why creation "science" isn't science

Instead of quoting Gary Parker you should have read Lewontin's article. The debate concerned mechanisms such as PE, not whether the basic mechanisms of evolution were inadequate. Read the article next time.

Given that evolution doesn't expect half formed organisms your first point makes no sense. Your second one is begging to be operationalized. How specifically would one identify such evidence in the genomes of current populations and how would one falsify it?Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--I would be to disagree with this being what science is, as this seems to be lower on the hierarchy of the definition of science, as science does infact tell us these things, what we do is make a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not science, a hypothesis is 'scientific', not direct science. For the scientific method you would be completely right, but not for what science is in its foundation.

---

That is nice, but when one refers to science in the modern sense one is referring to that which is understood according to the scientific method. Your postmodern dissembling to the contrary, that is what reasonable people understand. Other uses of the term in a discussion over evidence concerning how the natural world works is silly.If you disagree provide what you think science is. Of course, your response will center on something about how this is incorrect and not spelling an argument of yours.
Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science. Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible. [/QUOTE]

​

In the modern since we are talking about the method. The above is barely understandable. It doesn't appear to be any sort of critique of the method.

​

[QUOTE] "If you disagree provide what you think science is. Of course, your response will center on something about how this is incorrect and not spelling an argument of yours."
--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.

​

[/b]

---

So would you bother telling us what a full depiction is?

Gee, because it is a run-on sentence with no real point to it?

tc:--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science.'the scientifice method is how you would be to look at science' has some sort of meaning to you? To me it looks like gibberish. This is probably because 'you would be' is inappropriate as the verb for 'to look at science'tc: "Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does,'the scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does' is supposed to express something of substance? The sentence is a train wreck starting with the rather strange usage of the passive voice.tc: "thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."'thus a hypothesis on the observable then'What is missing here? I know, A VERB! And it is a run-on sentence from the last one. A TWOFER!" then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."Hierarchy has no known meaning here because you haven't identified it.tc:--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.While you are able to form a sentence, you haven't addressed why it is logical.Making grammatical errors in posting isn't a big deal unless you end up with nothing but gibberish. I make them all of the time, however, you have ended up with nothing but gibberish.From the OED:
4. a. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.That is a definition of science.Now, the scientific method is more involved and described here:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000Now, given I have no idea what you are trying to communicate, could you provide some intelligible reasons why these aren't appropriate for the describing what science is in a discussion of studying the natural world?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
From: Ibhandli
"Instead of quoting Gary Parker you should have read Lewontin's article. The debate concerned mechanisms such as PE, not whether the basic mechanisms of evolution were inadequate. Read the article next time."

​

If you would like to supply me a source for the article,

---

Gee, you quoted it, why don't you know it? This is simply irresponsible nonsense. If you are going to cite something you have a responsibility to know what you are talking about. Are you so casual about the truth that you don't care if what you cite is accurate or not? You need to work on your standards of behavior.THE ARTICLE THAT YOU CITED IS
Evolutionary Theory under Fire
Roger Lewin, Science, New Series, Vol. 210, No. 4472. (Nov. 21, 1980), pp. 883-887.I confused Lewin with Lewontin. How could you have cited this without knowing the source? How? Do you have any shame?

quote:

---

I would be glad to read it.

---

Why didn't you read it in the first place? You know, before you made grand claims about it?

quote:

---

However, I don't see a problem with citing something out of a Creationist book.

---

Why are you citing something that you have no knowledge of?

quote:

---

Where else am I going to find out the stuff that evolutionists don't want us to know?

---

Yeah, scientists are hiding this stuff in one of the primary science journals. HARD TO FIND THERE ISN'T IT? Who would have thought to look in a journal of all places.

quote:

---

(Gary Parker also used to be an evolutionist, but after he re-examined the FACTS, he became a Creationist.)

---

He is also a liar which you would know if you bothered to read what you cite.From: wj
"Cobra, does your book by Parker provide specific details of the conference of evolutionists? If so, please advise. And does it have a specific statement of the outcome of the conference?"In the book, this is according to the proffesional summary:"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." [/quote]The next sentence is:
"What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is completely decoupled from macroevolution: the two can probably be seen as continuum with notable overlap."Anyone who had bothered to read the article for more than dishonest quote mining would know the next paragraph described what the topics were that were seriously discussed:
1)tempo of evolution
2) mode of evolutionary change
3) constraints of the physical form of new organisms.And if they had continued a person honestly reading the paper would know the discussion focused on mechanisms at the level of speciation and above that account for the patterns in the fossil record. I'd say given this, Mr. Parker needs some lessons in honest quoting, don't you?

quote:

---

This conference was not questioning evolution of course, only the mechanism. But they found the mechanism inadequate,

---

Really, where did you read that? Or did they say there are mechanisms at the macroevolution level too? I've read the article and I'd say the second. Do you disagree? Could you point out a specific point where such a claim is made in context?

quote:

---

yet that same mechanism remains in the textbooks and in many of your arguments.

