Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[StAnastasia]

Next up, equal time in Chemistry class for Alchemy! And, don’t forget, this week in History class we will be reviewing why the Holocaust didn’t happen!

I want more astrology integrated into my kids’ astronomy classes. They’ve gown lax in that regard!

 

[Namesake]

I want more astrology integrated into my kids’ astronomy classes. They’ve gown lax in that regard!

I am so sorry to disagree with you because I respect your academic status, but, alchemy is a lot more valuable given the current economic climate as compared with astrology. I mean really, wouldn’t you prefer that your kids would learn to change lead into gold?

 

[reggieM]

You needn’t accept my advice at all.

The question was why I would accept your advice, but this answer is fine – there’s no reason that I can find, nor can you, apparently.

If you don’t change it, who will?

I am far from the only person concerned about the state of Catholic theology.

Pope’s appointee bullied into submission in Austria

Pope Benedict is very much aware of the problem.

“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” – Pope Benedict XVI, homily at inaugural Mass as Pope

 

[StAnastasia]

The question was why I would accept your advice, but this answer is fine – there’s no reason that I can find, nor can you, apparently.I am far from the only person concerned about the state of Catholic theology.

I’m just curious as to why you only complain about the state of theology, rather than doing something constructive to change it.

 

[redneck22]

When the topic turned to the 700 scientists who Dissent from Darwin, I posed the same question, since that group was dismissed due to “lack of credentials”.

What it means? I think it shows that the list of 700 include some accomplished scientists and they can’t be dismissed as ignorant or incompetent.

I suppose the same could be said of 700 Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinsm

 

[eichenb2]

Astrology or astronomy?
Alchemy or chemistry
magic or science?

We should teach both sides and let the kids decide.

Don’t forget Macro-evolution vs. Micro-evolution

 

[Orogeny]

I am a member of this discussion forum and therefore give my opinion.

In other words, you have none. So, you will now defer to the Steves because they have better scientific and educational credentials?

I have been big on credentials only to point out the absurdity of citing such things in order to establish some kind of authoritative hierarchy.

Wait a minute. Wasn’t it you that brought up the DI list?

Now you know why I called your reference to the DI list a waste of time.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Wasn’t it you that brought up the DI list?

Yes, it was meant to show that there are scientists who dissent against Darwinism who also have more scientific and academic credentials than you do.

Why should I listen to you in preference to those scientists who have more credentials and whose arguments are more convincing to me?

 

[Orogeny]

Credentials have very little to do with discovery of the truth, and that’s the point. The most highly credentialed scientists have been very wrong in the past.

How many non-scientists have contributed anything to the study of genetics in the last 50 years? Genomics?

Probably my best academic credentials are 12 credit hours graduate level Philosophy and having graduated from a Catholic college I took theology and philosophy as part of the core curriculum. I took undergraduate elective courses in archeology (two semesters) and astronomy (two semesters). Aside from that, my science background is limited to high school courses.

Which is fine as far as I am concerned. Can you now get off of your high horse questioning people’s credentials?

While you have more scientific credentials than I do, on what basis would I simply take your word for it, as against scientists who have more credentials than both of us do.

What makes you think I have ever expected you to take my word for it? What I expect you to do is check what I say. Unfortunately, you seem to have some limitations understanding some of the technical literature. Your recent citation of the article about the trace fossils is a perfect example. I saw on another posting you made that you are still claiming that there are fossils of modern birds in that formation. That is wrong and I pointed it out to you, but you were focused on the fact that the researchers used modern traces to compare to the fossils and noted similarities and, therefore, you determined that the paper claimed that the fossils were of modern birds.

I don’t know if that is because you don’t have a science background or not, but it is telling. Don’t take my word for it.

The final point is – the argument about credentials is not very valuable.

Good. Agreed. Let’s drop it, shall we?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Can you now get off of your high horse questioning people’s credentials?

I questioned your credentials because you criticized the Discovery Institute’s list as lacking credentials.

There are scientists on that list who have more competence in the field than you do, so I don’t think they should be criticized for lacking credentials.

You’ve also frequently attacked my own lack of scientific credentials (I’ve never claimed to have any) and proposed the idea that I should just listen to what the scientists say and accept it at face value.

But again, this exercise undercuts that notion. I can’t see why I should I accept your opinion on these matters when I can find scientists who are more credentialed than you are and who support my own opposition to Darwinian theory.

 

[reggieM]

What makes you think I have ever expected you to take my word for it? What I expect you to do is check what I say.

How am I supposed to do that since I am not a scientist and supposedly I am not capable of understanding. On what basis could I be capable of understanding what you have to say?

Your recent citation of the article about the trace fossils is a perfect example. I saw on another posting you made that you are still claiming that there are fossils of modern birds in that formation. That is wrong and I pointed it out to you, but you were focused on the fact that the researchers used modern traces to compare to the fossils and noted similarities and, therefore, you determined that the paper claimed that the fossils were of modern birds.

You have had no answer for that article at all, Tim. I’m still waiting for an explanation. You initially claimed that the rock formations are younger than initially claimed, but “not 50 million years” younger. That is supposed to be “science”? Clearly, you’re just winging it and tossing out opinions based on your own bias with no support behind it.
You then claim that I didn’t understand the article.
Again, I’m waiting for an explanation – instead, you attack me.

I don’t know if that is because you don’t have a science background or not, but it is telling. Don’t take my word for it.

It seems that you’re just posting your assertions about things and trying to belittle me. If you know something more about the topic, then I would suggest that you just say it. Instead, however, you continue to repeat attacks on my credibility, when I’ve already shown that you are not as qualified in science as some of the creationists on the DI list are.

