minnemooseus
08-31-2008 9:43 AM


Re: The European politics of creationism/ID
No, in the UK they do not. But only because they would be looked at very strangely if they did. In UK politics, "We don't do God" :) See here for details.

That's not to say that YECism and ID are not a danger to our education system, but it infiltrates through stealth. The last thing it wants to do is be caught in the headlights of our press. It would be ripped to pieces. But then...

quote:
A poll for the BBC Horizon programme in January 2006 revealed that fewer than 50% of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* and the rest did not know.


Bizarre when you consider the church-attendance figures. I would guess that this represents a combination of leading question and typical man-in-the-street ignorance and stupidity, rather than any real statement of faith.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-31-2008 9:43 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2008 12:13 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 99 of 107 (479985)
08-31-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
08-31-2008 10:01 AM


Re: The European politics of creationism/ID
cavediver writes:

Bizarre when you consider the church-attendance figures. I would guess that this represents a combination of leading question and typical man-in-the-street ignorance and stupidity, rather than any real statement of faith.

Sure. Most people know little about it, and it's not in the top twenty political issues (if it's even in the top fifty!). Results are about what I'd expect with those options, but look at the sloppy journalism. This:

quote:

A poll for the BBC Horizon programme in January 2006 revealed that fewer than 50% of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life.

is not the same as this:

quote:

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

Note the big "O" word, origin, absent from the first quote and present in the second.

Considering the question, which way would theist/evolutionists have voted? They could have gone for either evolution or intelligent design. A lot of respondents would have considered the "evolution theory" option as implying atheism, and 48% for atheism would be a Swedish type level. :eek:

The poll actually gives two creationist options, with 39% between them. Interestingly, from memory, a poll around 2001 asking if we "believed in God or a supreme being" came out:

Yes: 38%

Don't know: 28%

No: 34%

So, our percentage of creationist/I.D.ers seem to match the positive theists/deists. That seems to indicate that just about all the theist/evolutionists opted for I.D., and half of those who don't know about God decided they did know about evolution, and it was the best explanation for the origins (cringe) and development of life.!

As for the rest of Europe, we're about average, and all countries come out with a majority for evolution amongst those who have an opinion.

Moose writes:

My question to our European members:
Can and do significant political figures speak out, saying something along the lines of "Creationism and intelligent design do not have any substance and support in what we can and do observe in reality"?

Nationwide, and probably in most local jurisdictions in the U.S., to do such would be political suicide.

It's not nearly such a hot issue here as it is in the U.S., so politicians rarely comment one way or another. It wouldn't be political suicide, although it might not be wise for a party leader (which means potential candidate for P.M.), or an imminently possible party leader to say something like that. As with U.S. presidential candidates, offending even 1% of the population unnecessarily would not be good tactics, so they have to walk a fine diplomatic tightrope (I wouldn't stand a chance in hell, would I?:)).

Technically, this European country is a theocracy, but the theocrats are mostly science friendly. The Church of England had its first pro-evolution effective leader (the monarch's the official leader) in a 19th century Archbishop of Canterbury, and the present incumbent is an evil evo, as I mentioned in a post above.

An interesting question is whether or not the quality of science education actually makes much difference to general public acceptance. I think that scientific knowledge is only one factor in the decline of religion in Europe. If people do not have religious beliefs of the type that make them reject evolution emotionally, then they accept the idea just as easily as something like tectonic plate theory on the basis that the consensus amongst experts is probably the best explanation we have at this point in time. Those of us who debate here look behind the reasoning, but the majority of Europeans aren't sufficiently interested to bother, frankly.

I've met very few people here who express worry or distaste at the idea of descending from other animals, although such worrying animals certainly exist.

H. Sapiens must be the only extant ape intellectually capable of thinking that it's not one. :rolleyes:

We're weird.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 10:01 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 100 of 107 (479999)
08-31-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
Beratta writes:

all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it

So, here in Europe (hi Moose:)) we're waiting for the first piece of scientific evidence that supports this competing hypothesis. Perhaps you'd care to give it to us on one of the relevant threads?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 101 of 107 (480037)
08-31-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Beretta
08-31-2008 5:51 AM


Re: Evolution as dogma
Do you have attention deficit disorder? There isn't a single thing in your post that is anything even close to a response to my message.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 5:51 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 102 of 107 (480054)
08-31-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it and allowing Darwinism to be scrutinized more closely than has been allowed in the past.

