Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[babe]

Do you have a problem with courts putting limits on free speech? I know of no country on earth that has looser limits on that than the US. Are you opposed to free speech limitations on things like yelling FIRE in a crowded place in order to incite panic? Such limitations are perfectly within reason. I'm not aware of any instance where the court made it illegal to talk about anything inside homes.

Social work professionals who try to rescue human beings from abuse bother you? If society gave any more rights to parents over their children, we might as well change the term from parenthood to ownership. As long as they're not subjected to great physical harm, or sexual abuse, it's pretty much fair game. Even those parents who isolate their children from society and information in order to brainwash them into remaining within the fold of their archaic, and dying, religions are allowed to do so. What exactly it is you want?

Public schools training people to function in the modern world is also a baffling objection. Sure you can argue for better approaches to education (and I've heard so many suggestions). But in the end, if education doesn't prepare you for modern life, then what's the point of it at all?

Your gripe seems to be mainly with the government-corporates framework. I agree that corporatism and the emerging police state are serious and related problems, but the hierarchy of conspirators you created is without any basis. In your worldview, evil atheist socialists force their will on helpless Christian children through the use of propaganda and pharmaceuticals in order to create an army of unthinking drones to support the status quo. You're upset the modern world doesn't reflect whatever ideal paradigm you think life should follow, and you're making all kinds of irrational connections in order to justify that sentiment.

you invoke "irrational connections" as your objection to me, after writing this?????

well, inciting riot or causing a trampling panic in a crowded building might be viewed as something other than expressing one's beliefs openly to an interested audience. The point is State-prescribed standards for speech.

standards of acceptable political correctness are being applied to custody cases around the world, and speech is increasingly regulated. Schools are applying all these "concerns" to professional standards of conduct. Judges are weighing in on it all.

"training people to function in a modern world" is newspeak for a whole raft of behavioral norms. Probably some little prejudice imp is whispering in your ear how to make out everything I say as "irrational". The fact is, the "authority" to decide what is or is not suitable for training, is the problem.

If you just put that "authority" out of reach of government, there will be plenty of room left for people to resolve those issues personally, without your guidance or the governments. And they will, happily.

 

[Siro]

you invoke "irrational connections" as your objection to me, after writing this?????

well, inciting riot or causing a trampling panic in a crowded building might be viewed as something other than expressing one's beliefs openly to an interested audience. The point is State-prescribed standards for speech.

standards of acceptable political correctness are being applied to custody cases around the world, and speech is increasingly regulated. Schools are applying all these "concerns" to professional standards of conduct. Judges are weighing in on it all.

"training people to function in a modern world" is newspeak for a whole raft of behavioral norms. Probably some little prejudice imp is whispering in your ear how to make out everything I say as "irrational". The fact is, the "authority" to decide what is or is not suitable for training, is the problem.

If you just put that "authority" out of reach of government, there will be plenty of room left for people to resolve those issues personally, without your guidance or the governments. And they will, happily.

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

 

[babe]

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

people get to decide what is or isn't "society", some say.

Scientists don't really get to say what is or isn't true, any more than Priests or any other brand of religious authority.

You are not in a position to change the nature of things, all you can do is speculate. . . . theorize. . . . and conduct some sort of limited investigation into what exists in nature. Believe it or not, that's all any religion can do, either. True enough, religion deals generally with a "God" who is not, apparently, observable or testable, say, like mass or energy. A pure "materialist" might dismiss the concept as having no material evidence on display, I suppose.

Scientists have an advantage in that they get to define their methods of investigation, which makes it easier to limit the subject. Problem is, reality is not so easily managed, in terms of either extensive or intensive parameters. So in effect, Scientists have chosen to wear blinders to exclude everything that is not observable under our material senses or our instruments, especially "God".

Anybody can claim to be "religious", and can say anything they want about God. I'm not concerned with that sort of "religion". I am concerned about the context of our existence, particularly in terms of what we are, or can choose to be. What is our nature and our relation to the Universe? We defy all the precepts of science in terms of measureability, observability, and predictability. We have transcendent powers of imagination, fantasy, intuition, understanding, reasoning, and choice.

And only "religion" is capable of addressing our nature on those dimensions, and provide us with a schema for self-awareness and relation to the universe. And yes, indeed, it is entirely probable that it's our choice, our projection, our imagination that we call "religion".

secular humanism displaces all those "human" capacities with a theory of the universe that merely transfers human rights to a new class of brahmins called "government officials" operating on fascist-dictated imperatives which displace all that makes humans "happy".

 

[♪alt13]

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

Sorry to interrupt but this isn't true. Science has a definition independent of any ones opinion. As does scientific theory.

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

scientific theory

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Judges have appropriately used these definitions along with the US Constitution to decide what can legally be taught in a public school.

