Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[Fran65]

For example, I read a prime time type news story about some “brain?” research. Beyond the first paragraphs was the information that there were 15 or so students used as subjects for the research and towards the end were comments that hedged (almost contradicted) the popular conclusion. Obviously, the parameters for serious research were missing.

No, what was missing was accurate and informed reporting. Often journalists do not have the qualifications to completely understand the research. They are also under pressure to write a newsworthy and attention grabbing story. Nuanced and qualified conclusions do not lend themselves to headlines such as “Scientists debunk NDEs” for example.

 

[itinerant1]

Contradictory evidence fits quite nicely into Darwinian theory, especially if it’s discovered by scientists who believe in the theory themselves. In no way can the refutation of evolutionary claims or predictions be considered a falsification of Darwinian theory at all. That’s just not how science works. When two evolutionists arrive at opposite conclusions in studying the same subject, it’s an indication of the certainty and stablity of the theory itself.

Since you are an ID creationist, your credibility regarding the subject of science and “how science works” is just about nil.

You did not present any examples to illustrate and prove your assertion. What’s up with that?

You probably believe your criticisms of Darwinian theory somehow constitute evidence in favor of ID. The logic is rank.

 

[grannymh]

No, what was missing was accurate and informed reporting. Often journalists do not have the qualifications to completely understand the research. They are also under pressure to write a newsworthy and attention grabbing story. Nuanced and qualified conclusions do not lend themselves to headlines such as “Scientists debunk NDEs” for example.

We are both correct.

 

[rossum]

“I guess it’s too much to ask how living systems originate?”

Physical living systems originate through chemistry. Google for “abiogenesis”. There is a good recent summary here:New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins

I guess it’s too much to ask how supernatural living systems, such as God, originated?

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Physical living systems originate through chemistry. Google for “abiogenesis”. There is a good recent summary here:New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins

I guess it’s too much to ask how supernatural living systems, such as God, originated?

rossum

In school your teacher might have said there is no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree with that.

God did not originate.

Regarding abiogenesis, it seems that the earth’s environment is presently very “life friendly” so to speak. But we don’t see any instances of spontaneous generation. Why then, would the Earth have during its nasty, harsh environment days, billions of years ago, instances of spontaneous generation?

 

[reggieM]

No, I think it does throw a wrench in the gears of the common understanding, and it will be a source of controversy (for researchers interested in that topic, anyway). This happens all the time in research. It may be that peacock feathers are unrelated to mating preferences by the female, for all I know, but a study like this has to be resolved against the other research that’s been done, and other evidence that’s been made available from that. Those other experiments don’t just go “poof” when Takahashi, et al, gets published, right?

They can go poof by being considered an anomaly or “irrelevant” or simply by being ignored. This happens quite frequently and “scientific consensus” simply asserts that one view or the other is the “right” one. But even if they don’t disappear down the memory hole in this manner, then they merely stand as an unresolved contradiction. So, one or the other claim can be true, or both can be false. But contradictory claims cannot both be true (except in this particular field of study).

One thing we will not see is where the falsification of sexual selection as the mechanism for the development of peacock feathers, which leaves no alternative explanation, becomes a means to question the prior claims of evolutionary scientists – or the claims of evolutionary theory to explain all of nature itself. That never happens, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

First, even without further evidence to support it, there will be the claim that “eventually these views will be reconciled”. That’s a nice act of faith – or “Darwin of the gaps” at work. Or as you said, the controversy – admitted by the journal and the scientists – is only “apparent”. They just don’t know it yet. Again, that’s a claim unsupported by wishful thinking and not the evidence.

Another approach is to claim that sexual selection did actually cause peacock feathers to emerge but all of this happened a long time ago and it’s obsolete now (as the article states):

The trains, on the other hand, may just be obsolete signals at this point, they suggest.

Here we see another thing about “how science works”. There are no flaws in evolutionary theory that an active imagination cannot fix. When lacking actual evidence, evolutionary scientists struggle to find evidence in the recesses of their own imagination – and that usually works very well.

Peacock feathers “could have evolved” a long time ago, through natural selection and mutations based on a combination of factors which occured then, but don’t occur now.

Thus, this controversy is solved quite nicely. When all else fails, a speculation that sounds Darwinian is more than sufficient.

 

[grannymh]

They can go poof by being considered an anomaly or “irrelevant” or simply by being ignored. This happens quite frequently and “scientific consensus” simply asserts that one view or the other is the “right” one. But even if they don’t disappear down the memory hole in this manner, then they merely stand as an unresolved contradiction. So, one or the other claim can be true, or both can be false. But contradictory claims cannot both be true (except in this particular field of study).

