Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

Do a bit of research on him. He's pretty unabashedly anti-Semitic, for one. I would give him the same consideration I would toward E.O. Wilson on his thoughts on sociobiology.

EDIT: What little I read seems to purport that he argues any new genetic advantage is the result of dormant alleles and not via mutation. A really odd stance.

EDIT:

Found this.



Seems like there is absolutely zero science actually done to back up his opinion and the scientific institutes he is associated with back away from him.

tell you what.

when you give me something that can pass for objective or unbiased, I'll consider it. I imagine that anyone embroiled in the politics of education is gonna draw fire, particularly someone who goes to bat for "the faithful" somehow.

still, I'll give this critique a whirl and see what I really think of him.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Anal ogy

Broken analogy. I would have said bad analogy, but it's still good enough to refute what you said earlier.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

tell you what.

when you give me something that can pass for objective or unbiased, I'll consider it. I imagine that anyone embroiled in the politics of education is gonna draw fire, particularly someone who goes to bat for "the faithful" somehow.

still, I'll give this critique a whirl and see what I really think of him.

Again, as far as the classroom is concerned, so long as he would be teaching science and the concepts of it, it's fine. He can even bring up what he considers to be the issues with evolution on a grand scale. However, he must also teach, as all science teachers should do, the scientific method and peer review, neither of which he has seemingly done in this particular case. Can't go into science fearing the results.

 

[PearlWatson]

Talk about fearing the results:

"it is intolerable that biologists should constantly be forced to defend their unifying theory"

The whining is kind of funny. It sounds like a church treating any dessension like heresy.
Don't mess with our "doctrine" guys!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Talk about fearing the results:



The whining is kind of funny. It sounds like a church treating any dessension like heresy.
Don't mess with our "doctrine" guys!

So why aren't you doing the same with equal scientific theories like gravity, continental drift, string theory, quantum theory, game theory, relativity and the like with as much gusto? Oh wait, they don't rock your social core.

 

[PearlWatson]

Broken analogy. I would have said bad analogy, but it's still good enough to refute what you said earlier.

Odd comment Why does replacing bad with broken make any difference to the strength of your nonexistent refutation?

Have you read any information theory?

The analogy is sound since I took it straight from the theory.

 

[babe]

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?24905-Science-vs-Creationism&p=799729&viewfull=1#post799729

I was hoping for a more authoritate or scholarly source. . . ..

BTW, I did the wiki on Behe. Funny I didn't know who he is already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

yah, he's human. yah, his views are not endorsed by an entrenched orthodoxy or a fascist State. yah, the entrenched atheists who want to dictate our educational curriculum are gonna run him down. And some commies are anti-Semitic, too. He's not just a stupid man and he is working on an idea that he thinks is important.

 

[PearlWatson]

So why aren't you doing the same with equal scientific theories like gravity, continental drift, string theory, quantum theory, game theory, relativity and the like with as much gusto? Oh wait, they don't rock your social core.

I loled at the "equal" part.

Easy. Because the evidence supports those theories.

I don't need Darwinian evolution to be false to be a God-believer, it is atheists who need it to be true. "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

 

[babe]

Again, as far as the classroom is concerned, so long as he would be teaching science and the concepts of it, it's fine. He can even bring up what he considers to be the issues with evolution on a grand scale. However, he must also teach, as all science teachers should do, the scientific method and peer review, neither of which he has seemingly done in this particular case. Can't go into science fearing the results.

"peer review" is not part of the scientific method. The way the "scientific method" was defined when I was a kid, when you do your experiment you get to publish the results. If your work can be duplicated by others, they might. . . . or might not. . . . accept it. If nobody can duplicate it, even carefully following your own experiment in materials, methods, and measures, you'll find out nobody believes you. That's all.

"Peer Review" is a fomality much like ordination to the priesthood. It is a bald attempt to impose some kind on "authority" on scientific research. Statists love to claim such authority. Statists also want to regulate what research is funded and direct the development of science to suit their purposes.

It just as bad to have a formal process of state sanction in science as it was to have state sanction in religion.

As for any classrooms, teachers should be free to teach whatever they, or their students, wish to consider. Good if they can be clear about the basis of the concepts. religion is one thing, science is another. Good if we know the fundamental concepts of both.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

"peer review" is not part of the scientific method. The way the "scientific method" was defined when I was a kid, when you do your experiment you get to publish the results. If your work can be duplicated by others, they might. . . . or might not. . . . accept it. If nobody can duplicate it, even carefully following your own experiment in materials, methods, and measures, you'll find out nobody believes you. That's all.