There is no conspiracy babe. Evolution meets the standard and intelligent design does not.

 

[Siro]

people get to decide what is or isn't "society", some say.

Scientists don't really get to say what is or isn't true, any more than Priests or any other brand of religious authority.

You are not in a position to change the nature of things, all you can do is speculate. . . . theorize. . . . and conduct some sort of limited investigation into what exists in nature. Believe it or not, that's all any religion can do, either. True enough, religion deals generally with a "God" who is not, apparently, observable or testable, say, like mass or energy. A pure "materialist" might dismiss the concept as having no material evidence on display, I suppose.

Scientists have an advantage in that they get to define their methods of investigation, which makes it easier to limit the subject. Problem is, reality is not so easily managed, in terms of either extensive or intensive parameters. So in effect, Scientists have chosen to wear blinders to exclude everything that is not observable under our material senses or our instruments, especially "God".

Anybody can claim to be "religious", and can say anything they want about God. I'm not concerned with that sort of "religion". I am concerned about the context of our existence, particularly in terms of what we are, or can choose to be. What is our nature and our relation to the Universe? We defy all the precepts of science in terms of measureability, observability, and predictability. We have transcendent powers of imagination, fantasy, intuition, understanding, reasoning, and choice.

And only "religion" is capable of addressing our nature on those dimensions, and provide us with a schema for self-awareness and relation to the universe. And yes, indeed, it is entirely probable that it's our choice, our projection, our imagination that we call "religion".

secular humanism displaces all those "human" capacities with a theory of the universe that merely transfers human rights to a new class of brahmins called "government officials" operating on fascist-dictated imperatives which displace all that makes humans "happy".

Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Your deliberately meaningless concept of "truth" is of no concern to the scientific pursuit. I say it is deliberate because you have gathered a bunch of ideas, and decided that, as far as you're concerned, they are beyond the reach of objective analysis. That is your prerogative, but surely you can't expect the rest of us to adhere to the dictates of your own personal sentiments. I see no reason why human cognition is somehow only appropriately discussed using the vocabulary of the immaterial, when it is clearly an objective physical phenomenon that can be observed and studied. Now I'm not telling you that you should accept any of the conclusions of science, but I am baffled as to why you think the world should revolve around your subjective interpretation of what the universe is all about? Surely if consciousness if magic, then you have nothing to worry about. It will never be understood regardless of how much effort is expended to understand it. But you are opposed to the very idea of even TRYING to understand it, because you cling to the emotional comfort the opposite view provides (provides YOU that is. I am perfectly happy with 100% materialist universe).

 

[Siro]

Sorry to interrupt but this isn't true. Science has a definition independent of any ones opinion. As does scientific theory.

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

scientific theory

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Judges have appropriately used these definitions along with the US Constitution to decide what can legally be taught in a public school.

There is no conspiracy babe. Evolution meets the standard and intelligent design does not.

You misunderstand. What I meant is, if biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for what we see, and reject creationism, then evolution will be taught as the best explanation for what we see. The opinion of lawyers is irrelevant. The opinion of restaurant servers is irrelevant. The opinion of everyone except those who study the subject is irrelevant. If you disagree with a theory, then join the field and gather your evidence and submit your studies.

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

[♪alt13]

You misunderstand. What I meant is, if biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for what we see, and reject creationism, then evolution will be taught as the best explanation for what we see. The opinion of lawyers is irrelevant. The opinion of restaurant servers is irrelevant. The opinion of everyone except those who study the subject is irrelevant. If you disagree with a theory, then join the field and gather your evidence and submit your studies.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is unconstitutional. Law is what matters here. The merits of a scientific theory is not decided by the number of people that believe in a theory. It is not decided by the credentials of someone that holds that opinion. The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Scientists may lend credibility to an idea through their support of it but it must first meet the standards of actually being a scientific theory if it is to be taught as one in a public school.

 

[Siro]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is unconstitutional. Law is what matters here. The merits of a scientific theory is not decided by the number of people that believe in a theory. It is not decided by the credentials of someone that holds that opinion. The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Try to understand what I'm saying. The discussion with babe is about how we ought to decide what's taught in science classes. The constitutional issue is irrelevant. I'm talking about the deeper underlying standards for making that decision.

The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Well obviously. But how do you measure those merits? You understand that even the greatest scientific minds on earth can only have a sufficient understanding of the merits of their own specialized field. No solid-state physicist (my specialty) knows enough about whether super-symmetry or string theory offer a better theory for expanding quantum mechanics. Even though a solid-state physicist deals with quantum mechanics all the time . Science is vast. And you can't expect anyone to know enough about every scientific theory in order to determine what needs to be taught.

