Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

quote:

---

It doesn't "work" shraf. It doesn't adequately explain the evidence.

---

Crashfrog's wife, along with thousands of other evolutionary scientists, including geneticists, use the Evolutionary model to make predictions. When they test those predictions, they are shown to be accurate, and therefore the theory is supported....that is, unless the predictions that Crashfrog's wife and thousands of other evolutionary scientists make based upon Evolutionary theory are all the result of gross incompetency, millions of basic fatal errors, or a conspiracy to lie and distort their findings?Because that's what you are saying, in effect, when you claim the following:

quote:

---

So we have a solid mountain of evidence of gross negligence in either ignoring the facts, or promoting fallacies, in the history of Darwinism.

---

So Crashfrog's wife is a complete moron as a scientist or she is a liar and a cheat who has conspired with thousands of other scientists to knowingly promote falsehoods.That's your claim, correct?If you believe this is true about annonymous, unknown scientists "out there", then you must believe it to be true of Crashfrog's wife and several of the professional scientists here.Come on, rand, be a man and own your beliefs.Have the cojones to directly tell the scientists you know here that you think they are frauds and conspiratorial liars, or grossly incompetent.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-10-2006 02:01 PM

quote:

---

creationist scientists make advances just as evos.

---

Really?What advancement of our understanding of nature has resulted from Creationism?

quote:

---

It's another deceptive claim to pretend ToE advances biology and other sciences. All ToE does is set a framework, a wrong imo, for viewing the data, but the same advances can be made from a creationist or ID perspective.

---

So, what are the predictions of Creationist theory and ID theory, and how can they be tested?What are the potential falsifications?

Really? Name one. Almost all creationist work is criticism of evolution, and very little of it is genuine science.Here are some advances by evolutionary scientists just from the past year (see Evolution in Action from Science magazine):

• Bird flu predictions.
• Hereditary disease analysis.
• Gene therapy.
• Life classification system.
• Stickleback fish speciation.
• Behavioral influenceson speciation.

You see, we're talking about doing science, and creationists aren't doing science, they're doing religion. The only person engaged in propaganda here is you as you try to convince people creationists are actually interested in promoting science rather than protecting evangelical faith. If there were any underlying reality to the creationist view of evolution it would be equally apparent to people of all religions and no religion. Evolution is the central organizing principle of all of biology. Without it there would have been many fewer advances. But this is mere bravado. There *are* no creationist or ID advances in science.--Percy

percy, just look at the list of scientists that are creationist or IDers, and then look at their papers, work, etc,...Behe for example, or the professor at NC State, or any number of scientists that are not evos.It's sad that you guys still perpetuate the myth that no creationist scientists are doing valid scientific work.In terms of ToE, once again you like TO are equating evolution in the broad sense with ToE. Under that definition, creationism and ID are evolution. But ToE has not and does not advance science at all. None of what you mentioned is dependant on ToE models, but on the idea of evolution in general, which even creationists accept.So it's sophistry and deception on you guy's part,...again.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 02:22 PM

Yes, just look at Behe's publications. How many of his scientific papers are even touted as supporting ID ? If you want to claim that Behe's belief in ID has advanced science you are going to have to get more specific than suggesting that we look at his publication record.

Rand, you almost made it. You walked right up to the brink of telling us about scientific advances made by creationists and IDers...then you blinked, and treated us to another standard rant against evolution instead.Better luck next time.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

The question isn't whether any contributions to traditional science are made by creationists. The question is what contributions to science has creationism made. It's not relevant that some creationists do real science at their day jobs.The answer, of course, is that creationism has made no scientific contributions. There is no creationist gene therapy that takes a non-evolutionary approach. There is no creationist analysis of genes to predict when and where the next bird flu epidemic will emerge. There are no creationist analyses of non-evolutionary speciation events. There is no creationist approach to hereditary diseases. The plain fact of the matter is, there is no creation science at all. In reality it is a misnomer because it isn't a science but a body of false criticism of evolution motivated by religious objections. Not sure what definition of evolution you're talking about. Are you referring to descent with modification and natural selection as the explanation for the diversity of life? I thought creationism rejected that. Or are you talking about the evidence for evolution, such as the genetic evidence for common descent, fossil histories, etc. I thought creationists rejected that, too. Yes, Randman, I'm afraid they are dependent upon ToE models, particularly the items about bird flue, hereditary disease and speciation. No, it is people giving you honest explanations and you making unsupported accusations. Please just leave your assessment of other people's honesty out of your posts and focus on the topic.--Percy

Now, we are getting somewhere. My point is that the areas of evolutionary theory that have contributed to other scientific fields are also elements of creationism. Creationism and ID both accept the general concept of evolution, if you define it as heritable change, but reject the Theory of Evolution, and ToE contributes nothing really, and has often done a great deal of harm, false claims of vestigal organs in medicine being one of the examples of harm. Creationism actually contributed there by cautioning against assuming organs were vestigal and could be removed.What you and the other evos are doing is trying to equate evolution as heritable change as an exclusively ToE concept, and that is wrong.It is also a concept within creationism and Intelligent Design, and it is the broad concept of how genes and traits are passed on, and how environmental factors can affect species that is beneficial, and none of that is exclusive to ToE. Speciation is not dependant on acceptance of universal common descent, nor are the other items you refer to. That's just plain wrong on your part.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 02:59 PM

Time to put up or shut up, Rand.Name some advances for which creationism or ID can claim credit.OTOH, each time you evade the challenge, you damage your credibility, so I guess defenders of authentic science can take comfort in that.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-10-2006 03:08 PM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Biology itself. The idea of classifying species based on similarities. Genetics, and all of science are examples creationism can claim equal credit to evolutionism.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 03:16 PM

How? How has creationism done one thing to advance any of those? What creationism principle allowed for, let say, the development of new antibodics. what specicific I.D> principles made predictions, and helped iwth the area of genetics?Make a claim, and gettins specifics are two different thing. Unless you back up generalities with specifics, you are just blowing smoke.

Clearly you do not understand the role of ToE in biology. You apparently still do not understand the meaning of "vestigial", even though it has been explained to you in the past. Talk about confusion. "Vestigial" does not imply "could be removed." Conclusions as to what could be removed are made by medical science, not by evolutionary biology.

Various varieties of creationism, ranging from YECism to theistic evolutionism, all contain at least bits of ID.Michael Behe, rightfully so, gets cited as the most prominent IDer who also does work in mainstream biology. I would definitely place Behe as being a theistic evolutionist and being very near to "non-theistic evolution". Behe accepts common decent of the species, including man and the other great apes having a common ancestor.I refer all to the Behe on organismal evolution topic, which seems to be the main Behe topic. It ended up in the "Limbo" forum, and is now closed.Moose{I'm moved the topic back to the "Intelligent Design" forum and reopened it. It's now here. - Adminnemooseus)This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-10-2006 04:01 PM

Behe is an IDer. If you guys want to start admitting ID has merit, that's fine by me.

Could you explain the cockamaymie logic that you used to come up with that? You really do have a very serious reading comprehension problem RM.The point is that Behe (right or wrong about ID or anything else) supports most (just not all) of evolutionary theory. How on earth did you miss that?It isn't that he necessarily has any independent merit it is that this "hero" of the movement believes that the evolutionary explanation has merit.