"Peer Review" is a fomality much like ordination to the priesthood. It is a bald attempt to impose some kind on "authority" on scientific research. Statists love to claim such authority. Statists also want to regulate what research is funded and direct the development of science to suit their purposes.

It just as bad to have a formal process of state sanction in science as it was to have state sanction in religion.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, so if you claim something, tell people the EXACT way you did it, others try (which is what peer review is about) and nobobdy replicates the result, you consider that a fallacy with peer review? It's like saying you did an experiment and 2+2 ended up being 5 and when everyone else does it, they get 4. If that were to happen to me, I'd try to replicate the results again.

There's a difference between authority and expertise. Religion is about authority. Science is about expertise. If I'm reading your angle correctly, you'd be fine with ANYBODY publishing a supposed cure for cancer because they used the scientific method and got a result that can test for cancer that no one else can duplicate.

You must be a REAL friend to the snake oil salesmen out there.

 

[PearlWatson]

Maciej Giertych (Genetics professor and head of genetics department):

Having entered the battle against evolution I found myself confronted not so much by scientists as by philosophers. In an atmosphere of rejecting all communist propaganda my views received considerable publicity and popular interest in Poland. Strangely enough, Marxist and Catholic philosophers joined forces to combat my activity. In fact, Catholic clergymen, even some bishops, are most prominent in defending evolution. I found it necessary to study the theological and philosophical objections to the writings of such people as Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

It makes more sense why they are treating his criticisms of "macroevolution" like heresy.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Maciej Giertych (Genetics professor):



It makes more sense why they are treating his criticisms of "macroevolution" like heresy.

I'm surprised. I would have thought Catholics would rejoice at his remarks on Jews:

What we consider as the Jewish people today refers to a tragic community, a people that has not recognised the time of its visitation. It is those who did not recognise Jesus Christ as the awaited Messiah. Those Jews who followed Christ merged within the Christian universality. Those who rejected Him became wanderers throughout the world, among believers of other religions, jealously nurturing their chosenness, this messianic consciousness,which gives a defining mark to their civilisation.

 

[babe]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, so if you claim something, tell people the EXACT way you did it, others try (which is what peer review is about) and nobobdy replicates the result, you consider that a fallacy with peer review? It's like saying you did an experiment and 2+2 ended up being 5 and when everyone else does it, they get 4. If that were to happen to me, I'd try to replicate the results again.

There's a difference between authority and expertise. Religion is about authority. Science is about expertise. If I'm reading your angle correctly, you'd be fine with ANYBODY publishing a supposed cure for cancer because they used the scientific method and got a result that can test for cancer that no one else can duplicate.

You must be a REAL friend to the snake oil salesmen out there.

If religion were about "authority", Jesus didn't get the memo. Neither did Confucious, or Buddha. According to these folks, "religion" is about personal accountability, personal virtue, and personal truth. According to their teachings, there is an enlightened path for a good or better life that is so far above the commonplace paths of mankind it is remarkable if a human can come close to the better way.

The medieval clerics of Catholicism needed ignorant folks who didn't know the teachings of Jesus, and the cloak of state sanction as well as the swords and axes of state police to enforce that ignorance. They killed people who would read the bible, calling them "apostate" or "heretics", the same way statists today need to marginalize people with personal values who try to live better moral lives rather than be mere pawns dependent upon authority.

yah I know that a lot of "evolutionists" want the State to enforce their doctrine in public schools.

So much so, sometimes they will just misrepresent what someone like me says to cram me into some little corner of the discussion, throwing out some dismissive allegations that are just false.

I said "Peer Review" isn't part of the scientific method as it was defined a few decades ago. And that's the fact. It is not publication in a "Peer-Reviewed" journal that makes a result valid, it is actual validity. And in "Science" there is no person or authority that can make a result valid. You and many others today mistake state sanction for validity. That is exactly the same thing that clerics and lot of ignorant folks did when medieval states sanctioned religious doctrine and enforced religious beliefs or norms of society with austere punishments including capital punishment.

