|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
I saw a website that refered to the macroevolution hypothesis as evolutiontarianism. I thought this was humorous. I know science is a social enterprise and that when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged. Copernicus would be a good example. It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban although the current PC movement is in many ways equivalent.
Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored. I have no problem with private ownership of journals and the setting of agendas but it seems hypocritical when they do not at least acknowledge that they are basing Behe's exclusion on tradition rather than any real scientific grounds. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I saw a website that refered to the macroevolution hypothesis as evolutiontarianism. I though this was humorous. I know science is a social enterprise and that when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged. Copernicus would be a good example. It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban although the current PC movement is in many ways equivalent. Taliban? How on earth do you equate a scientific theory with a totalitarian theocracy. And what on earth is the PC movement?
Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored. He isn't censored, infact he still has a wide following. His theories have just been thruoghly and unequivicably debunked. Heck, he was given the benafit of the doubt scientificaly. His fist papers came out in peer reviewd jurnals. That's how he was debunked.
I have no problem with private ownership of journals and the setting of agendas but it seems hypocritical when they do not at least acknowledge that they are basing Behe's exclusion on tradition rather than any real scientific grounds. How is it based on tradition? His papers were included, debunked, disproven, and thus disregarded. This is science! How do you get Taliban out of this? If something is proven wrong then it is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The equivalent to the Taliban is ICR (Institute for Creationist Research). They think that destroying science as we know it will return this nation to God. Sound familiar? Moving past somewhat personal attacks on ICR, science is areligious. The theory of evolution is supported by observable facts (observed instances of speciation) and observable evidence (change in organisms over time). Science is grounded in what can be observed and tested, quite different than any religion I know of. If macroevolutionarianism was a religion, than so is golf, since I have golfed on sundays before.
quote: As noted above, Behe's ideas have been debunked by mainstream science. Above that, Behe based his ideas on his own incredulity. At the end of the day, his argument comes down to "I can't believe it could have evolved, even through indirect routes." Not a well supported theory, if you ask me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored Indeed? What eveidence do you have for this assertion? What papers has Behe submitted that have been rejected without reasonable cause? What journals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Ken,
What is your working definition of religion? Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, have you ever even been to a professional scientific conference? Have you ever known any professional scientists and asked them about this? Science is, in a sense, based upon disagreement. Scientific conferences and, hell, PhD defenses are pretty contentious; if you make a claim, your collegues are going to question you, particularly if your study results contradict theirs! Sometimes personalities clash and tempers flare, but for the most part, this critical analysis of one's own and others' work is considered the basic diologue scientists have with each other about research.
quote: That statement is incredibly offensive and insulting. It would be a very good idea to apologize immediately if you haven't already.
quote: Can you please give some examples of how Behe has been censored? Look, Behe wrote a popular press book touting his modern version of the God of the Gaps claims because he knew they didn't have any peer-reviewed journal-quality evidenciary support. What you perceive as "academic wrath" is simply strong academic and scientific criticism, just the same kind of treatment any other flawed, terribly unscientific idea would get.
quote: Please specifically state which parts of Behe's ideas have been rejected as unscientific, and how you believe that they are, in fact, scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
1. To the person who wanted to know what PC is:
Political correctness. 2. To the person who said do I have any proof Behe was unfairly censored: I saw a letter that Behe published on the internet where one scientific journal where Behe exchanged several letters with finally said that they just do not have a tradition of publishing non evolutionist material. This was some time ago and now the internet is so flooded with Behe material that I just spent a few minutes trying to find it but I had no success. Perhaps Behe pulled it off the internet because Behe no longer feels his message is not getting out in the public arena. Sincerely, Ken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I saw a letter that Behe published on the internet where one scientific journal where Behe exchanged several letters with finally said that they just do not have a tradition of publishing non evolutionist material. This was some time ago and now the internet is so flooded with Behe material that I just spent a few minutes trying to find it but I had no success. Perhaps Behe pulled it off the internet because Behe no longer feels his message is not getting out in the public arena. Sorry, that's not convinicing evidence. Your claim is still unsupported. BTW, I've been following this debate in many forums for many years, and this is the first claim I have heard that such material exists or once existed. That makes it pretty unlikely that it ever existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I easily found the page in question, making use of talkorigins.org which has an extensive set of links to anti-evolution sites.
http://www.arn.org/..._correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm Behe's article was rejected not because of a policy of rejecting anti-evolution articles but because of a policy of rejecting articles which criticised evolution on *non-scientific* grounds
As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages.
