|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,886 Year: 4,143/9,624 Month: 1,014/974 Week: 341/286 Day: 62/40 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy | |||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If there are weaknesses in scientific theories then they should be taught. If there are significant controversies related to theories then they should be revealed to the students. Let the students make their own conclusions based upon the evidence that is provided about these weaknesses and controversies.
And if those "controversies" are phonied up by some creationist outfit like the Discovery Institute. And are completely unrelated to the actual controversies being debated within the field of study? And have nothing to do with established science? Then what? Edited by Coyote, : Unedit an edit. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Here is a link to the website that was the source of this list. Since they are Educational Research Analysts located in Texas, this list may or may not be representative of the types of weaknesses that are being promoted by those that are referenced in this article which is the topic of this thread. http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=T-705-t...
Isn't the author of that site, Mel Gabler, a well-known creationist? Here is a paragraph from Wiki:
Many people were alarmed at the activities of the Gablers. PZ Myers, a University of Minnesota biology professor, said that Mel Gabler was "a dishonest old man who reviewed biology textbooks through the lens of his own stupidity and religious prejudice, and he was darned good at it." Myers also criticized the Texas Board of Education for "taking Gabler seriously". Myers noted that unlike many Young Earth Creationists who claim to make a distinction between "microevolution" (which they acknowledge) and "macroevolution" (which they do not) the Gabler's explicitly rejected microevolution as well. Critics often noted that neither of the Gablers had college degrees, although Mel Gabler attended college for one year.
Source Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I do not know. So does this mean that you agree or disagree with the items on the list, or do you even care? Because of the level of accuracy and veracity I have seen from creationists, I take anything they say as subject to independent verification. The fact that the originator of this list is a creationist would lead me to believe it's the same old nonsense that's been refuted a thousand times dusted off and recycled for a gullible audience. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Flaws in radiometric dating - Radiometric dating methods give conflicting dates for the same object and/or for different samples of the same object.
Forgive me for harping on this subject to the exclusion of many others equally good targets. I have some background in the subject. The "information" the creationist websites have on radiometric dating is liberally laced with nonsense. If some error appeared, say, in Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book (Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1992), you can be sure it is repeated time after time on the creationist websites. I have found a lot of errors in creationist literature dealing with radiometric dating. On two occasions I found errors dealing with radiocarbon dating that apparently first appeared in The Answer Book that later appear on at least six creationist websites. And they are bonehead errors, but the creationists didn't bother to check the original sources -- they were so overjoyed to find an error in radiometric dating that they just copied it into their websites as if it were accurate. And tens of thousands of creationists assumed these points were correct, and dozens or hundreds of them probably posted them on this and other similar websites as proof that radiometric dating is inaccurate. And now, these "errors" in radiometric dating are being used to sell this new nonsense, "strengths and weaknesses" as legitimate science. What we're seeing is creation "science" at it's best -- a mix of errors, poor scholarship, religious zeal, and outright propaganda -- all adding up to a huge collection of falsehoods. (If you are really interested I can document those two errors that showed up on at least six creationist websites, along with other errors which I have found in fewer than six websites. But I don't think anyone who knows creation "science" will doubt my claims, and most creation "scientists" won't accept my findings as meaningful no matter how well they are documented.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The lack of transitional fossils has caused fraud after fraud, Please name five frauds in the fossil record. I'll even give you the first two: Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor. Since there are so many frauds in the fossil record, you should be able to come up with three more? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I am not sure what you are wanting to see. Granny was acting like there was no alterntive interpretations of the fossil record. There are thousands of links with this type of wording. That in itself should tell us that there are different interpretations of the same evidence by different scientists. That is the point that I am trying to make. Save your time. It won't help the creationist argument a bit. I had three seminars in grad school on "Problems in Evolution" (a few decades ago) and not a bit of any of those classes would cause a creationist to smile. And besides, studying evolution in that detail is not something creationists want to do anyway. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial. I'll take a whack at this one: So what? Imagine the most horrible, deleterious mutation you could ever hope not to have. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations? None. It would kill itself off pretty much immediately. Must carriers of such mutations do not survive to be born. Now, imagine a mutation that is just slightly beneficial. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations? It would most likely have spread widely within the population, barring the individual being killed off before reproducing. Understanding how mutations spread makes this "weakness" in evolution look pretty weak itself. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ichneumon predicted one of three outcomes:
