Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

There will be some defection from the elite ranks still as more people understand that Gingerich's criticism applies to Wallace's discussion. Owen didnt know the error of Cornell ways goes this far. It does. I guess that YEC studies on original genetic information will fill this error if academia refuses to adjust. It only needs to stress more physical reduction in biology. This wont happen unless the MCZetc is reorganized. Certainly preventing me from having dinner with a prominent Berkely biologist (because I might have controlled the discussion that other grad sudents wanted to participate in) is not the way to adjust the relation of undergrads and OVERgrads.


Teaching the "transference" of RNA life to DNA life is total psychology and not enough natural history.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 11:07 PM

Well, Terry Gross on NPR's "fresh air" just has had D James Kennedy on and she tried to paint DJ into this corner that evolutionists must by logic of Kennedy's leave. She correctly asked him about abortion and how Kennedy thought of the relation of civil service but then asked if that would mean that he would think that judges can change LAWS based against evolution. But this does not follow an yet if the talk and politcs forces this without addressing why evolutionists as individuals might jump first then there will be conflict. We have not been able to solve this here on evc so i would say it is new.And after I wrote this, Gross had Clarkson exactly on, on creationsm and the word I used before it was said on air, "conflict",-was- the same used. So either we are all seeing the same colors in Bonum bonus or else (I dont believe in conspiricy theories or that NPR is in real time using this web site programmatically) this really is NEW; (meaning) exactly:: what is happening in any given present moment. Good luck if you are stuck interpolating between these two below edit times.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 12:52 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 12:58 PM

Which paragraph""?If both, please say something about the thread (you dont have any other posts here do you?) as the poster I resonded to recently posted in a short span of times in a handful of threads and in this one responded generally.The actual and the possible contain what I would write next.As far as I synthesized the Gross interview she had had three talking points in my analysis (the Kinsey Report, abortion, and creationism) the rest was politics as usually was. If you have any familiarity with DJK you will know that he talks back to a Huxley quote on sexual (sinful) prefrences of Hux as a pure opinion so I dont know if this was only a hook by Gross or susbtantive opening.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 02:17 PM

I would have to go into the top right PART of this graph but you might not. Please give me some thread context as you were not around EVC when REI was posting. I think I can show the connections all the way back to the begining of the thread but I dont know what you are thinking about.Are you questioning/interested in what I said about NPR, the poster I responded to in series, or something else??
thumbnail from Population Biology and Evolution edited by RCLewontin.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 04:47 PM

I am trying very hard on EVC to show that there are probably laws in nature that science does not recognize. It is by a failure to teach students or accept their learning on this topic of non-deterministic but lawful biology that evolutionists who already know this might depart from current evolution teaching. Influence by creationism is one way that a person might find and devolve the necessary criticism to make that step. The poster was saying that there there is nothing new in creationism today but lamented that the creationists didnt listen to said poster or what he/she was saying.I have tried to say what WOULD make them listen.I have some of the auido on the NPR broadcast. I might try to reactivate my audio blog account if that is really of interest.TGross wanted to ask a very important question (will judges be changing the "law" based on non naturalistic tendencies) but she put the evolution I was refering to into this tension(cleared by use of word "conflict" by guest not JDK) by the way she structured her questions and programmed the next guest. There is a confusion about justice and law with the relation between Judism and Christianity that would not be scientifically what it IS IN LAW today(the new ones Terry's line of questioning was getting at) if the laws of stations on earth I try to think about were more than only in my mind and were true. Instead we find that political discussions are pushing ahead of the science and because of confusions philosophically about the connotation of law in particular we can not get out of the c/e circuit.I wish some of my suggestions were SHOWN to be more than my own brainstorm. I am concerned however that few here seem to see the importance of trying to pick up on some of my leads.I tried to show the poster that the issue IS new and precisely for the concerns showed by NPR today. IT CAN NOT BE CHALKED DOWN to the same old same EVC.

Yes that's the biggest problem. I held out hope that GW in campaign speeches where he addressed creation/evolution things would change but I dont know who politically forced up legislatively stem cells which seems to have diverted the pres' interest.It is not the politcs that would cause the evolutionist to shift ranks but the continued media full court press that is MORE overbearing. I know this because my dad's job was to "fool" the press and I saw his lies he put out and how easily the press was fooled. The press is now subtly "fooling" students. It has become a viscous cycle now that "laws" of soceity rather than only laws of nature are involved.Creationists ARE offended because they KNOW that their criticism has not been answered. The solution is to answer their call. Then religion can be seperated behind the wall. But as I recall it was told to me that I could pray if I wanted. Then it became evolution teaching and now it is medical research dollars. The social conflict "evolved" without any better understanding of evolution occurring on the whole. This is not a creationist fault but an evolutionists one.We can talk about "products" in another thread. As for war,well, that is why Gross's putting of the abortion issue was MORE appropo. I want to stay on thread point however.Yes evolution is not completed but not letting me complete a degree IN THE SUBJECT has nothing to do with the subject of medicine treatment directly (unless by pedagogic law one was forced drugs or such teaching) yet that is how it did go.If you want to broaden this communication beyond why scientists might abandon the evolution in the popular sense we will alwayss have (and accerbated by gross distortions on either side)and the technical sense of its real elite current existence ,lets do it elsewhere, can we?

Is it behind door#1

quote:

---

We can talk about "products" in another thread. As for war,well, that is why Gross's putting of the abortion issue was MORE appropo. I want to stay on thread point however.

---

door#2

quote:

---

Yes evolution is not completed but not letting me complete a degree IN THE SUBJECT has nothing to do with the subject of medicine treatment directly (unless by pedagogic law one was forced drugs or such teaching) yet that is how it did go.

---

or door#3

quote:

---

If you want to broaden this communication beyond why scientists might abandon the evolution in the popular sense we will alwayss have (and accerbated by gross distortions on either side)and the technical sense of its real elite current existence ,lets do it elsewhere, can we?

---

or have we gotten to all three with our very fancy new board from the "both" above?I can also try to cut in at the "English please" above if you would like or prefer.Edited by Brad McFall, : bb correctionEdited by Brad McFall, : spelling