Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stealth Attack On Evolution
loonddd
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 9 (181125)
01-27-2005 3:54 PM


I didn't see a thread for this, but maybe there is one.
Otherwise this article appeared in Time magazine recently - Page not found | TIME
It pretty much said that evolution is wrong and it minpulates the word theory to try to tell people it is just like an idea and has not factual basis. It even says evolution cant be real because the human eye is too complex. What do you guys think?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2005 4:39 PM loonddd has not replied
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 01-27-2005 4:57 PM loonddd has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 9 (181142)
01-27-2005 4:38 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 9 (181143)
01-27-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by loonddd
01-27-2005 3:54 PM


What do I think?
I think you didn't read the article.
It isn't saying what you say it is. It is informing us about others who are saying those things. It is a reasonably well balanced statement of fact I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by loonddd, posted 01-27-2005 3:54 PM loonddd has not replied

  
loonddd
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 9 (181148)
01-27-2005 4:57 PM


I mispoke, the artical is telling us about these wackos, lol. The article is fact, it is like a commentary. I am wondering what you think about that organization and what they are doing and what they think.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2005 8:31 PM loonddd has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 9 (181149)
01-27-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by loonddd
01-27-2005 3:54 PM


In this link was:
quote:
But the mainstream scientific community contends that this seemingly innocuous agenda is actually a stealthy way of promoting religion.
But even if I believed this to be the case, I would expect the evos to have SOMEWHERE a clear discussion of evolution where it was shown how creationism makes claims OF THEIR SCIENCE THAT IS NOT THE WAY it is scientifically. But all I can in truth find is various positions philosophical.
It certainly IS NOT the case that it is a back door"" in the sense that NPR wondered if RELIGION somehow affected Bush Admin decisions.
Now IT COULD be a philosophical door as I DO suspect ID to play its legislative way out. BUT THIS IS NOT ICR's view. I can document this but it would take less effort to ask them than me to figure out what they wrote. But EVEN this door seems but glass.
Eldrede's book I reviewed DOES CONTAIN what I would expect if one had thought that "equal time" is but this hindge. I knew from the street in Lousiana that it was not but one state does not a Union make. But when it comes to his analysis of DOMINION it is clear that the philosophy any such could have been will but be the rear veiw mirror instead.
So unless there REALLY is something, the likes of what I expect Dawkins wanted GOUld to have lived on for for a while longer, yeah there is a POLITICAL question of moderatation movement but it IS NOT what is behind c/e. I hold that there are significant DETERMINABLE errors in the probablistic philosophy of standard evo theory but it is not what a legislative position of Johnsons types is going to find but it will be from the science itself. I think it IS in the biochemistry not the information. But that is my certifiable position only.
EvC Forum: A place for 'I was wrong' admissions/confessions
That position is that what is philosophical and empirical (psychologically) need not be APRIORI and THAT seems to be all the air in the use of the word "stealth" = none!!!!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by loonddd, posted 01-27-2005 3:54 PM loonddd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2005 7:52 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 9 (181192)
01-27-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brad McFall
01-27-2005 4:57 PM


yeah there is a POLITICAL question of moderatation movement but it IS NOT what is behind c/e. I hold that there are significant DETERMINABLE errors in the probablistic philosophy of standard evo theory but it is not what a legislative position of Johnsons types is going to find but it will be from the science itself.
Nicely put Brad. Now if you could just convince the likes of Johnson and Wells and Gish and their ilk to stop trying to use the courts to get creationism taught in schools without having any basis in science, you might have room to maneuver in attempting to show the scientific flaws in evo theory. If there are any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 01-27-2005 4:57 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 9 (181196)
01-27-2005 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by loonddd
01-27-2005 4:57 PM


put tax relief on hold ...
I think religious institutions, especially the ones that claim a scientific basis, should have their tax breaks put on hold until they can show evidence for the beliefs expoused. There should be stickers in the faith books about them being unproven and unsubstantiated conjecture.
They should be held to the same standards as schools, if they want to play that game.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by loonddd, posted 01-27-2005 4:57 PM loonddd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 03-17-2005 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 8 of 9 (192146)
03-17-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
01-27-2005 8:31 PM


simple answer: teach anthropology instead of religion
Religious attacks on science teaching are becoming rather tiresome. I wonder if scientists could counterattack by forming a movement headed by politically-connected biologists dedicated to replacing religious studies with anthropology in schools. Kids would study all of the world's major religious belief systems, but they would also read about viking religions, ancient greek polytheism, the belief system of the nuer people of the nile delta, the way that religious beliefs, especially regarding sex, are dominated by local environmental conditions and demography, etc. etc. A kind of comparative anthropology of religion. It's time to take the fight to the religious fundamentalists by injecting social science into religious studies classes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2005 8:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2005 9:20 PM mick has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 9 (192205)
03-17-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mick
03-17-2005 1:50 PM


Re: simple answer: teach anthropology instead of religion
... politically-connected biologists ...
"wait, I think I see what the problem is ..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 03-17-2005 1:50 PM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024