Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

and in some cases, the direct opposite of was previously claimed as “true” is given as a “new fact”.

Barbarian suggests:
Hey, that sounds interesting. Show us one of those.

(Reggie declines to show us one)

Pity. One example of evolutionary theory doing that, would be interesting. But I can’t think of one.

And Reggie won’t or can’t show us.

Darn.

 

[edwest2]

I’m a scientist, and I don’t agree with you on that. Evidence is the best way to understand the physical universe. But not everything.

I could never see that one. Athiests are a rather small minority.

As a moderator on another forum, I find it filled with a disproportionate amount of atheists, leftists and anarchists. I’ve also noted the same here. I guess it beats having to paint a sign with some slogan and carry it around all day. That pattern repeats itself at other Christian forums.

God bless,
Ed

 

[RobbyS]

Your “hearts and minds” rhetoric is tiresome. God comes before “science,” an invention of man. Continuous repetition does not make a thing true.

As Pope Benedict stated in his Homily at his inaugural Mass: “We are not some meaningless, casual product of evolution…”

This statement speaks to the heart of the matter.

God bless,
Ed

I think Darwinians find meaningless somehow comforting, somewhat as Calvinists found the idea of double predestination comforting. Psychologically, it does relieve them of thinking about certain matters.

 

[wildleafblower]

As a moderator on another forum, I find it filled with a disproportionate amount of atheists, leftists and anarchists. I’ve also noted the same here. I guess it beats having to paint a sign with some slogan and carry it around all day. That pattern repeats itself at other Christian forums.

God bless,
Ed

Here’s a Catholic site that merely reported what the Pope said without putting words in his mouth:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56245
Missing Page Redirect | Catholic Culture

If you read the text, you will find that the Pope is saying precisely what the evolutionists have been telling you for some time; science is unable to fully define what it is to be human or to approach supernatural issues.

A little honesty would go a long way, right now.

Ed, I’ve never read anything where Pope Benedict XVI singled out individuals such as you have and Barbarian I did look at your website and The Vatican: Holy See has Pope Benedict XVI speech** To participants in the inter-academic Colloquium on “L’identité changeante de l’individu” sponsored by the Académie des Sciences of Paris and by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences **that was given January 28, 2008. Zenit Net is the official Vatican:Holy See website (The World Seen From Rome) that reports the news to the public. This website gives more accurate information in my opinion. Here is the article:

PONTIFF: KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON BEYOND SCIENCE - Tells Researchers Progress Should Be Progress of Love(ZE08012804 - 2008-01-28)
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).-

*Science cannot determine who man is, where he comes from or where he goes, Benedict XVI says. Thus, the most important knowledge is the knowledge of the human person.

The Pope affirmed this today when he received in audience participants in an interacademic conference titled “The Changeable Identity of the Individual,” promoted by the Academy of Sciences of Paris and the Pontifical Academy of Science.

In his address to them, the Holy Father first expressed his joy at their interacademic collaboration which, he said, “opens the way to vast and ever more profound multidisciplinary research.”

In our time, he said, “the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe.” However, he continued, “there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known.”

The Pope continued: “In order to avoid going down this path, it is important not to ignore anthropological, philosophical and theological research, which highlight and maintain the mystery of human beings, because no science can say who they are, where they come from and where they go. The knowledge of human beings is then, the most important of all forms of knowledge.”

“Human beings always stand beyond what can be scientifically seen or perceived,” the Pontiff affirmed. “To overlook the question of man’s ‘being’ inevitably leads to refusing the possibility of research into the objective truth of being …] and, effectively, to an incapacity to recognize the foundation upon which human dignity rests, from the embryo until natural death.”

Otherness

Benedict XVI said the participants in the conference, “starting from the question of the new being, who is produced by a fusion of cells and who bears a new and specific genetic heritage,” had highlighted certain “essential elements in the mystery of man.”

