Interesting discussion from Steven Jones on leaving the

[Joe Meert]

ID movement:


From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@i...>
Date: Tue May 18, 2004 10:08 am
Subject: Re: I have felt I have had to leave the ID movement due to my advocacy of common ancestry



Group

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having
become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

While the ID movement's *official* position is that "intelligent design is
compatible with ... God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one
great tree of life":

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution
debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything
from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every
conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging
evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into
one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is
not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a
vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms
demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being
intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit
such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation."
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science
and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999,
pp.109-110)

in fact ID's *real* position is that of the later Phil Johnson (see tagline),
which is still heavily influenced by Biblical literalism, the earlier Phil
Johnson himself in 1993 claiming that "The `evolution of human beings from
apes' is not an unacceptable hypothesis for me":


Phil is simply *wrong* all through this. I (for one) am not a
materialist or an evolutionist (and nor is Mike Behe) and I accept
common ancestry on the basis of the *evidence*.
However, as I also wrote:

"I am not bitter, more *relieved*. I will not go out of my way to
attack the ID movement (and I still believe in the work of Bill
Dembski and Mike Behe), and of course in *design*, but where I
consider that ID merits criticism, e.g. in its claim not to be
influenced by Biblical literalism, but denying common ancestry
primarily on those grounds) I will feel free to make it.

I will continue to pray for the ID movement, as I continue to
pray for the ICR and AIG, in its struggle against materialism-
naturalism, the *real* enemy."

[Aineo]

Admiral Valdemar, this is a family forum and any euphemisms like the one you used are inappropriate. If you have to go to the gutter to make a point you will be doing it on another board.

Joe, if there is one thing that will push me and some others towards ID it is the vehemence with which you and others oppose a concept without addressing what their science has revealed since it is science that is important not yours and other personal opinions of men who see their faith substantiated by science.

This is one man's opinion and as he states he has not rejected ID, he simply has removed himself from a "movement" or a "group" who see ID as a validation of their faith.

I will continue to pray for the ID movement, as I continue to pray for the ICR and AIG, in its struggle against materialism-naturalism, the *real* enemy."

You can choose what you want out of this; but so can I; and I see that Stephen E. Jones recognizes that the prime movement behind Darwinism is not science but "materialism-naturalism" dressed up as science.

[Yehren]

Obviously, Jones is fed up with the religious motivation of the ID movement, but still sees some kind of hope for ID as a real scientific theory.

Maybe so. Leaving religious objections to science behind, that's a good first step.

The next step is to find a phenomenon to fit the theory, and to establish that ID can do something useful.

That's going to be the big one. It doesn't look good right now.

[The Puppetmaster]

I have often wondered what makes ID so special in the eyes of those who seem to find little worth in the Creationism movement, even when ID is essentially a reimagining of the same philosophy.

Could this be ID, a supposed theory, in crisis?

[Aineo]

I have often wondered what makes ID so special in the eyes of those who seem to find little worth in the Creationism movement, even when ID is essentially a reimagining of the same philosophy.

Could this be ID, a supposed theory, in crisis?

ID is far from a reimagining of Creationism, which holds to a literal 6 24-hour day creation.

It seems ID is a thorn in the side of some or you would simply ignore it and let those who see intellegent design go about their business.

People, even scientists fear what threatens the status quo.

[The Puppetmaster]

ID is far from a reimagining of Creationism, which holds to a literal 6 24-hour day creation.

It seems ID is a thorn in the side of some or you would simply ignore it and let those who see intellegent design go about their business.

People, even scientists fear what threatens the status quo.

Be that as it may, what use does adding an additional factor into an already complex system do to lend credence to the theory? An unexplained variable is a redundant variable and ID is a subscriber to this idea.

If this additional factor is not a deity, is it an otherwise alien entity that helped create mankind and, potentially, the universe?

I think you fail to realise that ID does not explain anything, it merely rewords the Creationist story into a less religious context and allows it to be more appetising to those who doubt evolution, yet cannot follow a faith.

Can you provide me with a list of the core scientific hypotheses and aims to proving them?

