Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 111 (67119)
11-17-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by keith63
11-17-2003 3:39 PM


Re: US Constitution
The problem is that the textbook authors DO change their books when genuine problems are brought up. Miller and Levine stopped using an illustration derived from Haeckel's diagrams when this is brought to their attention. What the Discovery Institute is prepared to settle for- for now - is a weakening of the presentation of genuine evidence for evolution.
And ID is not ruled out a priori - they just don't have much of a case. So we see a lot of bluster and complaints about "unfairness" and "presecution" to cover up that fact. Dembski's attitude is that if we can't reconstruct the course of evolution in every detail then we should assume design instead - regardless of the fact that evolution is a better explanation of the evidence we do have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 3:39 PM keith63 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 76 of 111 (67158)
11-17-2003 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Itachi Uchiha
11-17-2003 5:01 PM


Or here's a better compromise. We teach the scientiifc answers in science classes, and leave the religions to teach their own stories. After all there's no way a school system can do justice to all he many religions out there and we shouldn't show any favouritism to particular religions.
How can that be wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2003 5:01 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 111 (67296)
11-18-2003 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by keith63
11-18-2003 7:19 AM


1) Correct me if I'm wrong - and I'd like to see actual quotes from current textbooks to support any such claim - but isn't it the case that they state that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, which is absolutely true ? And it is also the case that atmospheres which are more plausible given what we know now still produce amino acids.
2) and 3) contain outright falsehoods. And your dismissal of arachaeoptryx as an example of an intermediate is simply wrong. Any intermediate between dinosaurs and birds will be classified as a dinosaur or a bird. Thats how the system works. Archaeoptryx happens to be - just - on the "bird" side of the divide - and so close that it was argued over for years.
4) Everything you list is an example of natural selection and therefore belongs in the evolution section. If you want to claim that they are used as evidence for macroevolution in an inappropriate way then you will have to produce evidence that this is the case. On past experience I would say that you are the one jumping to a conclusion.
Quite frankly what you seem to be arguing is for the removal of genuine evidence for evolution, which hardly represents an improvement to textbooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 7:19 AM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 9:42 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 111 (67339)
11-18-2003 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by keith63
11-18-2003 9:42 AM


The Miller-Urey experiment is not wrong. It was done and the results were as reported - and it does show that the abiotic synthesis of amino acids is relatively simple, an important result.
And there are serious doubts concerning the claim that oxygen was present in any significant amounts at the relevant period
On poitns 2 and 3 how did I make your poitn for you ? I pointed out that being classified as a bird had nothing to do with whether it was an intermediate or not. i.e. that your point was fundamentally mistaken.
Have you checked out the list of dinosaurian features seen in archaeopteryx ? Do you understand that it is only the presence of identifiable feathers that caused archaeopteryx to be originally identified as a bird in the first place ? And recent discoveries are strongly confirming the dinosaur-bird link.
So how do you explain all the links that have been FOUND ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 9:42 AM keith63 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