Mendel wasn't entirely right

Oh! So this is what it's all about is it?For the umpteenth time - scientific theories are tentative!!!. The theory of evolution, and our theories on genetics are not, and have never been "Set in stone", they have all been modified when new evidence presents itself. This is how the scientific method works.If you want an example of dogma - look no further than creationism.BTW I notice you've had a little cheeky attempt to sneak a topic in through the back door of questions and suggestions about how ID is dismissed as not being 'scientific'. If you want to put your money where your mouth is and think you can back up the claim that it does meet the critera for being a proper scientific theory then start a proper topic - I'm sure you will not be short of oppponents.

OK. I’ll stop the sniping (in this and the other thread) — it was born out of frustration. Suffice to say that the offer still stands — I’ll be happy to debate the ‘non-scienceness’ of ID any time: I’ll even start a fresh topic for you to defend your position if you are willing. I find this statement very hard to accept. Creationism starts out with an unsupported assumption and then goes out to try and prove it whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. That’s almost the definition of dogmatic.For example:From the ICR website:

quote:

---

The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

---

and the CRS:

quote:

---

Membership in the Society requires agreement with the CRS Statement of Belief. Members of the society include research scientists from various fields of scientific accomplishment who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history.

---

Statement of belief!!! That’s not just some small religious aspect on the sidelines, that’s got dogma running through it like a stick of rock.Contrast this to the way real science is carried out, where the confidence of any statement made is directly related to the amount of evidence that is around. If you have access to the article that WK posted then have a look at the language used. It’s full of might represent This strongly implies and results presented here indicate It’s all tentative — and goes some way to explaining why scientists sometimes have trouble writing non-scientifically. On top of this there is a paragraph devoted to previous studies into non-Mendalian genetics. It is not a new way of thinking or a rare challenge to a sacred scientific law — and this this is the way all science works and isi precisely what stops it from turning into dogma.So when you say: it simply is not true. Evolution is the only game in town because nothing else even comes close to fitting with the facts. It’s not dogma, it’s just blooming well supported.I suspect that a large section of this post is quite far OT (especially considering there are other would-be thread starters keen to discuss the technical aspects of it), but I think I can ask an on-topic question:What aspect of the study made you think that it was a paradigm busting paper?This message has been edited by Ooook!, 25-03-2005 12:03 PM