---

That would make sense given the article discusses how additional mechanisms were discussed, not that others were incorrect.

quote:

---

If you don't want to believe they were right, that's fine. However, I should get the same ability to not think Creation geologists (200 years ago) were right.

---

The difference is you don't know anything about the article and are misrepresenting it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

Right... And evolutionary biologists had enough integrity to acknowledge that mutation-selection was not adequate. I really don't see what is so different about this.

---

And drift, LGT, recombination and other mechanisms have long been known and included. You appear to be arguing against an interpretation of evolution that didn't exist. Even when the Modern Synthesis was formed, scientists understood drift played a role. Your limited knowledge of the subject is not the limit for the scientific literature.\

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

I was just passing on information I read in a book. Although I agree that it would be a good idea for me to read the article, I don't know to get ahold of a certain article from a magazine published twenty years ago. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to pass on information I read in a book.

---

You were doing more than that. You were trying to use what you read as evidence that scientists have a doubt about the accuracy of evolution. Just passing information along is a lot different then taking a position and then using information to support it.

quote:

---

Well, the reason is that I didn't know how to get the article. So, quoting the proffesional summary seems reasonable. I wasn't giving "grand claims" about it, I was giving a bit of the proffesional summary.

---

Professional summaries lie and quote out of context? Sorry, but no. You were quoting a dishonest source that is trying to mislead people. You did make grand claims regarding the article because you tried to claim it shows scientists seriously questioning the occurrence of evolution which is simply not true.

quote:

---

A liar? Did the summary indeed include what the book said? If yes, I don't see how that could be considered lying. Perhaps misleading, but far from lying. Parker shouldn't have to show the entire summary in his book.

---

lie from OED:; a false statement made with intent to deceiveIt is a false statement that the scientists at the conference questioned the occurrence of biological evolution. This lie is supported by the selective quoting that is out of context. That is lying.

quote:

---

"What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is completely decoupled from macroevolution: the two can probably be seen as continuum with notable overlap."

​

I don't really understand what this means. Could you please show me how this makes the statement I provided misleading?

---

from before

quote:

---

20 years ago, a conference of evolutionists took place in Chicago. The primary question of the meeting was: whether or not the mechanisms underlying microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. Can you take a wild guess as to what their conclusion was? NO!

​

So, if I must withdraw my ideas based on the conclusions of Creation geologists 200 years ago, CERTAINLY you must withdraw your ideas based on the conclusion of Evolutionary scientists merely 20 years ago!

---

Your claim is that evolution was refuted 20 years ago because there were supposedly claims that microevolution couldn't be simply extrapolated into macroevolution. But that isn't the point of the article you cited---the point was that there are mechanisms that take place at both levels. Thus, there is no question of whether or not evolution occurred, but a question of what mechanisms account for specific patterns. You, using Parker's lie, tried to claim that evolution was refuted 20 years ago. It wasn't. Nothing in the article says anything of the sort. The article indicates that microevolution and macroevolution are really a continuum with differing mechanisms taking place in each, but that these mechanisms overlapped in between the two.Cheers,
Larry

Well some of us are attempting to have an evidence based discussion, but the creationists can't seem to do that. Now, in the specific case Cobra tried to claim that 20 years ago evolution was disproven. The point was to demonstrate that if he read the article that purported to state such a thing, it said nothing of the sort. IOW, his source was lying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Very true! This brings up a good point. I was not trying to say that evolution was refuted at the Chicago Conference. I was merely using the same unfair technique of supposed refutation that shrafinator provided. (He said that YEC was REFUTED long ago because of the scientific interpretations of a few scientists.)

---

Allison is a she last I checked. But more importantly is you aren't dealing with the evidence that falsified a young Earth nearly 200 years ago.

quote:

---

was refuted 20 years ago. I was simply trying to show that shrafinators remarks are unfair.

---

Why? You should be arguing about evidence, not what is "fair".

quote:

---

"lie from OED:; a false statement made with intent to deceive"

​

Right... but it wasn't a false statement. Parker NEVER claimed that the conference doubted evolution and the quote WAS accurate.

---

No, only in a postmodern sense is it an accurate statement. He took a statement out of context deliberately and used it to lie about what the conference covered.

So, let's get this straight. If I author a book and it includes false information, I have no responsibility as long as I'm only including it? Fascinating. I don't think you will get very far arguing that.

Gene,University Press books are almost always peer reviewed. It isn't commonly known outside of folks trying to publish, but tenure standards revolve around books that have been under such review.Larry

I should add, they aren't put under quite the same rigor because the purpose is different than an article, but they are peer reviewed.

I have every reason to argue that Parker is dishonest. He took the comments out of context to mislead people. HE MISREPRESENTED LEWIN'S OPINION--DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?Your standards of honesty are appalling. The claim you made is false, it has been shown to be false and you are trying to make some sort of hair splitting excuse for Parker's behavior. Now, how can you claim that what Parker included is an honest representation of the material? HOW? If you can't answer this, you will note there is no defense of the behavior.

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-10-2002]