Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

quote:

---

Usually offered in defense of the "evolution as fact" perspective is a different definition of fact. The one usually offered is one originally provided by Gould, where he says in one of his popular books that a fact is something that is so well established that to withhold at least provisional assent would be perverse. But I see that word "provisional" and it sets off alarm bells.

---

I think Gould is using the scientific fefinition of "fact" percy. In that, in science, even a "fact" doesn't mean "perfect knowledge".Here is the quote from the essay: link to the SJG website

quote:

---

I'm not sure that quoting Gould himself can support the contention that he's using the scientific definition of fact. That seems kind of circular. I think you need an outside reference.

---

Fair enough.

quote:

---

The evidence of evolution, facts if you like, is what we dig from the ground, find in the wild and observe in our laboratories. Everything else is interpretation.

---

Don't you think that our perceptions or measurements of what we dig up or find in the wild still cannot be considered 100% perfect knowledge?Measurements and observations cannot be perfect, can they?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-09-2006 07:41 AM

We agree.The problem is, though, that Creationists like randman hold the ToE to an entirely different standard than, say, the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.They never for a moment spend any time seriously doubting those theories, even though the ToE is just as well-supported, if not better.

So, if Evolution is all wrong, and it's all lies or falsehoods that the scientific community conspires to promote to an unwitting public, why is Crashfrog's wife and thousands of other Evolutionary scientists able to make successful predictions based upon Evolutionary theory?Why does it work?

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?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-10-2006 01:04 PM

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?

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?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2006 10:38 AM

quote:

---

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

---

So? I know a couple of Scientists who are devout Christians, several Jews, one Buddhist, and at least one Muslim.Their religious views do not impact their work as scientists.

quote:

---

And Behe is not the hero of the movement, but just another person with an open enough mind to see that ID is a better framework than ToE. ID was around before and will be after Behe.

---

Who cares if Behe "believes" that ID is a better framework?He didn't demonstrate anything of the sort, which is why he published a popular press book instead of a scholarly article.It doesn't matter what Behe's personal opinions are when it comes to science.It only matters what he is able to demonstrate using the same rules and evidence that everybody else uses.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2006 10:50 AM

quote:

---

Creationism predicts evolution but only within a kind

---

Define "kind".