[Aineo]

The day science can explain what came before the Big Bang then science will have a foundation to disagree with ID. Until then I think real science is more important than denigrating remarks aimed at those who threaten the status quo.

If you disagree with the science of ID and not the concept of ID then fine debate the science, not personalities.

[The Puppetmaster]

The day science can explain what came before the Big Bang then science will have a foundation to disagree with ID. Until then I think real science is more important than denigrating remarks aimed at those who threaten the status quo.

If you disagree with the science of ID and not the concept of ID then fine debate the science, not personalities.

Again, I reiterate, what are the scientific principles of ID?

[Aineo]

The day science can explain what came before the Big Bang then science will have a foundation to disagree with ID. Until then I think real science is more important than denigrating remarks aimed at those who threaten the status quo.

If you disagree with the science of ID and not the concept of ID then fine debate the science, not personalities.

Again, I reiterate, what are the scientific principles of ID?

What are the scientific principles of science? Evidence leads to a conclusion is what I thought science was concerned with. Now if you disagree with scientists that are identified as ID address why their conclusions are false, and without dealing in non-scientific concepts like the socio-political agenda of a pushing a concept like matirialistic-naturalism done the throats of the general public dressed in scientific dress.

[The Puppetmaster]

What are the scientific principles of science? Evidence leads to a conclusion is what I thought science was concerned with. Now if you disagree with scientists that are identified as ID address why their conclusions are false, and without dealing in non-scientific concepts like the socio-political agenda of a pushing a concept like matirialistic-naturalism done the throats of the general public dressed in scientific dress.

It is a simple question. What is the theory commonly accepted that explains how we came about as per the ID platform?

As to the scientific principles of science, how do you mean? Science works on the concept of forming a hypthesis, doing experimentation to see whether the hypothesis holds or not and then drawing conclusions as to what ramifications this has for the initial idea. For example, if I observe that bees go to a certain flower, I can hypthesize that they go to many other types of flowers to gather pollen also and then run experiments to back-up this claim. Should the bees not go to other flowers, then my hypothesis was wrong and further experimentation can be done into why they only go to a specific flower plant.

[Aineo]

My response was as equally simple. Address the science and not the concept. Now either you can or you cannot address the science of ID advocates.

With few exceptions your recent members are dealing more in personalities and generalities than science now are you scientists or philosophers? If you are philosophizing then you are in the wrong forum.

[The Puppetmaster]

My response was as equally simple. Address the science and not the concept. Now either you can or you cannot address the science of ID advocates.

With few exceptions your recent members are dealing more in personalities and generalities than science now are you scientists or philosophers? If you are philosophizing then you are in the wrong forum.

I have asked for some examples of this science, and yet you are unwilling to comply. I cannot "address the science" if no one proposes anything.

And if you must know, science and philosophy go hand in hand for the most part.

[Aineo]

I have asked for some examples of this science, and yet you are unwilling to comply. I cannot "address the science" if no one proposes anything.

And if you must know, science and philosophy go hand in hand for the most part.

I have listed several ID scientists from several disciplines. So I have answered your requests now you can address their science and why their science is in fact wrong in pointint to intelligent design.

As it happens I understand that philosophy and science are related since the father of science is philosophy. However, socio-political agenda's are non-scientific and so far most of you have chosen to address personalities and vague concepts without addressing specifics.

[The Puppetmaster]

I have listed several ID scientists from several disciplines. So I have answered your requests now you can address their science and why their science is in fact wrong in pointint to intelligent design.

I would expect you to know the underlying principles behind ID. A list of names is not science.

As it happens I understand that philosophy and science are related since the father of science is philosophy. However, socio-political agenda's are non-scientific and so far most of you have chosen to address personalities and vague concepts without addressing specifics.

Where have I addressed personalities?

[Aineo]

I posted "personalities and vague concepts" why did you pick up only on "personalities"? The fact is others who recently joined this board have chosen to deal in personalities.

If you have not dealt in personalities then you are not guilty of this are you?

[The Puppetmaster]

:D I posted "personalities and vague concepts" why did you pick up only on "personalities"? The fact is others who recently joined this board have chosen to deal in personalities.