Man, the Pope explained, is "characterised by his otherness. He is a being created by God, a being in the image of God, a being who is loved and is made to love. As a human he is never closed within himself. He is always a bearer of otherness and, from his origins, is in interaction with other human beings.

“Man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions. Man is a being who enjoys a freedom which …] transcends his nature and is a sign of the mystery of otherness that dwells within him.”

“This freedom, which is characteristic of human beings, means they can guide their lives to a goal,” the Holy Father said. And it “highlights how man’s existence has a meaning. In the exercise of his authentic freedom, the individual realises his vocation, he is fulfilled and gives form to his deepest identity.”

“Human beings have the specific ability of discerning what is good,” the Pope concluded. “In our own time, when the progress of the sciences attracts and seduces for the possibilities it offers, it is more necessary than ever to educate the consciences of our contemporaries to ensure that science does not become the criterion of good, that man is still respected as the centre of creation, and that he does not become the object of ideological manipulation, arbitrary decisions, or abuses.”

“All scientific progress,” he affirmed, “should be also a progress of love, called to put itself at the service of man and humanity, and to offer its contribution to the building up of the identity of persons.”*
He is the Pope’s speech in French and Italian in the Vatican:Holy See:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/january/index_en.htm
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/january/index_en.htm

 

[wildleafblower]

Peter Wilder isn’t the only person. There are other individuals that say they don’t any longer support the Intelligent Design movement though they continue to ‘misuse science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support a creationist programme’. I think it is difficult for them to let go of what they once thought was the truth. Anyway, that is what I’m discovering to be true. Perhaps, it’s the aftermath of actually coming to the realization that they were deceived? Or, they have a new agenda on their(s) book. (Watch out for the fine print) A watchful eye on each topic would be of helpful.

Oh, it is wonderful to see on the front page of your website that The Evolution Education Site Ring doesn’t have K. Kroose’s website. And isn’t great that you are allowed to debate here on Catholic.com whereas other locations prohibit it. Keep kicking that ball into the bleachers!
hecd2;3243929:

Peter’s fundamentally flawed logic can be explained partly by his deep ignorance of science, and partly by his misuse of science as a propaganda and rhetorical tool to support his creationist programme rather than as a means of discovering truth. His protests against the term ‘creationist’ are risible. He is a creationist, Berthault is a creationist, and the Kolbe Center is a creationist pressure group.

evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_steno.htm
noanswersingenesis.org.au/questions_berthault_k_henke.htm

You scored a home run Alec! I’m proud of you. Thanks, you are special. As a Catholic woman who supports evolution and loves Darwin too, it’s great to have you share your wealth of knowledge with us. You have been posting to Catholic.com for eons and have a healthy group of supports that are non-members. I’m still working on you getting nominated to the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. Alec, the Pope knows what a wonderful job you are doing and the challenges you face.

 

[itinerant1]

Why Darwinism Ain’t So

I keep numerous mental notes filed under a category called “Why Darwinism Ain’t So”, and decided to retrieve a note contained therein and foist it upon this thread. Lucky you! I will briefly explain my note that says, “Darwin attempts to undermine objective, natural morality”.

To understand what natural morality is requires understanding something of the natural moral law, or just ‘natural law’, which is the objective foundation of natural morality. Natural law is not the same as the ‘laws of nature’. The natural law is the participation in the Eternal Law by rational creatures. I have provided a series of quotations that can help with understanding natural law:

+++

“Law is twofold–natural and written. The natural law is in the heart, the written law on tables. All men are under the natural law. First of all, nature herself teaches us to do what is good; afterwards came the law that was given to Moses.” ~St. Ambrose: De Fuga 15.

“For instance, pagans who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually ‘possess’ the Law, but they can be said to ‘be’ the Law. They can point to the substance of the Law engraved on their hearts–they can call a witness, that is, their own conscience–they have accusation and defense, that is, their own inner mental dialogue.” ~Apostle Paul: Romans 2:14-15.