Which competing hypothesis?
The ID "hypothesis" that makes no predictions, undergoes no tests and which has never ever led to a single discovery. That "hypothesis"?
I don't see how even the term "hypothesis" can be justified never mind the concept of it being a "competing hypothesis".

To get back to the OP however......
Maybe the concept of a scientific "hypothesis" and the scientific method generally are more widely understood in Europe than the US?
I remember some fantastic lessons on how to go about testing things scientifically and the scientific method in general. I was about 11 and the lessons were my first experience of secondary school science. The ideas were simple (e.g. the use of a control group in an experiment to see if plants grew better in sunlight) but I have never forgotten them.
Are such lessons still taught? Either in European or American school science?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 103 of 107 (480073)
08-31-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
Beretta writes:

Keeping students protected from a competing hypothesis that is generating a large amount of controversy is not the way to educate students...

When the so-called "competing hypothesis" (ID) is generating only controversy, and no supporting evidence, keeping it out of the science classroom is not so much a matter of keeping students "protected" -- it's simply a matter of keeping the science course material on topic.

This seems to be the point where the American and European populations differ: the control of school policy affecting classroom teaching tends to be more intensely localized at the community level in the U.S., presenting more opportunities for small-community sentiments to be imposed as school policy. When any small fundamentalist Christian community decides, on the basis of its religious beliefs, that teaching evolution and "godless" scientific method is a threat to their established dogma, it can find the means to push some form of religious doctrine into the science class.

This has been attempted and even accomplished repeatedly. Each time it is accomplished, money and effort must be spent by others, both within and outside the affected school district (the Dover PA court case being the most prominent example recently), in order to bring the school district back into conformance with normal, legal and correct conditions, as established by amendments to the U.S. Constitution: the congress shall pass no law that establishes any religion, and this extends to all levels of government, down to the local school boards. The reasons for these conditions should have been made clear from understanding the 6 questions I posed previously.

(Apologies if you found the list of 6 questions too long to get through -- I had hoped it wouldn't be too great a burden, since they were all basic yes/no questions.)

I was puzzled by your quotations from the work of fiction by Roddy Bullock (The Cave Painting, A Parable of Science is identified as a novel). In what sense does this have anything to do with presenting, addressing or understanding evidence? I don't expect you to answer that, given your general avoidance and misunderstanding of evidence, and of reasoning based on evidence. What basis do I have for saying this? Here:

Beretta writes:

... the assertion [ that "Science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural causes " ] assumes the truth of the premise that there are only natural causes, and enforcing the assumption excludes the design hypothesis by definition rather than by evidence.

My friend, the concept is so basic, yet you are so far from it. When you try give an explanation of natural phenomena based on anything other than natural causes (that is, causes grounded in observable situations and processes), your explanation is not and cannot be objective, regardless of whether you are looking at "historical" or "experimental" matters. When your explanation fails to be objective, you forfeit any claim to verifiability -- you become bankrupt with regard to truth value, except in the eyes of those whom you can convince to believe as you do without the need for supporting evidence.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 104 of 107 (480087)
08-31-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
“Institutions of science must be open to competing hypotheses to prevent evidence from becoming subject to the dictates of dogma rather than the precepts of principle. When proponents of the hypothesis of no-design in nature ie. proponents of Darwinian evolution refuse to permit challenges of a contrary hypothesis, such proponents have ceased being scientific and the scientific method has been displaced by the dictates of dogma.” (Roddy M Bullock)

This quote is nonsense. Evolution is a theory not a hypothesis. ID can be construed as an untested hypothesis therefore doesn't belong in a science class. Find some evidence of ID, then maybe it can be called science.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 105 of 107 (480127)
09-01-2008 12:12 AM


Short term closure coming soon
Probably in about 15 minutes.

The topic title is "No evolution/creation debate in Europe".

The evidence or lack of evidence for evolution and/or creationism is the same everywhere. The topic theme, despite a somewhat muddled opening message, is the assertion that the debate is happening differently in Europe as compared to the United States.

So, the question is, is the above "bolded" true or false? Why do you see it as being true or false?

If your message does not fairly directly tie into answering these questions, it is off-topic.

Once closed, the topic will probably re-open later tonight or tomorrow.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-01-2008 10:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017