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.