“Ignorance of the natural law is one thing, ignorance of the civil law another. Ignorance of the natural law is never excusable in the case of adults; ignorance of the civil law is sometimes permissible, sometimes not.” ~Gratian: Decretum, C. I, Q. 4, P. 4.

“The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.” ~Thomas Aquinas: S. T., I-II, Q. 94. art. 5.

+++

As can be seen, the natural law, which is written on men’s hearts, is the same for all men, in every generation, and cannot be changed. Ancient pagan writings, especially those of the Stoic philosophers, reveal an awareness of natural law.

Even though pagans, Jews, and Christians accept natural law, along comes 19th century Charlie, I mean Charles Darwin, who tries to undo this age-old belief by initiating a radical revolution in ethics. So, what exactly did Coleoptera Man do?

Since the “Origin of Species” does not deal with man, the explanation will be concerned only with the “Descent of Man”. The Origin does provide the theoretical framework for the Descent’s evolutionary account of human morality.

Darwin’s evolutionary account of morality constitutes a rejection of the traditional understanding of human nature as expressed by Christians and Stoics. According to Darwin, man is not naturally moral, he does not possess a moral sense. Darwin assumed that man is naturally amoral and asocial. Man’s moral faculties evolved from “social qualities”. These social qualities were acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherent habit”.

In the traditional Aristotelian conception, man is by nature a social being. For Darwin, man’s social nature is something that just happened to evolve. Man had to become social before he could become moral. The Descent, which is pure speculation in line with Darwin’s assumption about the nature man, consists in explaining the appearance of social instincts by means of selection and survival of the fittest. In addition to the selection of particular social instincts, the particular “moral” instincts that survived did so because they were beneficial to the tribe.

As we can see, the demands of survival in a particular environment could have been different, had the environment been different, and resulted in the survival of very different moral instincts. There is nothing objectively true or good in themselves of any particular moral instincts. What we now call “good”, we could just as well call “evil” perchance the selection process had resulted in the survival of different moral instincts. What instincts survive and are perpetuated remains contingent upon environmental conditions.

This is crass moral relativism. Nothing is objectively good or evil. Moral relativism is consistent with Darwin’s materialistic conception of man as nothing more than a sophisticated animal. Man differs from other animals by a difference that is only a difference in degree, not a real difference in kind. Darwin says, “Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals [apes], great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” (Descent, Chap. IV).

Darwin is attempting to overturn the traditional understanding of man as a “rational animal”, one whose difference from other animals is a difference in kind, a radical difference in kind. Darwin has made man out to be a “brute animal”.

In accordance with Darwin’s view, we can conclude that man lacks any intrinsic value that is significantly and radically different from that of an ape.

What is moral is determined by what is beneficial to survival, and those conditions can change. For example, Darwin suspected that monogamy no longer served a useful purpose, and it is now detrimental to the survival of the fittest.

But certainly, no one should marry anyone with inferior qualities. This position is part of the eugenics views advocated by Darwin.

The danger of Darwinism is that it pretends to offer a scientific evolutionary basis for moral relativism. Hence, the most radical eugenics program, such as that of Nazi Germany, is not a misuse of Darwinism. It is completely consistent with Darwinian evolutionary principles.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The danger of Darwinism is that it pretends to offer a scientific evolutionary basis for moral relativism.

The danger of Darwinism, is that some can take it to offer a scientific evolutionary basis for moral relativism. There is no such thing in Darwinian theory.

The danger of physics is that some can take it to offer a scientific physical justification for building cluster bombs. There is no such thing in physics.

The key here is that neither biologists nor physicists think that what is natural is necessarily a good thing. Granted evil people might take the truth and twist it into something evil. This is not license to ignore the truth.

Hence, the most radical eugenics program, such as that of Nazi Germany, is not a misuse of Darwinism. It is completely consistent with Darwinian evolutionary principles.

If it were not for the massive terror and suffering it caused, it would be hilariously wrong. Humans have prospered precisely by being altruisitic and by enthusiastically sharing genes with other groups. We have evidence for ancient practices of keeping alive people who were obviously unable to care for themselves or help the group. Likewise, while there is a strong sense of xenophobia in humans, there is no such thing as a drive to “racial” purity.