If I read a scientific report, I will do my own thinking. Maybe I will see something wrong with the idea. Maybe I'll think it is unsettling to my convictions. Maybe I'll want to see what others find out in their efforts to check the report. Before anything becomes accepted, it is---was---- commonplace for a lot of critics to rush to their labs and try to prove it wrong somehow, even after it was published in Science or JAMA, or whatever other peer-reviewed journal.

 

[One Brow]

I've simplified the different beliefs on origins:

From molecule to man by genetic mutation

by an intelligent force (ID)
or
by spontaneous generation​

gradual (Darwinism)
not gradual (Punctuated Equilibrium-to match the fossil record)​

We also have kinds were designed "whole cloth" in different periods (creationism)

I don't have to choose another theory to see that gradual spontaneous generation doesn't fit what we are seeing.

What the different fields of science are saying about the Darwinism:

Information theory: chance with or without necessity is incapable of CSI

Biochemisty: biological systems are irreducibly complex

Genetics: "Microevolution" involves a decline in genetic information.
"Macroevolution" requires an increase in genetic information.

Paleontogy: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’"

Punctuated equilibrium is still fairly gradual in the rate of changes, unless you think 5 million years or so is not gradual. For that matter, punctuated equilibrium could be true at the same time as the most gradual of accounts; there are a variety of ways this could happen.

There has not been, and it looks likes there never will be, an successful field test of using CSI to detect design when design is not know beforehand. It is a biologically useless concept.

We have seen irreducibly complex systems develop in the laboratory through mutation and selection.

"Microevolution" (really, there's just evolution) involves mechanisms like retroviral insertions, gene duplication, and segment reversal. Any can lead to an information increase on their own, and serve as more than enough to power any information increase needed for "macroevolution" (again, there's just evolution, the macro-micro distinction is artificial, subjective, and biologically meaningless).

We have filled in most of the gaps we had from paleontology in the past 150 year, we no longer need great leaps of imagination.

 

[One Brow]

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.

Scientists do occasionally become creationists, which is why the number of biologists supporting evolutionary theory is around 96%, not 100%. Congratulations on finding a member of the 4%.

"I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. "

Well, now that he's seen nylon-eating bacteria and the results of Lenski's experiments, he no longer has to worry about that.

 

[One Brow]

I suppose you get tired sometimes. . . . .

Sometimes.

"Evolutionary Scientists" expanded the scale and the duration of the phenomenon beyond any practical possibility of observation, ...

We've use evolutionary theory to predict live species like the naked mole rat and fossils like Tiktaalik rosea. So, the practical possibilities of observation seem to extend fairly far and wide.

Missing from this theory is a coherent defintion of what "Life" is, as well as any truly scientific demonstrations of any of the alleged steps.

At it's most basic, evolution requires two hings: reproduction with variation, and selection. As long as something reproduces in manners that allow variation, and there is selective pressure on it, whether it fits some other definition of life is not relevant.

 

[One Brow]

No doubt by dawn there will be some kind of a smear laid down here discrediting the Prof quoted above.

Let's hope we get more specific information that "He's a crackpot" and "Reputable Scientists have exposed him" as a fraud, a dupe, or a schemer hell-bent on re-writing high school textbooks

While there is a great deal of such information to be had, it wasn't really relevant.

 

[One Brow]

So I watched the little snippet.

I wouldn't buy a used car from the guy on the left.

I assume you mean Krauss. That's a good instinct; his personal behavior leaves a lot to be desired (according to the rumor mill around conventions).

He is nonetheless correct on this video.

 

[One Brow]

In my day, the high school and college textbooks clearly alleged that Darwin's theory provided a stand-alone explanation for the origin of Life.

In my day, the books I used separated abiogenesis from evolution. However, I have no reason to say that all books were so careful

To a fascist State, religion is a problem because it postulates some higher power, some higher authority, than a few rich men.

Can you name any actual fascist states (no, Russia and China don't count, they are communist) that were unfriendly to religion generally (as opposed to specific religions that withheld government support)?

 

[One Brow]

Examples of designed algorithmic variation...not spontaneous generation.

The bacteria remain bacteria.

That would be a prediction of evolutionary theory: the descendant of bacteria are bacteria. It would have be a miracle, and a disproof of evolution, if they were anything else.

This information, that contains that UofU experiment has some pretty interesting stuff on inheritance:

The study of epigenetic effects poses no issue to evolution, rather, it's folded into it.