If you have not dealt in personalities then you are not guilty of this are you?

No, I just found it an interesting statement that some would come and rather attack personalities rather than science. Though in the end, motive plays as much a part in this scheme as science and we are not all above finding certain things about the opposing side's ideals and questioning them.

[Aineo]

Rejecting science based on a man's faith is dealing in personalities. If an atheist were to come to this board and argue that evolution is reality only because he is an atheist then his agenda is suspect. However if a member debates the validity of evolution and keeps his faith a private matter then his agenda is not suspect. The same is true of those who oppose ID based only on the fact those who support ID are Christian or members of some other faith.

The issue is not ID the issue is what their research has revealed concerning the universe we live in. Does our universe demonstrate intelligent design or did we simply luck out and the universe and our planet in particular evolved from chaos to stability?

[The Puppetmaster]

Rejecting science based on a man's faith is dealing in personalities. If an atheist were to come to this board and argue that evolution is reality only because he is an atheist then his agenda is suspect. However if a member debates the validity of evolution and keeps his faith a private matter then his agenda is not suspect. The same is true of those who oppose ID based only on the fact those who support ID are Christian or members of some other faith.

The issue is not ID the issue is what their research has revealed concerning the universe we live in. Does our universe demonstrate intelligent design or did we simply luck out and the universe and our planet in particular evolved from chaos to stability?

I concur. Science has never made faith a target for its own PR campaign, to think that is to ignore the many scientists who have a faith. If the community treats a certain movement with caution, it is not because it challenges the status quo nor is it because that side may be from a major religion. It is because their science is suspect and remains to be effectively shown. While it can be argued that anything that attacks well supported scientific principles will get more heat than less concrete theories, it does not mean more validity is given to the one who questions the current climate.

In other words, I dislike the way some people suggest the science community is dismissing Creationism and ID as unscientific simply because of its background. Creationism relies on a supernatural event and entity that have no basis in reality thus far and Intelligent Design has merely hijacked science and added the questionable tag of whether all we see was the product of a sapient being and not physical forces (the latter again fails to address how this entity came into being and other notable features).

[Aineo]

However, when I posted 5 ID scientists Joe Meert's knee jerk reaction was to attach the people based on their faith without a single reference to the validity or lack thereof of their science.

On TV programs where creationists are brought up the only reaction you get from evolutionists is denegrating remarks concerning the reason people believe in creation without a single word addressing the science behind what creationists believe.

Have you read The Priveleged Planet? The authors are ID but there credentials are impeccable. So what do most none ID scientists do when this book is mentioned? The go after the men and their faith without a word addressed to the specifics of astronomy and the research behind the book.

If science is blind to the faith of the scientists why do none ID scientists always seem to ignore the implications of scientific research and denigrate the authors or why do many none ID scientists seem to concentrate on the faith of the scientists?

Does our universe indicate intelligent design? There are atheists who would agree that their does seem to be an element of design in our universe. So faith has nothing to do with the concept of ID.

[Joe Meert]

However, when I posted 5 ID scientists Joe Meert's knee jerk reaction was to attach the people based on their faith without a single reference to the validity or lack thereof of their science.

JM: I simply pointed out (no knee jerk happened) that their embracing of ID had religious overtones which was my original point. As I also pointed out not a single one of the people you listed has a scientific publication on ID. I can't criticize or evaluate something that is non-existent.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Well Joe since none of the men I referred to has a single published article on ID your bringing up their faith is nothing more than an attempt to denigrate the men and obfuscate truth.

[Aineo]

BTW, where did you get the email you used to start this thread? Is it a private communication not intended for publication?

[Joe Meert]

Well Joe since none of the men I referred to has a single published article on ID your bringing up their faith is nothing more than an attempt to denigrate the men and obfuscate truth.

JM: No, it's not denigrating them. They have faith and so do I. Faith is a good thing. Some of the men on your list are also good scientists and they have published extensively in their specific scientific fields in top journals. That is not denigrating them either. My point was merely to show that their thinking on the matter of ID is faith-based and not scientific as you have tacitly acknowledged by admitting that they have not published on ID in the scientific literature.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

BTW, where did you get the email you used to start this thread? Is it a private communication not intended for publication?