Indeed, evolutionary theory has shown that there are not bioligical human races. Anyone who has take the time to read up on the Nazi “biology” will find it is some of the worst “science” known.

Darwinism, if it applied at all to race, would have to be what Darwin thought. His claim was that all humans, regardless of race were entitled to freedom, dignity, and the right to the fruits of their own labor. Although he did not regard all men as equal in terms of ability, he regarded them as being equal by the fact of being people.

Which is precisely what we should think. His error, which was to accept the conventional thinking of the time, was thinking that Europeans were more intelligent and capable than other people. Which was, at the time, promoted as God’s will.

But that isn’t the point of Christianity, any more than racism is the point of evolution.

And your point that natural law is not the law of nature is well taken. Although Darwin supposed (being a European and subject to the racism of the time) that the “lesser races” would be subdued and controlled by Europeans, he did not regard it as a good thing. Indeed, he had a rather nasty disagreement with Capt. Fitzroy over that issue.

 

[steveandersen]

As a moderator on another forum, I find it filled with a disproportionate amount of atheists, leftists and anarchists. I’ve also noted the same here.

THIS PLACE

What exactly is your definition of atheists, leftists, & anarchists?

I guess it beats having to paint a sign with some slogan and carry it around all day. That pattern repeats itself at other Christian forums.

God bless,
Ed

Don’t say it Steve
Don’t say it Steve
Don’t say it Steve

I’ll say it

If you find yourself disagreeing with everyone, sometimes it’s not all them.

You started this thread (post #1) under the premise that you felt anyone who disagreed with evolution was considered ignorant and called names and shut out of discussions. And now you are calling those who disagree with you names.

Think about what you say.

 

[steveandersen]

I think Darwinians find meaningless somehow comforting, somewhat as Calvinists found the idea of double predestination comforting. Psychologically, it does relieve them of thinking about certain matters.

It isn’t that biologist don’t think that there is meaning to life (they may or may not).
It is just that biology isn’t the tool for finding meaning.

A thermometer won’t tell you how much you weigh. That doesn’t mean that its temperature reading is wrong.

You can’t blame a biologist for not doing what he isn’t supposed to do.

 

[Orogeny]

Barbarian Avoids the material matters in my previous post which concerned the mechanics of strata formation. This is the object of the stratigraphy experiments. If he wants to denigrate the work, the best way is to provide experimental data to do so.

Are you so ignorant of science that you actually believe this?

Pointing to possible exceptions is not the way and geologists know this.

How would you know, Peter. You aren’t a geologist and I doubt you have spoken to many geologists.

He proposes varves as an exception, but provides no experimental evidence to support his objection that experiments strata do not form successively.

All strata form successively and I have never heard any geologist claim otherwise. It is only some YEC who claims that strata all form at the same time that denies that strata form successively.

On the other hand there is experimental evidence published by the French Academy of Sciences of simultaneous deposit of particles of different size sediment. This is similar to the deposit of algae’s and clay in Lake Suigetsu. The Bijou Creek Flood, for example, produced 4 metres of laminae in a few days. The seasonal melt of snow in the mountains feeding the Lake Suigetsu would provide sediment for continuous formation of laminae over several weeks. There is no reason to postulate a varve takes a year to form.

Take some geology, Peter. I think you will be surprised at how much us dumb geologist know. Funny thing is, though, without the YEC spin, your model shows exactly what we already know.

Peace

Tim

 

[Wolseley]

Since just about every aspect of evolution has been refuted and reformulated at some point – we’ll have to conclude that none of it was ever fact based.

