Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

yeah, ok. let's try this again.do you think dr. bakker treats evolution as a faith? or do you think he's been elbows-deep in the evidence on a daily basis for at least 30 years?there *ARE* some people who take evolution on faith. but that does not make it a religion for everyone. there are others who work in the related the fields and would be more than happy to tell you about the evidence.including, i'm certain, dr. bakker, who was a strong proponent of the dinos-to-birds theory well before it was popular.

---

אָרַח

This is standard creationist boilerplate. What you are really saying is "Show me the transitional fossils."Ok here they are:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I have to admit it is inconceivable to me that any openminded, intelligent, and reasonable person could reject evolutionary theory as the best scientific theory we have for speciation (save symbiosis) based on evidence.One has all the evidence they need to construct that theory. One can see the mechanism of change in organisms through procreation. This is even measurable. Thus we have change over time, and that is indisputable (unless you want to explain breeding programs using gods or aliens).The next question would be how much can a species change? Can a species potentially change into any other species over time? Are there limits? This is still not determined which is why symbiosis or even theories with multiple "lines" generating from the bacterial "bush" of life are possible. However, there could certainly be speciation along certain lines, and we have seen this in plantlife at the very least.The fossil record does in fact support the possibility of somewhat flexible (though perhaps not wholesale) speciation. As yet it contains no evidence which would be contrary to that model. And the fact that the record moves from simple to complex over time is in some great measure corroborative of that theory.It is true that we do not have 100% or maybe not even 0.001% of all life traced backwards with transitional forms to its beginnings. What is false is to pretend that that acts as some sort of counterevidence to the TOE. The TOE does not need all of that, given that we see change happening right now, we merely need some suggestions within the record of speciation through transitional forms.Any at all is supportive, none at all makes no real difference, even if it isn't helpful. The only counterevidence would be fossils which could not be supported by (fit into) the TOE.Okay so that is all the evidence we have, and that is good enough. What evidence does the other side have in support of its position? Indeed what is the competing model?If you are openminded, intelligent, and reasonable then there is no doubt you will admit that at this point in time, sans assumptions that statements found in the Bible are real cases of observances, the only current model at all is evolutionary theory, and that it is the only one with positive evidence.If you disagree I'd love to hear what other theories there are (explain the model) and lay out the evidence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So not being open to people of {other faith} is not the same as being closed to people of {other faith}? (and this is completely ignoring that you have failed to make the case for science being based on faith.)Sorry if I overstated your position for the purpose of driving home the point: you make many claims about how evo science is not open-minded, but then you are {{{stunned}}} by an actual Pentacostal preacher being admitted into the ranks of evolutionary science.The reason is easy to explain if your claim is false: it is the science that matters, not the faith of the scientist.In order to explain it while still making your claim of {bias\closed mindedness} you need to invent reasons for his {special admission}, reasons that don't apply to other creationist types that would give them {special admission} if this were true.The obvious conclusion is that your premise is false. You suggested a specific topic, and I said start a thread on that topic. For the record that topic is: So if you have done that specific topic, please point to that specific thread, otherwise this comment of yours is just distortion and misrepresentation (Notice that I do not say "lying" because that needs to include {intent} which cannot be demonstrated in this case), and obviously, starting 5000 other threads does not qualify.Of course to adequately define the topic you will have to define what you mean by transitional and what does not qualify.Enjoy.

---

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

In randman's defense, he did start Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils, and is still posting in its continuation Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II. He sees the evidence discussed in those threads as a problem for evolution, while the evolutionists see the evidence as supportive. That's an example of where he thinks the evolutionists are relying on faith in their theory, rather than on the evidence.For myself, I agree with the evolutionists here. There isn't a problem in the data. But I can also see why the explanations given, for what randman sees as discrepancies, might appear to him to be a sleight of hand. And that's why, to randman, it looks as if the responses are being driven by faith in the theory of evolution.