One thing we will not see is where the falsification of sexual selection as the mechanism for the development of peacock feathers, which leaves no alternative explanation, becomes a means to question the prior claims of evolutionary scientists – or the claims of evolutionary theory to explain all of nature itself. That never happens, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

First, even without further evidence to support it, there will be the claim that “eventually these views will be reconciled”. That’s a nice act of faith – or “Darwin of the gaps” at work. Or as you said, the controversy – admitted by the journal and the scientists – is only “apparent”. They just don’t know it yet. Again, that’s a claim unsupported by wishful thinking and not the evidence.

Another approach is to claim that sexual selection did actually cause peacock feathers to emerge but all of this happened a long time ago and it’s obsolete now (as the article states):
The trains, on the other hand, may just be obsolete signals at this point, they suggest.
Here we see another thing about “how science works”. There are no flaws in evolutionary theory that an active imagination cannot fix. When lacking actual evidence, evolutionary scientists struggle to find evidence in the recesses of their own imagination – and that usually works very well.

Peacock feathers “could have evolved” a long time ago, through natural selection and mutations based on a combination of factors which occured then, but don’t occur now.

Thus, this controversy is solved quite nicely. When all else fails, a speculation that sounds Darwinian is more than sufficient.

So, is this what you meant when you said in post 506: “When two evolutionists arrive at opposite conclusions in studying the same subject, it’s an indication of the certainty and stability of the theory itself.”

In other words, could an analyst go back to any different theory about the human species and claim it is the better theory? Or claim that none of the theories make sense?

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, I picked up the concept that all studies needed to be verified by independent researchers other than the original, by being repeated with the same subjects, methods, and thesis. If there were still flat out contradictions between studies, the indication was that a third and different approach needed to be made.

How is evidence really analyzed independently?

 

[reggieM]

So, is this what you meant when you said in post 506: “When two evolutionists arrive at opposite conclusions in studying the same subject, it’s an indication of the certainty and stability of the theory itself.”

Yes, exactly right. There are three ways that evolutionary scientists deal with the contradictory-refuting evidence that emerges:

1. Ignore it
2. Claim that the contradictory views are actually reconciled
3. Claim that the contradictions strengthen the theory

So, if there’s only one claim “peacocks evolved by sexual selection”, that is not as good as having another claim like “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. That’s what we have here. This means that evolutionary theory is actually stronger now because scientists make conflicting claims, and therefore its much harder to prove the theory false.
Normally, people would expect that in order to validate the claims of a theory, the evidence observed needs to support the theory. But in the case of evolution, the important thing is that “evolutionary theory is true”, and then secondarily, “all evidence we find eventually will fit the theory somehow – even if it contradicts previous claims or falsifies predictions we made”. If the “eventually” doesn’t happen for a long time, it’s best to claim that “we don’t have enough data yet” or something like “the fossil record is imperfect” or even “this idea is supported by all scientists”. If it gets very uncomfortable to try to sustain contradictory notions, it’s best to ask something like, “then who designed the designer?” That helps to put the focus on the real problem – namely, the creationists who are threatening human society and must be eradicated.

In other words, could an analyst go back to any different theory about the human species and claim it is the better theory? Or claim that none of the theories make sense?

Yes, absolutely. The analysis is merely an historical interpretation. We can see, for example, when scholars “rethink” the identity of William Shakespeare or the history of the Templars or any number of historical events – that they can’t test the material directly. They look for some clues and then build a story.

I think you would benefit from reading the article that Buffalo posted here:

Did apes descend from us?

Man didn’t descend from apes. What is closer to the truth is that our knuckle-dragging cousins descended from us.
That’s one of the shocking new theories being drawn from a series of anthropology papers published Friday in a special edition of the journal Science.
Scientists say a 4.4-million-year-old fossil called Ardi – short for ardipithecus ramidus – is descended from the “missing link,” or the last common ancestor between humans and apes.
The 4-foot, 110-pound female’s skeleton and physiological characteristics bear a closer resemblance to modern-day humans than to contemporary apes, meaning they evolved from humanlike creatures – not the other way around.
The partial skeleton “is probably the most important find we have had yet,” says Owen Lovejoy, one of the primary authors on the journal package.