JM: It's freely available on the web via google. Steve Jones has also published a FAQ page about it on the web available through a google search.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Tell me Joe would you reject out of hand any scientific discoveries or teachings of any scientist based solely on their personal belief in or rejection of a supreme being?

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/cdagenda.htm

It seems Darwin and his closest associates had a socio-political agenda you choose to ignore.

[Joe Meert]

[quote="Aineo"]Tell me Joe would you reject out of hand any scientific discoveries or teachings of any scientist based solely on their personal belief in or rejection of a supreme being?[quote]

JM: I keep telling you that I do not reject out of hand those discoveries or I would have to reject my own. What I DO reject is the notion that ID has a scientific basis. As you have noted, there are no scientific publications on ID in the refereed scientific literature. I also note the very plain statements made by many in the ID movement that ID is a religiously based concept. There simply has not been any science to ID (As of yet). That does not mean that ID is dead in the water, it means that the ID'ers need to get out of the courts and the school board meetings and back to the lab to provide evidence for their statement.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

ID is a method of research so your argument that ID lacks a scientific basis is ludicrous and nothing more than an attempt to use your personal prejudice to oppose what you see as a socio-political agenda that counters the socio-political agenda of atheists and is an attempt to obfuscate the issues.

By there own words some of the scientists who are considered the "fathers" of some scientific disciplines also had an agenda that was based on harted of religion. So you are in effect being illogical in your position. A person's faith cannot change science; a person's methods of research that are scientifically sound have nothing to do with conclusions backed up by research.

[Yehren]

ID is a method of research

I think even IDers like Dembski admit that it is not a method of research. Can you think of even one discovery made by ID methods, that aren't part of the usual scientific method?

[Aineo]

ID is a method of research

I think even IDers like Dembski admit that it is not a method of research. Can you think of even one discovery made by ID methods, that aren't part of the usual scientific method?

Newton's Laws of Motion, Galileo, Pasteur, and a long list of others who saw their research as confirming God's creation. It was only after the mid 1800's that anti-religious forces attempted to remove faith or ID from science.

Scientific truth has absolutely nothing to do with faith, however Darwin used his anti-religion bias to formulate his theory and that Yehren can be verified by his personal writings. The same can be said for those today who use the courts and our Constitution to fight any hint of ID from being included in textbooks, while at the same time promoting an atheistic worldview.

[Yehren]

Newton's Laws of Motion, Galileo, Pasteur, and a long list of others who saw their research as confirming God's creation. It was only after the mid 1800's that anti-religious forces attempted to remove faith or ID from science.

I've looked carefully through their science, and none of it has a trace of creationism or ID in it. Which is understandable, since YE creationism was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the 1900s, and ID is a very recent doctrine.

You did know that Newton rejected the divinity of Jesus, did you not?

Scientific truth has absolutely nothing to do with faith, however Darwin used his anti-religion bias to formulate his theory and that Yehren can be verified by his personal writings.

I haven't seen it. Everything he wrote at the time he wrote his book has been pro-God. He even credited the origin of life to God. He wasn't always pro-preacher, but preachers aren't God.

I don't mean to criticize Adventists otherwise, BTW; I don't agree with a great deal of what they believe, but in my experience, many of them are models of Christian behavior.

[Aineo]

Yehren, why not simply accept the fact that prejudice and bigotry is the basis of your opposition to ID and cease trying to insult my intelligence? Prior to the mid 1800's a scientist did not find it necessary to even mention their faith.

Science has nothing to do with faith of lack thereof, however the conclusions one can draw from science can be used to show ID.

ID is not a science in spite of all the hysteria you non-ID proponants are advocating. And yes, your opposition is based on personal prejudice and has no scientific basis.

[Joe Meert]

ID is a method of research so your argument that ID lacks a scientific basis is ludicrous and nothing more than an attempt to use your personal prejudice to oppose what you see as a socio-political agenda that counters the socio-political agenda of atheists and is an attempt to obfuscate the issues.

