So you are saying that the methods used were the appropriate ones. You are saying that someone should loose his job for publishing a peer reviewed paper. You are proving the point that they were trying to make in the movie.
They shouldn’t lose their job for publishing a peer reviewed paper but rather for erroneously including references to ID.
The idea of eugenics was originally coined by Darwin’s cousin after he read his origin of species. He began to do tests in Africa for evidence of a superior race through these techniques.
Eugenics is an example of mankind attempting to exploit science for nefarious purposes but is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution’s scientific merits.
I think that you have quite a naive idea of the relation between grants, peer reviewed papers, good science and references. Have you ever heard the publish or perish motto? A lot of times is not about science and usually people do not loose their jobs because of obviously misleading papers.
So do you think it was appropriate to mention ID in a scientific publication?
It can be appropriate as a speculation of a prime cause. I have seen weirdest speculations to justify cause effect in experiments that are farther out in the left field then ID.
There is no scientific merit for Darwinism, to think that humans evolved from animals is to put us at the same level of dignity hence justifying eugenics and human experimentation. Now, evolutionary theories that deal with selective pressures as in ‘random mutations’ do have some merit in the lab, but that does not prove that a quadrupedal animal turned into a bipedal anthropoid man-monkey. In fact, as far as these ‘random mutations’ go, it can be said that they are merely adaptations and there is still much to be known as to what causes these. To say it’s an accident or a product of chance should not be considered overly scientific.
Recognize the difference between “is” and “ought.” Evolution describes how things are, not how things ought to be.
I don’t follow.
What would it mean to teach ID? What exactly would be taught? I think you need to be more specific here.
Hitler killed six million Jews. He ought not to have done that, yet the evidence says that he did do it. That does not mean that History is an evil satanic field of study that justifies the Holocaust.
What people don’t seem to understand is that Darwinism is not science; but mere speculation based on piecemeal dubious evidence and grounded on neo-pagan beliefs of man’s equality with animals. It doesn’t progress our understanding of molecular biology, but stands as yet another ideology of who man is.
You are going to have to be a little more clear on that. Do you mean how to debunk Darwinism? Or given it’s historical context what did Darwin himself believe? Or how did it get to be widely accepted by the scientific community?
I think he meant how you come to the conclusion that evolution isn’t science.
Well, I was hoping for a little more detail than that, you could write forever on this subject and I didn’t wish to write a book. I recommend reading Cardinal Avery Dulles on this subject, he did a pretty good job at breaking it down for me. Let me ask you guys this, how come you believe in Darwinian evolution? (note, Darwinism, not evolutionary theories or micro adaptations) What were the facts or data that convinced you of this? I don’t mind discussing this, but I think I need a starting point on the current understanding.
Start with The Origin of Species. I don’t understand the difference between what you call Darwinism and evolution theory. Darwin was a great scientist in the same way that Newton was a great scientist and to call his work unscientific is just ignorant.