About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.
If academics had honestly involved themselves with these controversies, they would not be plagued today by ID and religionists they deplore.  Consistently, deceptively and for decades they have taught students that there are no problems and no discrepancies, that evolution answers all questions and reveals all mysteries.  Their deception has been properly rewarded. 


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

You write, "If academics had honestly involved themselves with these controversies, they would not be plagued today by ID and religionists they deplore." Bullshit.

The ideologies of ID, and other religion-based pretenses, have nothing to do with explaining the evidence of the senses, and everything to do with the preservation of arbitrary beliefs. No scientist would be willing to work in a field in which he thought everything was already explained. No one likes to be bored. The pretense that scientists have been unwilling to work on explaining the remaining gaps in any scientific theory is false and dishonest. But then, all supernatural beliefs are dishonestly held and dishonestly argued, so there is nothing better one could ever expect from the bullshit artists.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Consistently, deceptively and for decades they have taught students that there are no problems and no discrepancies, that evolution answers all questions and reveals all mysteries. "

Yeah. Also, astronomers have, deceptively, taught that we can understand the solar system only through the heliocentric model and have ignored the problems, such as retrograde motion that we can see with the unaided eye..

Mathematicians have ignored many of the difficulties in mathematics that numerology can explain, such as flight 11 occuring on 9/11 and the emrgency number being 911, all facts inexplicable using only conventional mathematics.

And reproductive "science", where do we begin with the absurdities of a single cell growing into a full blown human organism? When do we address the issues presented by this absurdity? Does not the stork deserve its day in the classroom?

So yes, just where do they get off thinking that all life is explained by evolution? Why not explain some of the obvious problems that scientists are hiding by referring to ID?


Post 3

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Finally I read something that made some sense to me about the ID debate. (From the article):
And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.
It's politics, not science.

This stuff gets passed off as science and the politicians get more votes from the religious flocks for helping spread the good news.

Michael


Post 4

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I will say the same thing to you I said to someone else on this forum.  I was debating with scientists back when they were still denying the existence of the Coelacanth (after 30 years and several specimens) and when they were still ignoring evidence that the earth had ever experienced cataclysmic change.  It took them 50 years to accept continental drift.  I talk you don't listen. Absolute faith in academy of Science is intrinsicism.


Post 5

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Absolute faith in academy of Science is intrinsicism.
Agreed, Robert; as is a total lack of faith in the academy of Science.
Glenn



Post 6

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

Were that the case I would agree.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/04, 12:26pm)


Post 7

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

It is interesting that as long as the conversation is general, i.e., goes something like, it's true, it's not, yes it is, no it isnt, you participate. 

When it turns to the specifics of my complaint with the deification of Scientists, you are suddenly silent.  Why is that?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RD,

Discussion that is in my interest - in the sense that I can learn something - requires informed participants. Science is the practice of grounding knowledge in the evidence of the senses. The result of doing science is objective identification of the facts of reality. When I encounter the post-modern proposition that "science is just another arbitrary belief," then I know I have nothing to gain from continued "debate" - and I choose my actions in accordance with that knowledge.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/06, 4:27pm)


Post 9

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Your lofty condescension is an elegant posture; however, you completely misrepresent my stand on this issue.  If misrepresentation is your intention, letís leave it at that.

 

If you care to address this non-conflict honestly, however, you are going to have to get it right first.

 

Science is the practice of grounding knowledge in the evidence of the senses. The result of doing science is objective identification of the facts of reality.

 

I accept this definition of science as completely as you do.

 

It is the politics of the scientific community that I criticize, believing for good reason, and with examples that I have cited, that the scientific establishment delays advancement for decades by a ready knee jerk rejection against newer discovery.  The ostensible reason is to protect the eternal laws of physics/universe, dogma, whatever; the actual reason is to protect reputations, access to grants and text book revenues.

 

When I encounter the post-modern proposition that "science is just another arbitrary belief,"

 

There is nothing  post-modern in my psyche, whatever.  This quote is not mine, or is horribly out of context.


Post 10

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RD,

Just as one should not confuse the contemporary politics of business with capitalism, one should not confuse the politics of politicized "science" with science. Until your last post, the position you communicated obfuscated this distinction - and your support for treating "ID" as though it were a scientific hypothesis made it clear that this obfuscation has deeper causes, such as a fundamental lack of epistemology. Without epistemology, you have no clear line between politics and science - and so I am not likely to get anything out of debating these issues with you.

Get thee to a university and take a course in Research Methods (ie applied epistemology) and then we can talk.


Post 11

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

I was familiar with Rand's epistemology when your mother was still warning you about touching shit.

You have much too high an opinion of yourself.  I suggest you get a second unbiased opinion.  As to debating you, nothing would bore me to a greater extent.  You clearly have nothing more to learn, a tragedy rampant among elderly professors particularly those with tenure. 


Post 12

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If academics had honestly involved themselves with these controversies, they would not be plagued today by ID and religionists they deplore.

Robert,

Since when have you been able to see into the minds of all scientists?

Besides, the only reason you can list these theories is because academics developed them.

What is your motivation in promoting ID? You seem to have some sort of tick on this subject.


Post 13

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,

I didn't criticise all scientists, except perhaps, all the tenured ones.

I have no interest in ID as I have said many times.  I enjoy the discomfort it brings to the political and arrogant in the Science community.  Get my position correct before we discuss this again, which would be clear if you had bothered to read this entire, but very short, thread..  

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/07, 6:52pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Thursday, September 8, 2005 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RD,

When asked why you promote ID, you confess: "I have no interest in ID as I have said many times. I enjoy the discomfort it brings to the political and arrogant in the Science community."

So - you promote a doctrine you do not find either interesting or true, just so you get to annoy some bad people along with the good.

You are back on my list of trolls. This time permanently. Given the dishonesty manifest in the motive you just confessed to, I don't see any reason to credit anything you might post from now on.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/08, 7:55pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Thursday, September 8, 2005 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh my - here we go - round 3 [or is it 4] of the "Curmudgeon War"...

Post 16

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert

;-)


Post 17

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

This is just another of your failures to understand.  You have, perhaps, the most hidebound non-creative mind I have encountered.  Prosaic is inadequate to describe you.  What do you do for fun? Watch paint dry?

So - you promote a doctrine you do not find either interesting or true, just so you get to annoy some bad people along with the good.
I don't promote ID.  I say it over and over.  What I promote is kicking over the ant hill and watching the guilty scurry from the light of day. You prefer to spend your time harassing and denouncing Methodists, while worshipping the priesthood of Science. You and Dawkins have a lot in common.  I have patently obvious news for you, error exists everywhere; one faith is as bad as another, even when it feigns objectivity. 

Your pompous majesty's List of Trolls?   I bear it as a badge of honor.  Please place me at the top of your list; I am ambitious.



Post 18

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,
I highly recommend Joe Rowlands' article All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees.  He starts out with:
Today Iím going to talk about a widespread pattern of philosophical errors. I refer to this pattern as the ďall or nothingĒ mentality. The basic problem is an inability to see things in terms of degrees. Instead, everything is viewed as all or nothing. Itís either 100 percent, or 0 percent, with nothing in between.
You personify Joe's point with your attitude toward the scientific community.
Glenn



Post 19

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

How perceptive of you.~


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.