…“So the whole savannah theory (of walking) is now gone as well.”

more…

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, I picked up the concept that all studies needed to be verified by independent researchers other than the original, by being repeated with the same subjects, methods, and thesis. If there were still flat out contradictions between studies, the indication was that a third and different approach needed to be made.

How is evidence really analyzed independently?

You may be entirely correct about all of that and I’m afraid that I really don’t know the answer. Given the amount of contradictory claims found in evolutionary theory, I don’t think those scientists follow a process for resolving contradictions like that.

 

[Touchstone]

In school your teacher might have said there is no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree with that.

God did not originate.

Regarding abiogenesis, it seems that the earth’s environment is presently very “life friendly” so to speak. But we don’t see any instances of spontaneous generation. Why then, would the Earth have during its nasty, harsh environment days, billions of years ago, instances of spontaneous generation?

Any such developments here and now would be easy pray for the existing biota. The crude, rudimentary first organisms of 3 billion years ago were viable because there was no competition. They’d be wiped out in trivial fashion today, as they would have to compete in whatever environment they happened to arise in with organisms that have the benefit of being honed to a fine edge competitively over 3 billion years.

The new guy wouldn’t stand a chance, and we’d never see it get off the ground, except perhaps in the controlled conditions of a lab.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

So, is this what you meant when you said in post 506: “When two evolutionists arrive at opposite conclusions in studying the same subject, it’s an indication of the certainty and stability of the theory itself.”

In other words, could an analyst go back to any different theory about the human species and claim it is the better theory? Or claim that none of the theories make sense?

Sure. Conflicts and problems can occur at different places in the hierarchy of the theory; some falsifications would be problematic for the idea of common descent itself, in which case the whole of Darwin’s theory would be in jeopardy, or at least grievously wounded, other falsifications occur at the “capillary” level, overturning an interpretation about remote particulars that do not affect the integrity of the overall theory itself – a hypothesis about “eye spots” being influential in sexual selection, vs. “tail feather length” being a good example, either or both of them being potentially falsified, but replaceable with a better hypothesis that is better grounded in the evidence. There’s a lot of ways for evolution to skin a cat, and sexual selection is an area where an array of contributing factors is implicated, making the particulars very challenging to sort out, and preliminary hypotheses quite likely to fail.

If you think about falsifying evidence and evolution, it’s similar to using an axe on a tree; some applications of the axe trim off twigs, where a new, better replacement might grow, and the tree stands as tall and wide as ever. Other swings may prune off a substantial part of the tree, reshaping it in a single blow.

Other problems go right to the root of the theory itself, and if upheld, would bring the whole tree crashing down. So when you ask if that can happen, the answer is “yes”, but the ramifications are dependent on where the problems arise.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, I picked up the concept that all studies needed to be verified by independent researchers other than the original, by being repeated with the same subjects, methods, and thesis. If there were still flat out contradictions between studies, the indication was that a third and different approach needed to be made.

How is evidence really analyzed independently?

That’s still a driving principle. There are always practical limitations that obtain, though – in this case, Takahashi et al ran their experiment over 7 years, so a repeat of the same experiment would take another seven years to complete. In many cases, that is worthwhile, but there is always a cost/benefit tradeoff to consider, and the comments from Petrie and Loyau support “reconfirmation”, but recommend what they see as an improved methodology in subsequent experiments. They are very professional and polite, but the net-net of their analysis there is that Takahashi et al’s experiment need not be cast in doubt at all, but rather understood to be methodologically problematic.

That means the problem is NOT in believing the results. What is problematic is what got tested and how. Rerunning that experiment just recapitulates those errors, and the knowledge-profitable investment is thus aimed at new experimentation that has a more rigorous method that will actual avoid the low-skew problems (and others) that burdened the Takahashi study.

If you remember the controversy over cold fusion some years back, though, that is a good example of where other scientists called “bull” on the research claimed, and went about doing just what you are thinking about – trying to replicate the claimed results according to an exact replication of the claimed method and procedure. Such efforts failed spectacularly, leading to the consensus that the original claims were fraudulent or otherwise bogus.