That’s correct: none of it ever was. Basically what evolution boils down to is a philosophical speculation that allows for no other points of view. But that still doesn’t make it true.

reggieM:

If you have any integrity you will admit that you loaded the question in your favor and added some words that I didn’t offer:

Standard Darwinian procedure, reggie. If they don’t stack the deck, they’re afraid their arguments won’t hold up in court. Just ask Thomas Lee, or Forrest Mims, or Virginia Steen-McIntyre, or Richard Milton. The only way to be certain that you come out on top is to suppress, ridicule, or dismiss the evidence your opponent presents.

reggieM:

How about a high school textbook? Not “respectable” enough?

Of course not, reggie. Don’t you know that the only “respectable” references are “peer-reviewed” scientific journals? Everything else is easily sniffed at as misguided and insignificant. Of course, the fact that “peer-reviewed” scientific journals are dominated by Darwinists is just another aspect of the standard Darwinian procedure of knowledge control: only allow evidence that fits your theory. If it’s anomalous, throws doubt on Darwinism, or God forbid, blows the whole ship out of the water entirely, it cannot be allowed; and one way to do that is to refuse to print such evidence in “peer-reviewed” scientific journals.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know who you are speaking to, but in my estimation science and reason rate infinitely higher than magical thinking. I agree that continuous repetition since 100AD does not make a thing true. We should reject wishful thinking. We should rely on evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages,com

The evidence we can observe is limited by our 5 senses and 4 dimensions.

Do you believe that is complete?

 

[wildleafblower]

Do you believe that is complete?

Hi Buffalo, I truly believe what JOHN PAUL II said, “Truth, Justice, Love, and Freedom are the pillars of Peace.”

 

[anthony022071]

I will have to respond to your post piecemeal, that is, in several posts. First, I’m not sure why you mentioned post 155.

My mistake. I meant post 255.

Creation *ex nihilo *does not mean “out of nothing”.

My mistake.

The wording is important. The concept of *ex nihilo *is that God brings beings into existence that did not previously exist. This creative act does not involve creating from previously existing stuff, material or immaterial. “Out of” can convey the wrong meaning, as if there was some thing called “nothing”.

The word “from” conveys the same implication – that there is something called nothing from which the world was created. The terms “from” and “out of” both refer to procession and point of origin,as in: “he came from (out of) the house”,or “the universe originated from (out of) chaos”.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

My post 249 post is once again vindicated. Instead of keeping to sedimentology Barbarian brings in his “man of straw”. He cannot understand that producing scientific proof of rapid strata formation is science and nothing to do with creationist opinions. Either strata form quickly or they don’t. Can we please keep to sedimentology and the experimental proof?

All this story about Harold Coffin, - a creationist, is a pure distraction. Where’s the science in it?

Coming back to the experiments he states:

All strata form successively. Otherwise they wouldn’t be strata.

But this is the basic issue and he doesn’t attempt to address it. He and his colleagues ask for scientific discussion, but when the opportunity arises he brushes it aside with an unqualified four word affirmation from authority.

What would he say about people in a forum ignoring the experimental data and then complaining no scientific evidence is being shown? This is exactly the situation with him and his colleagues. Dare to mention the experiments and one meets with “Berthault rubbish”, “his conlusions are wrong” etc. Those unwilling to examine the facts but willing to criticise them is a sad reflection on their state of mind.

The **varves **he mentions are microstrata deposited by a mechanism of particle sorting by size; not chronology. This explains the regularity of varve size. The components are clay, pollen and algae. Of coarse, this will be met with the usual scepticism. Yet how many will examine the experimental record? The mechanical sorting can be easily observed by tipping the various particles into a flask of water. This is shown in the video “Fundamental experiments on stratification”. Hundreds of laminae can form in this way simultaneously.

Regarding non-successive formation of strata; Pierre Julien showed superposed beds in a flume prograding at the same time in the direction of flow. These beds were not successive. Please check the visual data. before criticising.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

Either strata form quickly or they don’t. Can we please keep to sedimentology and the experimental proof?

Yes, let’s, shall we?

But this is the basic issue and he doesn’t attempt to address it. He and his colleagues ask for scientific discussion, but when the opportunity arises he brushes it aside with an unqualified four word affirmation from authority.