JM: Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute acknowledged last year that ID is not yet science. He remarked that it could/should be taught in religion or philosophy classes, but is not yet science. Nelson is one of the big names at the Discovery Institute.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Tiggy]

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 06:38 pm by Aineo

I have listed several ID scientists from several disciplines. So I have answered your requests now you can address their science and why their science is in fact wrong in pointing to intelligent design.

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:13 pm by Aineo

Well Joe since none of the men I referred to has a single published article on ID your bringing up their faith is nothing more than an attempt to denigrate the men and obfuscate truth.

Just curious – how can we address the science of the IDists you named when you admit that not a single one has published on the topic?

Tiggy

[Yehren]

Yehren, why not simply accept the fact that prejudice and bigotry is the basis of your opposition to ID and cease trying to insult my intelligence?

Because it's not true. I certainly am not trying to insult your intelligence. But you have to understand that sometimes people aren't going to agree with you. I have to say that I do find being accused of bigotry to be insulting. We can do better than that.

Prior to the mid 1800's a scientist did not find it necessary to even mention their faith.

Many of them did. I can think of a good number, Darwin among them.

Science has nothing to do with faith of lack thereof, however the conclusions one can draw from science can be used to show ID.

Going back to ideas instead of personalities is a good idea. Tell me about the evidence for ID.

ID is not a science in spite of all the hysteria you non-ID proponants are advocating.

Most scientists agree with you on that. Very few would consider ID to be science.

And yes, your opposition is based on personal prejudice and has no scientific basis.

I guess sometimes, we never know we are prejudiced. But perhaps some evidence for ID could settle that. Tell us about it.

You know, it was never my intention to rile you or to make you say anything intemperate. I am sorry that's what happened. I believe that it might be best for both of us to take a couple of days away from the conversation.

I'll check back this weekend after it's cooled off a little.

[Aineo]

First of all Joe I could care less if ID advocates have published in science journals and if you would be honest with us neither do you. The fact is ID scientists have published books and articles that have been commented on in scientific journals. So you are begging the question.

Second, just because one man says something you want to hear does not make it true. Also why should I take your word that Paul Nelson said what you say he said.

Third, if all you new members are going to do is harp on ID and there supposed socio-political agenda while be hypocritical and ignoring the socio-political agenda of Darwin and Lylle then you have shown use that your opposition to a method used in science in nothing more than arrogance, pride, and hypocrisy.

Yehren, Darwin was not a Christian and if you think he was then you need to read his biography and notes his letters. Like I said don't insult my intelligence.

[The Puppetmaster]

First of all Joe I could care less if ID advocates have published in science journals and if you would be honest with us neither do you. The fact is ID scientists have published books and articles that have been commented on in scientific journals. So you are begging the question.

In other words, they have not published peer reviewed articles and therefore are not worthy of any real time given anyone can publish a book or website.

Second, just because one man says something you want to hear does not make it true. Also why should I take your word that Paul Nelson said what you say he said.

Third, if all you new members are going to do is harp on ID and there supposed socio-political agenda while be hypocritical and ignoring the socio-political agenda of Darwin and Lylle then you have shown use that your opposition to a method used in science in nothing more than arrogance, pride, and hypocrisy.

Yehren, Darwin was not a Christian and if you think he was then you need to read his biography and notes his letters. Like I said don't insult my intelligence.

What is this agenda Darwin et al purported? I believe a scientific theory does not warrant an agenda.

[Aineo]

I will let you play the fool this once since I have posted this on a thread I know you have read:

Darwin's Hidden Agenda for Science.

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/cdagenda.htm

If you have not read Darwin's autobiography I suggest you do so since you can confirm the above in his own words.

[Joe Meert]

Well Joe since none of the men I referred to has a single published article on ID your bringing up their faith is nothing more than an attempt to denigrate the men and obfuscate truth.