-TS

 

[grannymh]

Yes, exactly right. There are three ways that evolutionary scientists deal with the contradictory-refuting evidence that emerges:

1. Ignore it
2. Claim that the contradictory views are actually reconciled
3. Claim that the contradictions strengthen the theory

So, if there’s only one claim “peacocks evolved by sexual selection”, that is not as good as having another claim like “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. That’s what we have here. This means that evolutionary theory is actually stronger now because scientists make conflicting claims, and therefore its much harder to prove the theory false.
Normally, people would expect that in order to validate the claims of a theory, the evidence observed needs to support the theory. But in the case of evolution, the important thing is that “evolutionary theory is true”, and then secondarily, “all evidence we find eventually will fit the theory somehow – even if it contradicts previous claims or falsifies predictions we made”. If the “eventually” doesn’t happen for a long time, it’s best to claim that “we don’t have enough data yet” or something like “the fossil record is imperfect” or even “this idea is supported by all scientists”. If it gets very uncomfortable to try to sustain contradictory notions, it’s best to ask something like, “then who designed the designer?” That helps to put the focus on the real problem – namely, the creationists who are threatening human society and must be eradicated.

Yes, absolutely. The analysis is merely an historical interpretation. We can see, for example, when scholars “rethink” the identity of William Shakespeare or the history of the Templars or any number of historical events – that they can’t test the material directly. They look for some clues and then build a story.

I think you would benefit from reading the article that Buffalo posted here:

You may be entirely correct about all of that and I’m afraid that I really don’t know the answer. Given the amount of contradictory claims found in evolutionary theory, I don’t think those scientists follow a process for resolving contradictions like that.

Thanks.

I briefly looked at the article posted by Buffalo and will check out the thread. I leave for a few weeks and the mice do play while the cat is away. Coincidentally, I came across some ideas that true humans were around before the pre-humans. Since I have not checked into this bit of info, I will not post it.

I did notice an item about searching for ancestors at the end of the article posted by Buffalo. I wonder if cousin chilly chimp is listed.

 

[edwest2]

Physical living systems originate through chemistry. Google for “abiogenesis”. There is a good recent summary here:New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins

I guess it’s too much to ask how supernatural living systems, such as God, originated?

rossum

I now have confirmation that life arises spontaneously through chemical reactions. It makes itself more complex and eventually produces chemical robots called human beings. Yet scientists cannot put chemicals in a jar, shake it and end up with floating pieces of life. I’m going to pass on this concept because I don’t think such an idea is worthy of a comic book story.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

God did not originate.

I am Buddhist. All the gods originated.

Regarding abiogenesis, it seems that the earth’s environment is presently very “life friendly” so to speak. But we don’t see any instances of spontaneous generation.

The earth’s environment is “very friendly” to life that has evolved in that environment. Life forms that require large quantities of free methane do not spread well in a methane-free environment. The modern environment is extremely hostile to most early life forms, which originated and evolved in an environment with essentially no free oxygen. Once photosynthesis evolved and free oxygen appeared a lot of species went extinct. See the Oxygen catastrophe. The surviving life either managed to find ways to avoid oxygen or found ways to be able to metabolise oxygen. We belong to the second group.

Why then, would the Earth have during its nasty, harsh environment days, billions of years ago, instances of spontaneous generation?

The early environment was not “nasty” or “harsh” to the organisms that had evolved to live in it. We would find it fatal because we need oxygen. Those organisms would find our environment fatal because to them oxygen was a poison. All organisms evolve to adapt to the environment they are living in.

Free oxygen is extremely reactive and tends to react with - oxidise - anything that it comes in contact with. The chemistry of the early earth was very different and more amenable to the origin of life. The Miller-Urey experiment, and its many successors, all model an anoxic atmosphere with a different chemistry to our current atmosphere.

There is also first mover effect. Any prebiotic chemicals that do manage to appear in contemporary anoxic environments will quickly be taken up as food by the anaerobic bacteria living in those environments. They will not be able to react further so as to originate new life.

rossum

 

[Touchstone]

Yes, exactly right. There are three ways that evolutionary scientists deal with the contradictory-refuting evidence that emerges:

1. Ignore it
2. Claim that the contradictory views are actually reconciled
3. Claim that the contradictions strengthen the theory

You forgot:

1. Deploy the black helicopters and thought-crime detectors to find all infidels
2. Arrest dissidents and spirit them away to the secret Illuminati gulags.
3. Deploy Mass Neuralyzer on the rest of the faithful via MSNBC broadcasts to keep the sheep in line.

Once you go down the conspiracy theorist’s trail, no one can talk you down, as all efforts to help will just be seen as part of the conspiracy.