Instead, I've inevitably gotten some variation on a) no response, b) bluster and chest-beating and/or insults, followed by a hasty exit, c) a link to a big list-o'-crap. I think you have managed to get all three into a single response! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have examined literally hundreds of "probability" arguments from anti-evolutionists. Not one stands up to even a brief examination. They fail for many different reasons, but the failure inherent in every origin-of-life calculation is that their models (upon which their attempts at math are built) are ludicrously simplistic, and at most calculate the odds of something happening in the *one* simple way the anti-evolutionist has managed to conceive of, instead of examining the myriad ways something could conceivably happen. For example, most "probability of a protein forming" calculations by anti-evolutionists only examine the odds of ONE specified protein sequence arising COMPLETELY AT RANDOM in ONE trial of a randomly-assembled sequence of amino acids. All well and good, but no biologist has ever proposed that this is how proteins formed during abiogenesis. The anti-evolutionists are modeling the wrong process. Also, by saying "any specific amino acid sequence", this item makes clear that it's making another common mistake of anti-evolution probability calculations -- the (grossly false) assumption that only ONE specific amino acid sequence would do, and that all other sequences would be a "failure". Utterly false. A good example of what you are describing is here:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture) Researchchannel.org
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I suggest you shorten your posts and cut to the point if you want me to read it. Several paragraphs of fluff, and that's putting it better than I really think, is not worth wading through to get to your points. Moreover, the way this forum works, you don't get to range willy-nilly over a wide range of topics in-depth but you have to start a new thread for each one. I suggest you do that so further discussion can go forward. Additionally, the part I did read.....let me just say there are numerous, valid arguments against NeoDarwinism. Another besides those 3 is the general characterization and history by evos of exaggerated and even false claims concerning data and logic. Lastly, linking to TalkOrigins does not exactly show you've considered these issues and from my perspective hurts your credibility. Moreover, merely providing a TalkOrigins link and saying you are wrong is not a rational argument. Merely saying "you are wrong" does not cut it and shows you have no factual retort and possibly no understanding of your critic's position. Try a little harder next time.... In other words, you are unable to refute a single thing he has posted. Your bluff was called, and you failed. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Hmmm.....are you under the impression he has actually posted a factual retort to anything I have posted? Yes. And I am equally under the impression that you have dodged and weaved, and avoided posting a factual reply in return. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Yea, I am a real dodger and weaver.....you can tell that from the voluminous thread count and posts made here and elsewhere.... It would be more impressive to me if you actually addressed the details of Ichneumon's detailed post to you, rather than resting on the laurels of past thread counts and posts. Perhaps you could pick one issue at a time to debate? That shouldn't be too much of a strain on you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
A lack of evidence would be correctly termed a "lack of evidence." A phenomenon that a theory cannot explain could be called a "theoretical weakness." If the "S&W" people are using "weakness" in the former sense (lack of evidence), they are arguing the same stuff as before, with a different name. But, that stuff is still just ID, and it is illegal to teach, since Kitzmiller vs Dover. This leads me to believe that the S&Wists (I think I'll call them "sawists," from now until they get smashed by another court case in the near future) are referring to the second type, the "theoretical weakness."
I think the "strengths and weaknesses" line is just the next attempt, in a long line of such attempts, to teach creationism in schools. It has nothing to do with science; it's the same tired old arguments with new lipstick. We went from creationism, to creation "science," to intelligent design, with "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" in there somewhere. Now we get "strengths and weaknesses." Who do these folks think they are fooling? The only school boards that adopt this are the ones already packed with creationists and looking to waste a couple of million dollars on a court case (after which they'll have to cook up another disguise for creationism). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Uh huh.....care to detail one thing he posted that rebutts any of my points? You can't do it because he said nothing basically but garbage, not one single factual response.
Let me get this straight; you are stating that Ichneumon's rebuttals in post #113 are "garbage, not one single factual response" -- is this what you are claiming? Content hidden. Also, please use the standard quoting form, not the bright green boxes. No replies to this message. - Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I should add that this is why I feel that the approach of Wells, Dembski, and others who want to "teach the controversy" is rather disingenuous. Just because there are some holes in one particular line of evidence doesn't mean that they can't be patched with lines of evidence from other sources. This is how science as a whole is done, and picking on evolution specifically is more a sign of an agenda than one of honest inquiry.
"This is how science as a whole is done..." That would be the case if the goal of various of these individuals was to do science. I believe that this is not the case. Because they are TRVE BELIEVERS they know the TRVTH without having to rely on science. All they have to do is figure out how to disable or dismantle science sufficiently so that they can convince others as well. The results of science disagree with their beliefs, so science must be wrong somewhere there anyway, eh? Don't have to study and figure out where, the results are wrong and that's all there is to it! That is where the "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory" and the new "strengths and weaknesses" come from -- not a sincere effort to teach science but a dishonest effort to destroy those parts of science that disagree with particular religious beliefs. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024