Negative Impacts on Society

I think that when you're translating names from another alphabet, spelling is always approximate. I think that we should have classes about both current science and the history of science.

Is it? My bad. Guess I should have asked my russian-speaking wife (no, she's not a mail-order russian bride or something) before I shot my mouth off.Then again she's in Thailand.

Actually, we'd love to have that discussion. There's nothing that we'd rather see more than creationism allowed to stand on nothing but its own merits.What we don't want is creationism presented as vaild theory, without the discussion.By all means, let it be discussed in the school, and then, can we move on?

That could be true. If it were, then wouldn't you agree that it's fair to say that evolution is an interpretation based on the supposition that natural laws are sufficient to account for natural phenomena; whereas creationism is the interpretation resulting from the supposition that God is responsible for that that we can't understand?I can't think of any way to judge the veracity of these two suppositions except for examining the results. The first supposition has resulted in advanced technologies, elimination of some diseases, the prolonging of life, the opening of new frontiers, and a deep understanding of the diversity of living organisms on Earth.What results can be claimed of the second supposition? Remember that was the supposition that ruled for about 1400 years. We called that time "the Dark Ages," and it wasn't because it was cloudy out.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

I don't see how that could be true. After all what you call the "Darwinian-evolutionary mindframe" was developed by inference from the evidence. How could evolution simply be a presupposition for the interpretation of evidence when it was the evidence itself that was the impetus for evolution? It actually does help us fight disease by modeling how infectious microbiota will react and adapt to changes in their environment. I don't understand how you could read a scientific journal or other primary source and come to that conclusion. If scientists aren't publishing the results of their research and experimentation in the journals published for that expressed purpose, then where do you think they're doing it?Primary research consists of accounts of observation, experimental methodology, and conclusion. Those conclusions are subject to peer-review not in regards to how they match "accepted" scientific theory, but only in regards to how well that conclusion is actually supported by the evidence presented by the researchers.In other words, the conclusion is not peer-reviewed, only the process that led to that conclusion. If one's methodology is sound then one's conclusion cannot be rejected.That's why creationism is rejected by science - not because of the conclusion, but because that conclusion is not reached by a valid methodology. On the other hand, creationists reject evolution not because of the methodology, but because they don't like the conclusion.

I'm sorry, how does that constitute an answer to the question? No, because adaptation and mutation are the processes that constitute evolution. The only thing you forgot was reproductive isolation, which, when combined with the other bits, causes new species.Creation can't be true if mutation, natural selection, and reproductive isolation all exist (assuming that creationism is the position that evolution is false). You've given away the first two, and it's ludicrous to say that reproductive isolation never happens. Therefore evolution is an accurate explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.The dots are there. If your of a "mindset" that won't allow you to connect them, that's hardly a failing of evolution.

Which books were those?

Any chance you cared to actually debate the subject instead of taking potshots at it from the cover of non-evolution threads?I'm basically calling you out. I imagine that it's only the most base form of intellectual cowardice that keeps you out of the real debate - I doubt you could do any better at attacking evolution than you've been doing defending your gravity ideas.

Maybe you could point me to the page in my evolution textbook that says "evolution proves that religion is wrong."Of course you can't. It's the creationists that have set up that false dictotomy. It's mind-boggling that you missed that somehow. Around here we're not impressed by folks who wave the victory flag before the battle is over, or in your case, has even begun. Evolution is as well-supported as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. Don't confuse personal incredulity with evidence from mathematics, ok? Under evolution you'd be shit out of luck, because adaptation doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations. You're screwed but your kids and your kids' kids might have a chance.Well, I hope you had fun tearing down the gigantic strawman you erected. Maybe when you're ready to sit at the big kids table you could actually address the theory of evolution, maybe? I suggest of course that you actually open a new thread to do it. Oh, I don't know - you'd have to be an idiot of Olympian caliber to actually believe that the model you described bears any resemblance to the actual theory of evolution.