Rejection by a journal is also not unusual - as Behe should know. Many papers are published by journals other than the one they were originally submitted to. And the editors explicitly encouraged Behe to seek publication elsewhere:
Although the editors feel that there has already been extensive response to your position from the academic community, we nevertheless encourage further informed discussion in appropriate forums. Our journal cannot provide that forum, but we trust that other opportunities may become available to you.
If Behe stopped after one submission then that is his choice - and reflects only on him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sorry, I'm not terribly convinced of your claim that Behe was censored if you can't show me the evidence. By the way, I'm still waiting for the apology, or at least a justification, for the comparison you made between scientific academics and the murderous Taliban. That was an incredibly offensive, unjustified insult that I insist you either justify or retract. Also, it would be much better if you used the small "reply" button at the bottom of the individual message you are replying to instead of the "add reply" button at the top and bottom of the page. This way we will know who it is you are replying to and our message index will show that there is a reply to us waiting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
I saw a website that refered to the macroevolution hypothesis as evolutiontarianism. I thought this was humorous.
Ahh, yes, those creationist websites. Pretty silly, aren't they?
when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged. Copernicus would be a good example.
Galileo would be another. But thankfully we don't have religion in charge of science anymore, otherwise there'd be alot more, and we couldn't rejoice whenever somebody makes a discovery that turns our worldview upside down This is why we celebrate Einstein and Watson and Crick as some of the greatest scientific minds of the century. Of course, we sometimes celebrate too early at the overthrow of our cherished beliefs, as with cold-fusion, but that's why we have the wonderful scientific review process, to weed out errors and mistakes.
It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban
Are you meaning to say that the taliban had oservable evidence for their god, similar to the one below?
quote:- Changes "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
I suppose you are free to attack the historical and theological problems of the Roman Catholic Church in relation to science and other matters. As a protestant, however, I may decide to join you.
In regards to Christianity and science, I offer the following: CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm (Yes, I realize that Bacon was a Catholic but I will say I liked some although not all of what St. Francis said (Bacon was a franciscan monk). Sincerely, Ken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ken, a reply to message #10 is required.
Also, please use the small reply button at the bottom of each individual message (not the gereral "add reply" buttons at the top and bottom of the page) so we know who you are replying to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kendemyer Inactive Member |
TO: Schrafinator
Please read the following: The Marion Star Home | CS Lewis I believe that some (not all) Islamacist and some (not all) /materialist/evolutionist have one thing in common. They often go crazy when they hear criticism of their position. Now I would admit that the Islamacist are often more hostile to criticism. On the other hand, I would also say that the materialist cannot cite one materialists martyr. Now I realize that a materialist would have very low incentive for martyrdom. I also realize that materialist have been afffored far more tolerance than they have given to Christians. Examples? I offer the following: North Korea:Page Not Found | Freedom House Page not found - Open Doors I would also cite the Soviet Union (churches closed, millions of people died)and China. Here is a essay about Stalin/Marx in regards to Origin of the Species: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research Now am I saying that all evolutionist are given to such extreme measures. No, I am not. I do see though that at a lot of the very militant, materialist evolutionist have done a lot of harm to others. I also realize that not all Moslems are not like the Taliban. I have a friends who are Muslim from Somalia and Mali where the type of Islamis not so extreme. Also, I would admit that some people who call themselves Christians believe in the lie of the macroevolutionary hypothesis. Sincerely, Ken [This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The above website was a news story about how science minded schoolboard members have reservations about letting in religiously-based ideas into a science curriculum. Please explain how this is relevant to the topic. Be specific.
quote: The above is a site from a fundamentalist website praising Philip Johnson's book which is critical of Biology. The problem is, Johnson is an attourney and has no training in the sciences or Biology at all, so why should I listen to his opinions about it? Also, please explain what a religiously-motivated lawyer's book has to do with the topic? Be specific.
quote: Please provide specific examples of evolutionists "often" going "crazy" when their positions are criticized. I contend that most Biologists pay no attention at all to fundamentalist Christian criticisms of their field, because those criticisms 1)haven't changed in 60 years, and 2) are not valid.
quote: Who cares if there are materialist martyrs!!?? What does that have to do with anything at all??
quote: Your websites (except for the ICR one) do not mention Biologists at all, only repressive governments which restrict religious freedom. What do Biologists have to do with repressive governments? Oh, and did you know that modern Biology was rejected by Stalin in favor of Lysenkoism, which was wrong, and subsequently led to the starvation of many Russians.
quote: Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about? Please list their names.
quote: Please list your specific problems with the Theory of Evolution and we can discuss them. What are your difficulties? What do you find lacking, specifically? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2004]
[text=wheat][Fixed too long link. --Admin][/text] [This message has been edited by Admin, 03-04-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024