Re: Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:16:11 -0400, "Aerion" <Aerion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrngcu4uf.dd1.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2008-09-16, Aerion <Aerion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cf4e645e-139f-416e-a418-626f43f6ae42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on
this
NG
has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
motivated by creationism".


OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.

Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
sacrosanct,

Only to those who don't understand what a fact actually is.

As Gould famously said:

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct, it simply
means that it's confirmed to a degree that makes it perverse not to
accept it.

Ther are scientific that are as well supported as anything is possible,
yet they are not labeled a "fact". Atomic theory, and Germ theory
to mention but two that others have already discussed. They continue
to be called theories. In view of this fact, I suspect calling evolution
a "fact" is for propaganda purposes.

I suggest you take the time to learn exactly what the word "theory"
means in science. At the moment your ignorance of its meaning leads to
you making foolish statements like the one above.

"protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
the _fact_ of evolution itself.

You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.

I don't mean to be audacious, but I have no interesting convincing you of
anything. I was challenged to present some of the reasons for my doubts,
which I have given.

But you haven't. That is the problem. You just keep playing with
words.

If it became a broad based spectrum
across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.

Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
we sort this conundrum out.

Talk about going to the extreme. My initial issue was a failing grade,
because
my nephew informed the teacher that he didn't _believe_ in evolution.

And is so doing showed that he had not learnt from his teacher.

Where have I advocated any such action, rather lack of?

And a further extreme extention of my doubt, is the following comment
made by you.

I'll join you on top of the Tower of Pisa so we can start dropping balls
again.

Mark

What is your problem with that?

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AC fails to turn the non sequitur, "anti-darwin skepticism necessitates
    ... Stalin rejected genetics, but accepted subatomic physics. ... Please back up this claim by citing a single atheist who claims that skepticism about neoDarwinism requires the rejection of science. ... But if you want an analogy to the way physicists view general relativity, it wouldn't be rejection of evolution, but an idea that our current theories don't explain everything. ... darwinism is false based upon discordant facts is on much firmer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?
    ... Natural selection is virtually a certainty. ... only people who disagree are those who know nothing about science. ... NOT support the "Theory of Evolution", ... Mine's in physics. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: ID Kidding Whom?
    ... Berlinski quite explicitly denied ... > evolution were called useless by him, ... > remains against science. ... > So if we stick with physics, we're wrong, and if it isn't high ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are the worst bigots ever. They want to force Christian taxpayers to pay for somet
    ... What is this something "Christian taxpayers" hate, ... In many religious schools evolution is taught, ... creationists need to know what is said in science. ... FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Einstein might have had a point
    ... then indeed we are effectively no different from driftwood. ... evolution is a matter of deterministic responses to ... Similarly reason has no place. ... Such a view threatens science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
Loading