sophistry and propaganda at TalkOrigins...

This is an off-shoot of previous threads dealing with the use of the term, evolution, by evos and using TO's articles as an evidentiary example of this practice. Consider the following article titled "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology." It starts with this statement: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlThis statement is interesting all on it's own because it asserts "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and that "the majority of biologists" do not have a satisfactory grasp of it with the obvious yet startling implication that the writer of the article and the TalkOrigins site do have the proper understanding and are better judges of "the cornerstone of biology" than most biologists themselves! This is not exactly a promising start, especially if most biologists do not understand evolution one wonders why we ask high school teachers to include it in the curriculum.Well, let's move on and look a little further at the article. In the 2nd paragraph, we find: Ok, evolution is heritable change. It's not universal common descent, genetic relatedness of all organisms, macroevolution, speciation or anything like that, according to this definition, right? I mean the guy spells it out right here.Now, what I want to know is how heritable change absent all the other aspects of "evolution" such as common descent, claims of universal genetic relatedness, macroevolution, etc,....is the cornerstone of all biology and "unites all the fields of biology." The statement is absolutely ludicrous and imo, it's quite deceptive. Everyone knows evos are not arguing that heritable change alone is the cornerstone of all biology. If that were the case, one could say creationism is the cornerstone of all biology because creationism embraces heritable change. No, the term "evolution" as the umbrella evos try to use to unite all fields in biology is the Theory of Evolution which is far more than simply observing that such a thing as heritable change exists!So why state "evolution" is this great thing, but not understood even by biologists....just trust us, and we can show it to you.....why it's heritable change! Perhaps it's just that the theory of evolution is actually so clouded by dogma and confusion that such contradictory uses of a word are not apparent to the user. Heck we see not much later this comment: But then again, let's recall this is only after the opening statements and ground rules are laid out: namely that other biologists and people, for the most part, don't really know what evolution is, and that the writer and presumably TO do, and their definition is that it is "heritable change" and that this is the cornerstone of biology.Are there no evos here that can't see that this is trying to suggest something more than heritable change being true, but this is an argument saying that heritable change means the larger concept of ToE is true? Isn't the larger concept the real so-called "cornerstone" in evo eyes?Contrary to their claims and the general claims of neoDarwinists aka as evos, the mere fact that heritable change exists is not the magic bullet, the cornerstone of biology that evos insist. For evos, this is more dogma akin to religion, all good intentions of evos and the writer aside. The simple fact is the vehicle of heritable change is one component of evolutionary theory, and is unproven and untested in terms of whether it (allelic mutations and variation) can create macroevolution or not, but either way, TalkOrigins and everyone knows trying to define down evolution to this alone is a different definition than the Theory of Evolution which is under debate.The issue is not the point that your kids will probably look like you or your parents (heritable change), but rather the broader ToE, the details of which imo have not been properly tested and substantiated. Just saying heritable change is true does not make genetic relatedness of all organisms true, nor common descent, nor many of the things evos claim as part of the cornerstone of biology. Heritable change is actually just part of the claim of what is the mechanism of evo theory, not the theory itself.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It surprises me to see evos do things like blast IDers for not having a formal definition of "information" and yet they offer different formal definitions of "evolution", and use one uncontested definition to insinuate that a broader definition of the same term is true.

chirp, chirp....

you are welcome to comment here...

Well, I don't usually post a lot here these days, but if you want to talk about the thread topic, maybe we could do that.

Look at a few of the topics here at Showcase or other topics in my posts and I think it's fairly clear what distinquishes my thoughts from the ideas of evos.1. First and foremost, I believe the data should be looked at for itself instead of the usual evo practice of twisting the data to fit the theory.2. One of the ways this occurs involves evos creating a fallacy of circular reasoning. In short, they reason all analysis that includes the possibility of Intelligent Design is erroneous a priori, and that any consideration of a God or Creator or spiritual forces within reality or affecting reality must be excluded a priori, and so despite some believers assenting to evo models, they essentially resort to an atheistic philosophy they erroneously call science.3. I prefer not to use deceptive tactics to propagandize and indoctrinate people into beleiving a myth, which traditional Darwinism does, as the OP in this topid discusses.I could go on.Hopefully the OP speaks for itself. The purpose of bringing up TO is that it is often cited here by evos as good web-site explaining their views, and I think it is fairly representative of evo thinking.

You are welcome as far as I am concerned to start a new thread here in Showcase....but keep in mind I don't control the Showcase forum.As a quickie response to the new thread;evo: short for evolutionistDarwinist: basically the same thing, but there are evolutionist models that break from the mainstream, probably should be considered more Intelligent Design models, that are anti-Darwinian or neo-Darwianian in rejecting gradualistic evolution or the formula of random mutations and natural selection as the agents of macro-evolution.Science?: maybe better leave this to the new thread.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Dang Mick, you and I perhaps could have had or still have some good discussions.....this is really the sort of stuff that bothers me about "evolution." I don't think it educates but rather indoctrinates, and so harms the ability of those so indoctrinated to weigh data objectively.