Yes, but that topic was about Where here he is talking about transitionals. The concept of transitionals is, in my opinion, one of the beggest errors in creationist thinking.Thanks

---

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

Creationists tend to think of evolution in terms of how a modern cat could evolve into a modern dog. They expect that to require a transitional that would be half cat, and half dog. They want to refute evolution on the basis of the absence of such transitionals.If that were how evolution worked, then looking for transitionals might make sense. But, of course, the theory really only claims that dogs and cats have a common ancestor. Once you realize that, then you don't expect the transitions to demonstrate any problem.I don't see an error in the creationist's concern over transitionals. The real error is in their deep misunderstanding of what evolution is all about. Their concern with transitionals is merely a symptom of that deep misunderstanding.Creationists do often see evolution as a matter of faith, because we fail to address what they think are the big issues. We might not persuade many creationists to correct their deep misunderstanding. But we do need to at least discuss the issues. This forum is presumably being read by many people who are confused and have not made up their minds. We should be discussing the issues that confuse them.To get back on topic, you make a good point when you use Dr. Bakker as an example to illustrate that evolution is not a kind of anti-Christian faith.

The concept of transitionals only exists because of that deep misunderstanding.Every generation is a transition to the next generation, with different gene pools from the parent and child generations. And I'm saving it for the next person who claims there is an evol conspiracy.

---

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

Thank you for clarifying that, especially more so since you take the opposing view.

Wrong, evolutionists were the ones that originated the concept of transitionals as a prediction of Darwin even, and said if they were not found, presumably in large numbers, that the theory was wrong.Well, they weren't found, but that didn't stop you guys from claiming it was true nonetheless. Only now, you claim we don't need any transitionals and any we have are just icing on the cake, and then offer some half-baked handful of bogus examples such as labelling Pakicetus as a whale, despite it being a 4-legged, hooved creature.To top that off, all the while evos insist there are some transitionals, but hey, we don't really need them, you guys now take it one step further and say, the only reason anyone even talks about transitionals is because they don't understand ToE, which is joke considering, often, critics of evolution often understand it better than the evos do themselves (which is why some of us that used to believe in evolution quit doing so).And then, you wonder why I think it's faith-based ideology.Funny, but when I argue that evos think all species and fossils are transitional, they generally vehemently deny it, but now and then, I can get one to admit that's the way they think of it, and now and then, I can rarely get one to admit we don't see species morphing (evolving) in the fossil record, but it's rare. It's hard to get the average evolutionist to admit to a fact in a debate, or it has seemed that way to me.

I don't want to get into the transitional fossil issue right now. You seem not to understand it, but for sake of argument, you can keep holding your position.What I am curious about is what your actual position is. You appear on other threads as a big booster for ID theory, but ID theory does not argue for individual creation of different species from whole cloth. They quite clearly do argue that they accept OE paradigms, and (for the most part) the purported Evo fossil record.I know that Wells and some others have criticized some of the unusually large extrapolations/theories made by evos based on fossils. But that is different than what you seem to be implying.Behe (one of the best ID has to offer) states quite clearly that the concept of common descent, including exactly as evos suggest, could be correct and not problematic with ID. Where and how the designer worked could be at the stage of abiogenesis, or mere tweaking of genes within creatures at needed times. The result would be a fossil record with the same amount of transitionals evos would need to use as evidence for their theory.Are you an ID theorist, or someone who believes that an intelligence designed life? And if an ID theorist, how do you explain the apparent discrepancy between your position on the fossil record and much of theirs?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Darwin said there would be evidence of transitions in species.there are.creationists have taken the issue of transitionals and redefined it to something that does not exist: a chimera species, a hopeful monster.this makes the term "transitional" useless.in point of fact, every fossil that shows evidence of a feature in transition from one form to another is evidence of transition, or an {evolutionary defined transitional}in point of fact this is true of all fossils and what part about the science being about the {change in species over time} means that we have to find {all the transitionals to satisfy creationists} when we have evidence from modern biology that shows that, yes, there is {change in species over time}?what part about not one fossil in the geological record contradicts the {change in species over time} says that we need to find more to satisfy creationists? I've seen no evidence that you have argued this (not that I read your every post) or that it has been denied. fascinating. No, I wonder why you have the picture so wrong. Your precepts that lead to that conclusion are false.Enjoy.