So, if there’s only one claim “peacocks evolved by sexual selection”, that is not as good as having another claim like “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. That’s what we have here. This means that evolutionary theory is actually stronger now because scientists make conflicting claims, and therefore its much harder to prove the theory false.
Well, in the case you brought up, the title (and conclusion) of the Takahashi, et al, was “Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains”. This is NOT equivalent to “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. Takahashi et al in their paper understand this in terms of sexual selection dynamics, some of which have become obsolete:

We propose that the peacock’s train is an obsolete signal for which female preference has already been lost or weakened, but which has none the less been maintained up to the present because it is required as a threshold cue to achieve stimulatory levels in females before mating and/or it is maintained as an unreliable cue…

(my emphasis)

So the controversy obtains over the particulars of the tail – see my comments above concerning eye spots on the tail vs. other features which Takahashi et al were analyzing – not whether the origin of the tail is called into question as a feature of sexual selection dynamics, even by Takahashi, et al. If Takahashi et al are correct, these features have become “priced in”, obsolete long ago as distinguishing features, and now serve as thresholds only, giving way to other factors as the primary influence in sexual selection.

Normally, people would expect that in order to validate the claims of a theory, the evidence observed needs to support the theory.

What do you think Petrie, Loyau and the others who’ve got published research in the literature on this did? What do you make of Petrie’s findings?

But in the case of evolution, the important thing is that “evolutionary theory is true”, and then secondarily, “all evidence we find eventually will fit the theory somehow – even if it contradicts previous claims or falsifies predictions we made”.

Ah yes, the “black helicopter” explanation. Let me get my Neuralizer™…

If the “eventually” doesn’t happen for a long time, it’s best to claim that “we don’t have enough data yet” or something like “the fossil record is imperfect” or even “this idea is supported by all scientists”. If it gets very uncomfortable to try to sustain contradictory notions, it’s best to ask something like, “then who designed the designer?” That helps to put the focus on the real problem – namely, the creationists who are threatening human society and must be eradicated.

I think that’s quite a narcissistic view. Science has an interest in making sure that some semblance of intellectual integrity if maintained in school curricula as a way of keeping science going into the future, but beyond that, creationism is just background noise. There’s no imperative to eradicate them or even bother with them because they are irrelevant to the ongoing project of investigation. To suppose that a global conspiracy is spun up and run just to fool or thwart you and fellow creationists is making yourselves out to be a lot more central to all this than you are.

-TS

 

[rossum]

I now have confirmation that life arises spontaneously through chemical reactions.

Excellent. We are agreed.

It makes itself more complex and eventually produces chemical robots called human beings.

It evolves towards complexity. You will need to define “robot” more closely. In many science fiction stories the robots are self-conscious and self-motivated.

Yet scientists cannot put chemicals in a jar, shake it and end up with floating pieces of life.

In principle scientists can indeed do that. In practice it is more difficult because the jar has to be the size of a planet and the experiment has to run for around 500 million years. I can spend one minute watching a blade of grass. Just because I observe no growth during that minute does not mean that grass does not grow.

I’m going to pass on this concept because I don’t think such an idea is worthy of a comic book story.

Your personal incredulity carries no scientific weight. Spend a few weeks observing and measuring blades of grass and you might come to a different conclusion.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

That means the problem is NOT in believing the results. What is problematic is what got tested and how.

-TS

Excuse me. But the above is a “both / and” situation. Problematic methods do result in problems regarding the belief of results. Nevertheless, I did appreciate the post for its general information. Thank you.

 

[Touchstone]

Excuse me. But the above is a “both / and” situation. Problematic methods do result in problems regarding the belief of results. Nevertheless, I did appreciate the entire post for its general information. Thank you.

Do you suppose the critics are doubting the results as they are reported by Takahashi, et al, then? I can’t even find a hint of suspicion in the critique that fits that.

As for “problematic methods”, welcome to science. Experimental design is the “heavy lifting” of science, or a close second to the incredible difficult of securing funding in the first place (and the two are related). If you actually go sit in the office of your favorite local university researcher and ask her about “contradictory findings”, you are going to receive an allowance that actual “overturnings” can and do happen and that this is a great thing about science. But the emphasis will be placed on the problems and analysis of experimental methodology; one of the reasons meta-analysis is so important, and so tricky is because “normalizing” the evidence and conclusions of the various research efforts is a nuanced, complex business.

One effect of that is that yes, it’s hard for the lay masses to appreciate these complexities (see this thread in the last couple pages!), and that itself makes trust in the system difficult; it’s hard to trust because it’s opaque at a retail level, and it takes a lot of effort to sort out the dynamics of even such a small issue as peacock trains. It’s a hard fact of reality – science is a complex enterprise and the the devil is in the details. That’s an obstacle for people who are hoping to engage it on “simple” level.