Yep.At times with a site like TO, there is such an avalanche of this sort of thing that to wade through it, even to expose it, involves so many errors that is actually a daunting task to decide what aspect of error to deal with first, and yet most of the time I tried to bring this up, I was somewhat bitterly accussed of smearing without foundation the good people there, science in general, etc,...On whether it is option a, b, c, or d, as you laid out, I am not necessarily saying the author is deliberately deceitful, but rather something a little more ominous, which is the field in general employs such muddled thinking and erroneous logic in it's approach to data that TO is just par for the course, creating an indoctrination that inhibits clear thinking. So whether someone originally was deceptive or the author partly deceptive or just deceived and muddled in their thinking, the effect is still the same.You are actually perhaps the first evo, after arguing this exact same point here ad nauseum and elsewhere, that appeared to be even capable of grasping the points made in the OP......or at least the first willing. Frankly, I don't think it's just a matter of willingness, but that the indoctrination surrounding the teaching and advocacy of ToE clouds the mind.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

There is time yet.Just as a fyi, I will be travelling tomorrow and next week and so unless I come back on the weekend or tomorrow night, I may not be able to respond for a bit.Without naming names, let me just say the usual response I have garnered from posting this same stuff on TalkOrigins is more like: or There has been a consistent denial of what I think is basic fact in terms of what the web-site articles, and this article specifically says and does not say. Thanks for taking an objective look at it. I think the comment that most evos cannot even "find the point" perhaps should be taken at face value. Just about everyone else can see the point quite plainly, but here we have a group of people that cannot.Why is that is a question I think is worth asking?My real beef with evo advocates is not the conclusion but the approach. I don't agree with the conclusion, mind you, but that's not always the central issue as far as I am concerned. People do and will disagree, even when they have to make a judgement call on the same set of facts, but it's really the way ToE is usually or often presented, taught, believed, etc,....that I object to the most.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

in light of Crash's remarks on the moderation threadEdit to add and other comments such as DA's instistence he would love to debate here....where is he though?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

for the record......DA didn't show up here as requested

Here we see the same basic error that I pointed out TalkOrigins uses. It appears to me to be a foundational and basic error within evo circles, and a very deep and significant error at that. An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionHere we see the classic bait and switch. They start out saying evolution is simply "descent with modification" and then go on to claim this encompasses universal common descent and state: So "evolution" is simply "descent with modification".....Let's insert that phrase into the later sentence."[Descent with modification] means that we're all distant cousins."The problem, of course, is that descent with modification does not actually mean we are all distant cousins.This sort of approach is why I say the reason I suspect most accept evolution is due to a indoctrination process that breaks down normal reason and logic within the hearer.

So really we see this deceptive logical fallacy used over and over again. It's part and parcel of the way evos think, for the most part, and has clouded the reasoning ability, imo, for most evos.

So your view is that it is my attitude and not the tactics, attitudes and moderation of the partisan evos here oppossed to the content of my arguments that prevent constructive dialogue. Let's look at this claim objectively then, shall we?If this is true, you should not expect to see constructive dialogue taking place, correct? Especially in the past few days, correct? I kind of hate to defend myself and bring in someone else's comments because I am sure he would prefer not to be quoted in the position of defending me, but for sake of clarity, let's look at some comments by someone recently concerning their discussions with me on a controversial thread. http://EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet -->EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at BeliefnetThese are all comments made by Jazzns. I don't recall, but my recollection is we have butted heads in the past, and perhaps he has had even had a negative attitude towards me, but we had a fruitful, engaging discussion.Now, look at the same thread and see Crash's and adminnosy's remarks where they take a stance similar to your's concerning me and my posts. After my first post, this was nosy's asinine comment. Jazzn's perception though of the very same post was. Now, we see a very negative attitude from nosy over the post, and a very positive one from jazzns. What's the difference? It cannot be me because it's the exact same post. The difference is Nosy is provoking negative attitudes and feelings and potentially fouling up a good discussion. In other words, I am not the problem here. There wasn't really anything Nosy needed to be worried about. The post was well-received in fact, at least by someone interested in discussion.These are some of crash's comments on the same thread. Keep in mind this is the same thread where I had the same attitude, which you call unproductive, towards evos where a very constructive discussion was taking place. I wasn't pulling punches with jazzns. I wasn't especially nice or anything, and state some heated things as did he. http://EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet -->EvC Forum: Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at BeliefnetWas I uncivil to crash? Nope. Did I avoid his points? Nope.Why did the same attitude and points work with jazzns and not with crash?It's simple. I am not the real problem here. If I were, you wouldn't have so many problems with other IDers and creationists. The problem, if you look at it objectively, is that you have a cadre of evos like jar, crash, nosy, etc,....that routinely spoil good discussions by breaking the rules and false moderation.Heck, I have observed absolutely no difference in upsetting these people if I respond with the utmost civility or not. They are upset and frustrated by the arguments being made most likely, and that's why if you ban me, it won't make a bit of difference to bringing civility to the debate.You say it's because of my low opinion of evos, but everything you say I beleive about evos is something openly touted here ad nauseum from the evo camp towards their critics.I could fill 10 pages proving that all the attitudes and beliefs you accuse me of holding towards evos are held by a good number if not the majority of evo posters here towards IDer and creationists. Heck, just read the thread on the tactics of creationists.You don't have a problem with that because you believe the same things, but for some reason, even though you think my negative attitude or beliefs towards evo thinking destroys good discussion, you think evos can believe that all creationists and IDers are essentially ignorant or intellectually dishonest, and somehow have a good discussion. This stance on your part is not consistent.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.