Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble

On Aug 21, 7:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 21, 3:30 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 21, 5:11 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:24 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 18, 3:59 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Numerous <numer...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
saying this.
Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
either, do you?

The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.

Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
being "in trouble"?

Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
fails to be science.

In your zeal to appear as if your lips have a life of their own, you
failed to respond to the question of what and whether the BB is in
"trouble".

My failure to respond to that question was intentional. I do not know
enough about the evidence or field of cosmology to come to an
intelligent conclusion about whether or not the BB is in "trouble". I
am happy to let people who know more than I do or ever will work out
that particular mess of pottage.

In other words, you had nothing to say so changed the subject.

But I do know how science works and
was pointing out how *real* controversy works in science.

You seem to think you know a lot about what is "right" and "real".
That is pretty clear. And in my opinion, quite childish to claim.

As opposed
to the bogus "controversy" that is the latest incarnation of the
creation science/intelligent design attempts to get public schools to
become captives of fundamentalist religious sects.

The controversy over getting ID in schools is a different matter from
the merits of Behe or ID.

No its not. The sole purpose of ID, the only purpose it ever had, was
to get "religion", specifically the particularly ignorant
fundamentalist Christianity found in America, into the public schools
as an antidote to "science". Evolution in particular, but really all
of "science" and its method of discovering how the material world
works, if the result of "scientific inquiry" is in disagreement with
their religious beliefs.

I think it was you earlier in this thread
that tried to dismiss my argument about Darwin's theory by saying that
even if he didn't have a mechanism he was shown to be right. That is
equally bad reasoning.

Darwin's goal was to convince serious *biologists* and other
scientifically minded adults (not elementary and high school kids)
that his ideas could explain the natural biotic world, both past and
present. He did it by collecting and presenting evidence in *favor*
of the idea of descent with modification and that natural selection
played a role in generating the modification of species as well as
conserving features of organisms.

And natural selection *is* a mechanism for generating *change* of
allele frequencies in populations of organisms, as well as a mechanism
for generating a dynamic stasis of conserved features when a local
optimum is reached. The absence of natural selection is neutral
drift. Most observed differences in sequence in organisms is
attributable to drift and not selection.

What you are complaining about is that he did not have a mechanism (or
not the now-considered 'correct' mechanism, since he did propose
genetic mechanisms) to explain the *fact* of generation of variation
in populations and the *fact* of heritable features. But all he
needed for the mechanism that he proposed, natural selection, to be
'possible' is that there be a mechanism that generates variation (that
generation of variation *be* a fact) and that there be a mechanism of
heritable transmission of traits (that inheritance, to some degree and
in some way, *be* a fact of nature).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble ... saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble. ... Science does not *require* consensus. ... was pointing out how *real* controversy works in science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... Cosmology is in deep trouble. ... evolution, the ones Darwin himself described, descent with ... understanding of how science ... What Disney is saying is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... Cosmology is in deep trouble. ... evolution, the ones Darwin himself described, descent with ... understanding of how science ... What Disney is saying is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
    ... You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble ... saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble. ... Science does not *require* consensus. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE
    ... severe pain and the loss of my business and then my family I could take no ... Temperatures are rising all over the planet, ... She would know when someone was in trouble and she would call them ... will and wrote letters saying good by to my kids and family. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)