You would never do that, would you Peter. How many times have you mentioned the Russian Academy or French Academy as reasons that your buddy’s fantasies are true?

What would he say about people in a forum ignoring the experimental data and then complaining no scientific evidence is being shown?

Sorry, Peter, but the experimental data has not been ignored. You have ignored the arguments against your buddy’s interpretations, but the experimantal data, at least that which has been posted on Berthault’s sites, has not been ignored.

This is exactly the situation with him and his colleagues. Dare to mention the experiments and one meets with “Berthault rubbish”, “his conlusions are wrong” etc. Those unwilling to examine the facts but willing to criticise them is a sad reflection on their state of mind.

Yep. Berthault rubbish and his conclusions are wrong. I came to those conclusions by examining his facts. Am I a liar, Peter? How about a heretic?

The **varves **he mentions are microstrata deposited by a mechanism of particle sorting by size; not chronology.

You are wrong. There have been plenty of study of the formation of varves.

This explains the regularity of varve size. The components are clay, pollen and algae. Of coarse, this will be met with the usual scepticism. Yet how many will examine the experimental record? The mechanical sorting can be easily observed by tipping the various particles into a flask of water. This is shown in the video “Fundamental experiments on stratification”. Hundreds of laminae can form in this way simultaneously.

Yep. Forget what has been observed actually occuring. Berthault showed in his flume experiments that you can get alternating layers of sand/silt and clay. Oh. Wait. Peter, did your little experiment include clay? How about algae and pollen? Was that part of the sediment used in the flume? Was that deposited from the flowing water?

Also, Peter, why is the organic content of every other layer different from those above and below (and I mean above and below in the vertical sense)? Did that happen during your flume testing? Did you include clays and organic material in the original mix?

Regarding non-successive formation of strata; Pierre Julien showed superposed beds in a flume prograding at the same time in the direction of flow. These beds were not successive. Please check the visual data. before criticising.

I did, Peter, and I must stick with my conclusion that the only way one could interpret those experiments the way you and your cohort do is to begin with the conclusion and then find a test that could be used to support it. In your case (or at least Berthaul’s case), that predetermined conclusion is that Genesis is a literal history and the earth is young.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

That’s correct: none of it ever was.

please give examples of what wasn’t fact based

Basically what evolution boils down to is a philosophical speculation that allows for no other points of view. But that still doesn’t make it true.

No the reams of data to support it make it true.

Biology may be many things; philosophical musing isn’t one of them

Standard Darwinian procedure, reggie. If they don’t stack the deck, they’re afraid their arguments won’t hold up in court. Just ask Thomas Lee, or Forrest Mims, or Virginia Steen-McIntyre, or Richard Milton. The only way to be certain that you come out on top is to suppress, ridicule, or dismiss the evidence your opponent presents.

Just like you’re doing?
If the “evidence” supplied is wrong there is nothing “deck stacking” about saying so.

Of course not, reggie. Don’t you know that the only “respectable” references are “peer-reviewed” scientific journals?

Of course
What is your alternative?
Unlike the neighborhood bar everybody’s opinion doesn’t count.

Everything else is easily sniffed at as misguided and insignificant.

Of course
That is what the process is there for.

Once again what is your alternative?
Let anyone publish their papers just so you don’t hurt their feelings?
That’s no way to run a profession.

Do you suppose the Vatican publishes any-old theologian without a peer review?

Of course, the fact that “peer-reviewed” scientific journals are dominated by Darwinists is just another aspect of the standard Darwinian procedure of knowledge control: only allow evidence that fits your theory.

Or (and this may sound crazy but stick with me)
OR it means that the modern synthesis is “correct”

Sometimes when you’re a lone voice crying in the wilderness there is a conspiracy against you. Most of the time you’re probably just wrong.
I don’t understand how you somehow think that if more experts disagree with you that somehow increases the likelihood of you’re being right.