So it's not about a popularity contest. If ten different doctors tell you have to undergo an operation within a couple of days to save your life, and a hundred cashiers tell you otherwise, whose advice would you follow? You don't have time to specialize in that field of medicine in order to evaluate which to trust, the doctors or the cashiers. Similarly, if biologist say that evolution is the theory that best meets the criteria of good science, then that theory will be taught in science classes.

 

[♪alt13]

Try to understand what I'm saying. The discussion with babe is about how we ought to decide what's taught in science classes. The constitutional issue is irrelevant. I'm talking about the deeper underlying standards for making that decision.

The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Well obviously. But how do you measure those merits? You understand that even the greatest scientific minds on earth can only have a sufficient understanding of the merits of their own specialized field. No solid-state physicist (my specialty) knows enough about whether super-symmetry or string theory offer a better theory for expanding quantum mechanics. Even though a solid-state physicist deals with quantum mechanics all the time . Science is vast. And you can't expect anyone to know enough about every scientific theory in order to determine what needs to be taught.

So it's not about a popularity contest. If ten different doctors tell you have to undergo an operation within a couple of days to save your life, and a hundred cashiers tell you otherwise, whose advice would you follow? You don't have time to specialize in that field of medicine in order to evaluate which to trust, the doctors or the cashiers. Similarly, if biologist say that evolution is the theory that best meets the criteria of good science, then that theory will be taught in science classes.

I fully understand what you are saying I just disagree. We could conceivably teach both evolution and intelligent design as opposing theories. So the issue of whether or not ID should be taught is decided(and I think rightfully so) based on whether it is in fact a scientific theory and not simply based on religious beliefs.

Even if 99% of scientists thought that evolution was the truth and that ID was not, it would still be acceptable to teach ID as a competing scientific theory(albeit a less widely accepted one) if it was in fact a scientific theory. It isn't.

 

[carolinajazz]

The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory. So it's not about a popularity contest.

The evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade. Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.

Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. We often hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ People are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.

When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

In the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.” It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. And these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

 

[Siro]

I fully understand what you are saying. We could conceivably teach both evolution and intelligent design as opposing theories. So the issue of whether or not ID should be taught is decided(and I think rightfully so) based on whether it is in fact a scientific theory and not simply based on religious beliefs.

Even if 99% of scientists thought that evolution was the truth and that ID was not, it would still be acceptable to teach it as a competing scientific theory(albeit a less widely accepted one) if it was in fact a scientific theory. It isn't.

I have no problem with any of that. I was talking about the subject in a different context. If you have two competing theories, say ID and evolution, then you have to ask the experts which theory meets the criteria of good science and is supported by peer reviewed evidence. You don't ask the priest's opinion, or a butcher's. And you literally can't make that decision on your own because human capacity is finite. This is specially the case when you have a number of competing theories that meet criteria of good science, but with complicated evidence and spotty acceptance. It's not always as easy as ID vs. evolution.

For example, up until recently, European universities taught supersymmetry as a theory of quantum physics alongside the accepted Standard Model taught worldwide. Particle physicists in the US felt that the evidence did not justify teaching it in the matter-of-fact way Europe did. So it remained something you have to seek out for yourself (find advanced classes that teach it) if you want to study it further. Lately, experiments have shed some serious doubt on the validity of the theory, and some European universities started following the US' example. The inclusion of the theory in basic quantum physics classes, along with its withdrawal, was decided by relevant scientists. And that's how it should be.

I assure you, we're in perfect agreement.

 

[Gameface]

The evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade. Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.

Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. We often hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ People are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.

When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

In the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.” It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. And these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

One question, CJ: Is this your own work or did you plagiarize it?

 

[babe]

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

There are actually quite a few viewpoints about what is "Christian" or not. Possibly the same could be said about Islam. We've had some of the most flourishing advances in science under some eras of Islamic enlightenment, as well as some of the most heart-rending dark ages where people lived in fear under Islamic swords. The medieval Christian Church was, in my view, nothing but a co-opted Statist tool, inimicable to every teaching of Christ.

So let's drop this irrelevant part of the debate. I'm not really on the side of fundamentalist dogmatists wishing to co-opt the public education system to impose their dogmas on our kids. What I've been saying is I don't want you doing it with your "science" either, since I look at science as something that favors questions, fosters enquiry, and provides a systematic method for evaluating a hypothesis. Science is not "truth", but a one way of seeking "truth".

As always, we humans have not yet escaped our limitations and might yet improve upon our theories. I like science for the merit of the right to question, and propose ideas, and test them, not for being a paperweight legitimizing government action.

 

[babe]

One question, CJ: Is this your own work or did you plagiarize it?

would that make a difference to the value of the idea he is bringing in here?

 

[Gameface]

would that make a difference to the value of the idea he is bringing in here?