So, it’s up to you. Continue to attack my credentials, or actually say something about the topic. By the way, the topic includes God as well as evolution. So, I’m open to your views on both matters – keeping in mind the level of authority you possess on these things is what it is.

Let’s drop it, shall we?

When you do, I will. Until then though, no.

 

[Orogeny]

You’ve also frequently attacked my own lack of scientific credentials (I’ve never claimed to have any) and proposed the idea that I should just listen to what the scientists say and accept it at face value.

I never attacked you on your lack of scientific credentials. I only restate what you said - you have none.

Please give me a citation (not a paraphrase) from one of my posts where I EVER proposed that you should just listen to what the scientists say and accept it at face value.

But again, this exercise undercuts that notion. I can’t see why I should I accept your opinion on these matters when I can find scientists who are more credentialed than you are and who support my own opposition to Darwinian theory.

I told you in one of my last posts to check out everything I say. Why do you insist on mis-stating my positon?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I questioned your credentials because you criticized the Discovery Institute’s list as lacking credentials.

Nope. I question the reason they discount evolution. I don’t for a second believe that it is because of the scientific evidence. I have absolutely no doubt that it is for religous reasons. If I am right, they are not making scientific claims and therefore their credentials are irrelevant.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Nope. I question the reason they discount evolution. I don’t for a second believe that it is because of the scientific evidence. I have absolutely no doubt that it is for religous reasons. If I am right, they are not making scientific claims and therefore their credentials are irrelevant.

As I pointed out before, this would be a double-standard in favor of atheists who make their evolutionary claims for religious reasons.

You do not reject or even criticize them (as far as I’ve seen). How many members of the Steves list are atheists who use science to further their anti-God beliefs? Do you know?

According to you then, those atheists would “not be making scientific claims” in favor of evolution since their motive would be to support atheism.

Again though, it’s a double standard. You attack Christian believers but not atheists for the same reason.

 

[Orogeny]

How am I supposed to do that since I am not a scientist and supposedly I am not capable of understanding. On what basis could I be capable of understanding what you have to say?

Well, I guess you have a point there reggie.

You have had no answer for that article at all, Tim. I’m still waiting for an explanation. You initially claimed that the rock formations are younger than initially claimed, but “not 50 million years” younger. That is supposed to be “science”? Clearly, you’re just winging it and tossing out opinions based on your own bias with no support behind it.
You then claim that I didn’t understand the article.
Again, I’m waiting for an explanation – instead, you attack me.

I have to chuckle at this. It was explained and apparently you don’t even realize it.

Pay the $ for the article, share it with me and I will explain it to you.

It seems that you’re just posting your assertions about things and trying to belittle me.

No, I think you are reading your own posts.

If you know something more about the topic, then I would suggest that you just say it. Instead, however, you continue to repeat attacks on my credibility, when I’ve already shown that you are not as qualified in science as some of the creationists on the DI list are.

You claimed that you are not a scientist. Is that true? Have I overstated that fact?

As far as qualifications go, you can beat that drum all you want. I am not discussing anything with a DI creationist, I am discussing with you.

So, it’s up to you. Continue to attack my credentials, or actually say something about the topic.

Nothing to attack according to you, but then I’m sure you will consider that an attack.

By the way, the topic includes God as well as evolution. So, I’m open to your views on both matters – keeping in mind the level of authority you possess on these things is what it is.

I’m a Catholic. I’m not the one that equates the first part of the Nicean Creed with atheism, you are. So I’ll keep your credentials in mind.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

I never attacked you on your lack of scientific credentials. I only restate what you said - you have none.

Why do you find it necessary to “restate” that? Here again, just after saying that it is irrelevant, you continue to refer to “credentials”. That is sad because there are creationists who have more scientific credentials than you do – so what purpose does “restating” my lack of credentials serve?

I told you in one of my last posts to check out everything I say. Why do you insist on mis-stating my positon?

That is something new that has been added to your advice to me. I have never heard you recommend that I “check out everything” you say.

I’ll just say that unless you give me a compelling and convincing reason to think that you are correct about something, I will not accept it.

 

[buffalo]

Next up, equal time in Chemistry class for Alchemy!

And, don’t forget, this week in History class we will be reviewing why the Holocaust didn’t happen!

Nope - empirical science in science class. Ideologies in philosophy class.

 

[cerad]

Yes, it was meant to show that there are scientists who dissent against Darwinism who also have more scientific and academic credentials than you do.

Why should I listen to you in preference to those scientists who have more credentials and whose arguments are more convincing to me?

Good. Something new has been added. You not only have a list but you have some arguments from scientists on the list that you have studied in and found convincing.

Can you please reference one or more of these arguments?

 

[Orogeny]

Why do you find it necessary to “restate” that? Here again, just after saying that it is irrelevant, you continue to refer to “credentials”. That is sad because there are creationists who have more scientific credentials than you do – so what purpose does “restating” my lack of credentials serve?

Because you used it as a reason to not answer my questions. I’m not going to ignore your arguments.

That is something new that has been added to your advice to me. I have never heard you recommend that I “check out everything” you say.

Re-read (or read for the first time) post #302. Wasn’t that long ago.

I’ll just say that unless you give me a compelling and convincing reason to think that you are correct about something, I will not accept it.

Check out what I tell you if you don’t want to accept my word. I don’t have a problem with that at all.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Nope - empirical science in science class. Ideologies in philosophy class.

Ideologies are not the same as philosophy, although philosophy could be good at exposing ideologies in both religion and science.