If it’s anomalous, throws doubt on Darwinism, or God forbid, blows the whole ship out of the water entirely, it cannot be allowed; and one way to do that is to refuse to print such evidence in “peer-reviewed” scientific journals.

Anyone who could produce something that would “blow the whole ship out of the water” would be lauded as a genius and win fabulous cash and prizes. So he shouldn’t be too surprised if people want to check his work first.

The problem of course with the “somebody may find a new theory” approach is something called the correspondence principle. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. So in practice any new theories or principles are generally more restrictive then existing ones. In the case of biology, speciation has been observed in the lab by using selective pressures therefore any explanation that doesn’t included speciation under selective pressure as a process fails the correspondence principle. In the case of geology, both rapid and slow sedimentation has been observed any explanation offering only rapid sedimentation as a process fails the correspondence principle.

 

[buffalo]

please give examples of what wasn’t fact based

No the reams of data to support it make it true.

Biology may be many things; philosophical musing isn’t one of them

Just like you’re doing?
If the “evidence” supplied is wrong there is nothing “deck stacking” about saying so.

Of course
What is your alternative?
Unlike the neighborhood bar everybody’s opinion doesn’t count.

Of course
That is what the process is there for.

Once again what is your alternative?
Let anyone publish their papers just so you don’t hurt their feelings?
That’s no way to run a profession.

Do you suppose the Vatican publishes any-old theologian without a peer review?

Or (and this may sound crazy but stick with me)
OR it means that the modern synthesis is “correct”

Sometimes when you’re a lone voice crying in the wilderness there is a conspiracy against you. Most of the time you’re probably just wrong.
I don’t understand how you somehow think that if more experts disagree with you that somehow increases the likelihood of you’re being right.

Anyone who could produce something that would “blow the whole ship out of the water” would be lauded as a genius and win fabulous cash and prizes. So he shouldn’t be too surprised if people want to check his work first.

The problem of course with the “somebody may find a new theory” approach is something called the correspondence principle. This states that any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment. So in practice any new theories or principles are generally more restrictive then existing ones. In the case of biology, speciation has been observed in the lab by using selective pressures therefore any explanation that doesn’t included speciation under selective pressure as a process fails the correspondence principle. In the case of geology, both rapid and slow sedimentation has been observed any explanation offering only rapid sedimentation as a process fails the correspondence principle.

I guess it is time to bring up the scablands story again.

The program:

• reviews geologist J Harlen Bretz’s radical theory—first proposed in 1923—that a massive flood formed some of the Pacific Northwest’s unusual geologic features.
• presents the evidence collected by Bretz during his research, including the existence of the Channeled Scabland and the dry waterfalls, potholes, and erratics within the scablands.
• explains that, at the time, most scientists believed the Northwest’s geological features were created through gradual erosive processes; the scientists followed the theory of uniformitarianism, which ruled out sudden catastrophic creations of landscapes.
• recounts the difficulty faced by Bretz as he worked to convince the scientific community of his theory.
• reports the key role of Joseph Thomas Pardee, the geologist who found evidence for an enormous body of glacial meltwater that could have provided the flood’s source of water.
• describes how Pardee theorized that a lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet dammed the Clark Fork River, forming an ice barrier that eventually walled off a lake described in size as “an inland sea.”
• recreates what might have happened when the lake’s water eventually breached the ice dam, allowing Glacial Lake Missoula to flood westward.
• reveals evidence indicating that the flood Bretz theorized may have been only one of many that repeatedly swept through the region.

 

[Orogeny]

I guess it is time to bring up the scablands story again.

That clearly isn’t a story of science hiding evidence as Wolsely claims. The story of the scablands is an excellent example of a scientist sticking with their guns when faced with opposition from the scientific community and ultimately being accepted.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

That clearly isn’t a story of science hiding evidence as Wolsely claims. The story of the scablands is an excellent example of a scientist sticking with their guns when faced with opposition from the scientific community and ultimately being accepted.

Peace

Tim

Tim, that is my point exactly.