Re: Op-Ed: Scientific study requires sound methodology


jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ron O wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two weeks ago I read a bold, but inaccurate, statement in another
column that appears in The Sheboygan Press. On Feb. 12, Charyl Zehfus
wrote, "evolution depends on abiogenesis, which means 'life arising
from non-life,' to explain the origin of life. Since abiogenesis has
never been proven, it requires belief, just like a religion."

Evolution (or evolutionary biology or the theory of evolution) does
not "depend" on abiogenesis. The two are completely separate
processes, because evolution does not examine the origin of life, but
is about how life unfolds according to genetic mutation and natural
selection.

Good old Mr. Deutsch taught me all that in eighth-grade biology, and I
heard this in the halls of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science far more recently. But to make sure I hadn't
suddenly switched to some other dimension, I double-checked with
numerous biologists, scientists, and teachers at the high school,
university, and research levels, and all said the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/SHE07/602260380/1109/SHEopinion
or http://tinyurl.com/zruqr









J. Spaceman

This is just something that is straight forward and any competent
person involved in the sciences would understand it. It isn't even
something new, you just have to read the last paragraph of the Origin
of Species to know that even Darwin knew the difference between
abiogenesis and biological evolution.

Incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty are the only excuses for
creationist uses of these types of bogus arguments.

Ron Okimoto

So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
even, Puff the Magic Dragon. That would mean that any evolutionist that
appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
That is what you're saying in this thread?

Omnipotent beings and magical creatures are not falsifialbe and
therefore not available to scientific scrutiny so I'm fairly certain
that's not what he's saying. Are you saying that's wrong? Would you
care to clairify on exactly how it is wrong?

Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
full post seems unjustified.

JTG 2/28/06

Scientists are welcome to delve into whatever topic they like provided
it is within the confines of falsifiability and ultimately subject to
emprical observation.. though sciencists certainly don't require
observation to enjoy speculating on things.

It is absolutely true that Creationists using "creation science" to
argue against evolution (and other scientific theories) infringe on the
integrety of Science by distorting the means by which we determine fact
from non-fact. Perhaps this is the "blame" you suggest but there's a
fitting proverb for situations like this.. "Reap what you sew." If you
plant misinformation then you can expect to reap the flower of
discontent that blossoms from that act.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CA323: Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views.
    ... Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views. ... Creation scientists, especially those promoting "intelligent design" ... Scientists who disagree with evolution are denied ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adaptive Peaks in Typing
    ... shift from being a creationist to becoming someone who views life on ... They don't see their own beliefs and coping ... So it's not just a matter of arguing against individual creationists. ... creationists isn't with describing how the process of evolution works ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins Kool-Aid
    ... Enter Richard Dawkins. ... intelligent being may have created life on earth. ... product of "Darwinian evolution." ... Einstein among the ten most brilliant scientists who ever lived. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: CA323: Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views.
    ... Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views. ... Creation scientists, especially those promoting "intelligent design" ... Scientists who disagree with evolution are denied ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
    ... if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven. ... My hypothesis is that that an intellect designed life and injected his ... If scientists ... and half billion years of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)