Not really, they have pretty much no value to me either way. The idea that evolutionary scientists have no exposure to creationist ideas was where I stopped reading.

But CJ plagiarizes very often and I think he needs to understand how unacceptable it is. I don't think he gets it for some reason.

 

[Siro]

There are actually quite a few viewpoints about what is "Christian" or not. Possibly the same could be said about Islam. We've had some of the most flourishing advances in science under some eras of Islamic enlightenment, as well as some of the most heart-rending dark ages where people lived in fear under Islamic swords. The medieval Christian Church was, in my view, nothing but a co-opted Statist tool, inimicable to every teaching of Christ.

So let's drop this irrelevant part of the debate. I'm not really on the side of fundamentalist dogmatists wishing to co-opt the public education system to impose their dogmas on our kids. What I've been saying is I don't want you doing it with your "science" either, since I look at science as something that favors questions, fosters enquiry, and provides a systematic method for evaluating a hypothesis. Science is not "truth", but a one way of seeking "truth".

As always, we humans have not yet escaped our limitations and might yet improve upon our theories. I like science for the merit of the right to question, and propose ideas, and test them, not for being a paperweight legitimizing government action.

I agree with all of this. I just don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the way science is conducted now. Sure there are problems. Like the fact universities have become too tied up with economics (one more reason we need a well funded government), focusing mostly on short term incremental improvements rather than deeper insights. There is also the issue of evaluating scientists based on the number of papers they churn out, regardless of the quality of work. There are also some problems that stem from the fact scientists are human. Like the difficulty of introducing radical new ideas in place of entrenched models. But fundamentally, science is still working as it should. The scientific method is intact (that's why we're still making astounding progress).

There are no conspiracies. Nobody is trying to control anybody. A lot of us do legitimately believe that globalization, mass education, human rights, and so on are a genuinely good thing. And we do so for good, objective reasons.

 

[babe]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is unconstitutional. Law is what matters here. The merits of a scientific theory is not decided by the number of people that believe in a theory. It is not decided by the credentials of someone that holds that opinion. The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Scientists may lend credibility to an idea through their support of it but it must first meet the standards of actually being a scientific theory if it is to be taught as one in a public school.

intelligent design is no more "science" today than Newton's law of gravity was in the fourteenth century, for the same reason.

nobody agrees on what "intelligent" means, and no research has been proposed that would in any way validate the principle of :"design". If you can just swallow the apple here that "intelligent design" means what almost everybody imagines it means, everybody knows it happens all the time, just like everybody knew about gravity before Newton.

it doesn't necessarily mean some external "intelligence" in nature, it refers to an inherent property of life. Can you imagine a single cell designing a cell wall? A cell dividing its genetic material and forming a second cell nucleus, and then splitting into two cells? That's a high order of "intelligence" I bet Siro couldn't manage on the seashore with a beachball. It's as intelligent as hell, and it is a designed process. Has every element of our definition of "design", we just don't see the hand or know the mind that causes it. From Hindu to Buddhist to Mormon, to Catholic, the idea of "God" incorporates all the universe. And everything we can imagine about the universe. It's the ultimate placeholder for everything that is beyond our selves.

"evolutionists" have not escaped the "God" notion, they have merely rationalized it a material "god".

atheists have to set up a straw man "God" to make any argument "God" doesn't happen in nature. Not so different from religionists setting up their own straw man "God" notions before they begin to make their declarations about what God is or is not.

we even have some elements of God faith when we say nature is wondrous somehow, when we emerge from our labs with a new bit of research results. I get it, you don't want to recognize the religions of others, but you have your own sort of "faith" in believing in evolution.

One day, our school books may contain a compiled list of things that are very "smart" in nature. They won't call it "intelligent design", but for sure they will believe those things are smart because they have met some need in life, for survival or for convenience,and those things will beat the designs of our best engineers and chemists.

you folks go ahead now, and play with yourselves.

Science will come around one day to my way of thinking, and the evidence will be compiled to prove we ourselves have gotten into the "intelligent design" business deep enough it will have to be taught as such in public schools.

My cows do some things I call "intelligent design" like the way they do their cow trails in the brush, or meander through a meadow leaving enough clumps of growing grass for later. I think as highly of amoeba. Sure chemistry can explain a lot, just not everything.

 

[Siro]

intelligent design is no more "science" today than Newton's law of gravity was in the fourteenth century, for the same reason.

I agree with this. Because Newton wasn't born until the 17th century.

 

[carolinajazz]

would that make a difference to the value of the idea he is bringing in here?

....exactly! What I have posted is in direct rebuttal to the various bogus theories perpetuated by Darwin and other authors of evolution, of which many posters here parrot those same ideas almost verbatim so what's the big deal!