You’ve obviously done enough investigation on your own now to appreciate this, right?

-TS

 

[grannymh]

[Touchstone;5839543]
You forgot:

1. Deploy the black helicopters and thought-crime detectors to find all infidels
2. Arrest dissidents and spirit them away to the secret Illuminati gulags.
3. Deploy Mass Neuralyzer on the rest of the faithful via MSNBC broadcasts to keep the sheep in line.

So, if there’s only one claim “peacocks evolved by sexual selection”, that is not as good as having another claim like “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. That’s what we have here. This means that evolutionary theory is actually stronger now because scientists make conflicting claims, and therefore its much harder to prove the theory false.

Well, in the case you brought up, the title (and conclusion) of the Takahashi, et al, was “Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains”. This is NOT equivalent to “peacocks did not evolve by sexual selection”. Takahashi et al in their paper understand this in terms of sexual selection dynamics, some of which have become obsolete:

(my emphasis)

So the controversy obtains over the particulars of the tail – see my comments above concerning eye spots on the tail vs. other features which Takahashi et al were analyzing – not whether the origin of the tail is called into question as a feature of sexual selection dynamics, even by Takahashi, et al. If Takahashi et al are correct, these features have become “priced in”, obsolete long ago as distinguishing features, and now serve as thresholds only, giving way to other factors as the primary influence in sexual selection.

What do you think Petrie, Loyau and the others who’ve got published research in the literature on this did? What do you make of Petrie’s findings?

Ah yes, the “black helicopter” explanation. Let me get my Neuralizer™…

I think that’s quite a narcissistic view. Science has an interest in making sure that some semblance of intellectual integrity if maintained in school curricula as a way of keeping science going into the future, but beyond that, creationism is just background noise. There’s no imperative to eradicate them or even bother with them because they are irrelevant to the ongoing project of investigation. To suppose that a global conspiracy is spun up and run just to fool or thwart you and fellow creationists is making yourselves out to be a lot more central to all this than you are.

-TS

Most posters realize that I am neither a creationist nor an ID proponent but rather a “free spirit” who values evoultion. As an indiviudal I am free (because of my human nature) to use tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought regarding any and all scientific theories no matter who is proposing the theories and who is opposing.
While I do have my own thesis, and have stated it, I use the best of posts regardless of who posted and have collected opinions/research from people whose first qualification is their knowledge and not their world view.

The posts of Reggie and others do contain pertinent information. And I am grateful for their patience with my persistent questioning. I do need to point out that your “Deploy the black helicopters” etc. is the non sequitur of all non sequiturs. In my humble opinion, it is not a worthy response.

 

[reggieM]

I think that’s quite a narcissistic view. Science has an interest in making sure that some semblance of intellectual integrity if maintained in school curricula as a way of keeping science going into the future,…

As a person who here claims to speak for “science”, I don’t think you’re in the best position to criticize me for having a narcissistic view – especially since I can’t detect that you have any qualifications as a biologist or as a philosopher of science – or as the person who should proclaim what science does or doesn’t do.

As for conspiracy theories – here you suggest that there is some possiblity that science will not keep “going into the future” if we don’t do things the way certain people want them done.

 

[Touchstone]

As a person who here claims to speak for “science”, I don’t think you’re in the best position to criticize me for having a narcissistic view – especially since I can’t detect that you have any qualifications as a biologist or as a philosopher of science – or as the person who should proclaim what science does or doesn’t do.

I’m not a biologist or a philosopher of science, and haven’t claimed to be. I don’t think the system is geared around me, or some pervasive conspiracy to thwart my ideas, which is what I detect in your posts, that science isn’t pursuing knowledge and performance as goals in themselves, but is somehow oriented around a plot to confound and thwart creationists at all costs – making the whole thing “about you”, a mission so important scientists must go to all and any lengths to defeat creationists.

As for conspiracy theories – here you suggest that there is some possiblity that science will not keep “going into the future” if we don’t do things the way certain people want them done.

I don’t think science is in any danger of going away. But it certainly is hindered by the prevalence of the creationist mindset. And there’s no need to even worry about any conspiracy – there’s whole lot of organized, open animosity to science based on methodological naturalism. Creationists are out there in great numbers, and no surreptitious or “hidden” plans or secret controls need be posited; they just don’t want the results of methodological naturalism taught to their kids because they find that at odds with their theological convictions, and they make no bones about saying so.

-TS