---

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

quote:

---

Evos generally don't believe an open-minded, intelligent and reasonable person could reject their evolutionist faith based on the evidence, which is why people like continually lie about why others reject ToE. It is inconceivable to you that others can view the evidence as being against ToE so you don't even give them a proper hearing, and as such, evolutionists are generally very close-minded people on this subject.

---

You know, randman, I think you are mostly right.Evos don't believe that open-minded, reasonable people can reject the evidence for the ToE based upon evidence alone.And do you know why this is so?Because pretty much every time someone who rejects the ToE is asked to explain their position, the following things crop up:1) The person is a very conservative/fundamentalist Christian, or sometimes Muslim. This is true of 99% of those who reject the evidence for the ToE here at EvC, and this is a major red flag to Evos that the person is likely to be rejecting the ToE due to religious reasons, not evidence-based reasons, regardless of what the people say.2) The person often believes that there is a widespread conspiracy of fraud or gross incompetency among the many thousands of Biologists, Geneticists, Geologists, Physicists, etc., who accept the ToE. When asked to provide evidence of such fraud or incompetency, the person cannot supply it.3) When asked to explain, in detail, how their interpretation of all the evidence in favor of the ToE is correct and the consensus currently held by thousands of scientists and derived over 150 years is wrong, the person often simply fails miserably. They often don't have their own interpretation of the evidence at all, as they have never thought about providing positive evidence for their position. They have focused only upon the ToE instead of developing a better explanation which takes into account all of the evidence.So, it's not a matter of rejecting evidence because we are close-minded. It's that there is no evidence to reject. Or, the rejection or explanation that is provided does not take into account all of the evidence because the person doesn't know enough about the field to know what they are ignorant of, or, common and a favorite tactic, their argument all just boils down to personal incredulity.4) They do not understand much of basic Evolutionary science, or of the basics of how science is conducted, and often have never even tried to learn anything about them. They are often so ignorant of the science that they don't even know how much they don't know, yet feel perfectly comfortable rejecting entire fields of study as "wrong".Science somehow keeps progressing, we keep getting new medical treatments, making new discoveries, etc., but the Evo-rejectors' arguments haven't changed much at all. The only way they have changed is that as science keeps advancing our understanding of nature, they have had to gradually accept more and more science to not appear completely ridiculous to the public.That's why, even though it was preached by Creationists for a long time that speciation was impossible because the Bible said that "kinds" were immutable, once science was showing quite conclusively that speciation does happen, most Creationists groups quietly stopped rejecting speciation.They didn't accept speciation because of the evidence. The evidence was there and generally accepted by scientists for decades before the Creos accepted it. They only changed their tune because they looked dumb for rejecting speciation.Of course, that's only true of the more sophisticated Creationists. Lots and lots of Creationists that show up on this board are so completely ignorant of Evolutionary science that they don't know how stupid it is to reject speciation.So, randman, based upon these consistent Evo-rejector characeristics, we often do close our minds to such people.Because we have already been down this very same road with dozens and dozens of other Creos just like this one.Why is it so surprising that Evos wouldn't just think the same old tired errors aren't worth considering when they have been dealing with them for years?

Why not jews? If I remember right, one of the ID sites which I was looking over before coming to EvC, was jewish fundamentalist in orientation. The Discovery Institute is proud to note there are Jews in their ranks, to show how religiously diverse they are. And hearing some of the zionist nutballs talking, they have no problem with Genesis being 100% real.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have mostly experienced Christians and one or two Muslims, but of course there are some Jews that could be grouped into this category.Fairly rare on these boards in my experience, however.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-22-2005 10:12 AM