JM: Wrong again! It's STRCITLY because they have not published any scientific articles that I have to look elsewhere for their motivation to push ID as a socio-political agenda. What I've discovered is that there is an overtly religious overtone to all their discussion of ID. There is nothing denigrating about faith. We agree on the fact that they have not published anything in the scientific journals germane to ID so I can't be obfuscating the truth. We know from their statements that there is a religious basis for their embrace of ID so that can't be obfuscating any truth. However, let me make sure I understand your position. Is it your contention that there is no socio-political-theocratic basis for people like Behe, Dembski, Johnson and Wells pushing ID?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Is it your contention that there is no socio-political-theocratic basis for people like Behe, Dembski, Johnson and Wells pushing ID?

Is it your contention that Darwin, Lylle, and Huxley did not have a socio-political-atheists basis for their "science"? You have an agenda that is not based on good science so should I disregard your "science" based on your agenda?

If you are afraid to discuss Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and Wells scientific disciplines through what they have published that is your problem. It is only because of your hypocritical and elitist arrogance that you hide behind the fact you say these men have not been peer reviewed.

Now either discuss what Behe, Embski, Hohnson, and Wells have published or refrain from posting your idiotic self-seving philosophy on this forum.

[justforfun000]

Lord, just get to the EVIDENCE already!!

Joe, yes we get the point. Of course creationists have a socio-political agenda. Maybe evolutionists do too. Fine. I've seen that word repeated 50 times since you joined the threads.

Now show that you know what you are talking about by posting some creationist ID literature that claims to be equivalent to peer-reviewed scientific theories, and then REFUTE them.

Pointing out the socio-political agenda is an interesting sidebar, but it's still an Appeal to Motivation Fallacy. It doesn't in itself make the Creationists wrong.

In this case, the people here believe in Creation. Most probably don't have the full explanations harmonizing OR contradicting between the opposing theories. So since you are the person involved in science as a profession, AND you are here to show their belief in Creationism is wrong, then bring forth the assertions it gives and rebut them with your side.

That's all they are asking you. Stop harping on the motivation and get to the nitty-gritty.

[Joe Meert]

Lord, just get to the EVIDENCE already!!

JM: THe problem is simple, the scientific evidence for ID does not exist.

Joe, yes we get the point. Of course creationists have a socio-political agenda. Maybe evolutionists do too. Fine. I've seen that word repeated 50 times since you joined the threads.

JM: I'm glad you get the point. I would not repeat it 50 times if it was clear that everyone I was discussing it with got the point.

Now show that you know what you are talking about by posting some creationist ID literature that claims to be equivalent to peer-reviewed scientific theories, and then REFUTE them.

JM: The body of literature on ID does not exist in the scientific literature and thus they deserve no special comment or respect. However, I posted a link to some comments on Behe and ID in general and gave a link. I was told that this site is not supposed to be used in that way so google my name and ID to see my comments.

Pointing out the socio-political agenda is an interesting sidebar, but it's still an Appeal to Motivation Fallacy. It doesn't in itself make the Creationists wrong.

JM: You are almost correct. I pointed out the motivation AND I also pointed out that this, in and of itself, does not discredit ID. I think I was very clear on that point.

In this case, the people here believe in Creation.

JM: So do I. I think God is responsible for evolution.

So since you are the person involved in science as a profession, AND you are here to show their belief in Creationism is wrong, then bring forth the assertions it gives and rebut them with your side.

JM: I believe in creation as a matter of faith. I do not believe in ye-creationism of the kind espoused by folks at AIG, ICR etc. Fortunately, science does not require faith only evidence and my bone to pick with ID and YE-creationism is that they bring forth very little scientific evidence to support their case. In fact, the last published technical article that had a direct bearing on a YE was by RObert Gentry back in the 1960's. Nothing since then and nothing on ID in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

If you want to discuss evidence, then point me in the direction of the evidence you want to discuss by referencing the appropriate scientific literature, that's all I am asking

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Okay Jim, either you and your cohorts get off this ID kick and observe what the webmaster posted on the ID sticky or discuss the science published by those scientists you hate for sharing real scientific in books and articles or quit using up or server space.

This is a warning that I will henceforth enforce what the webmaster posted.

[justforfun000]

THe problem is simple, the scientific evidence for ID does not exist.

The body of literature on ID does not exist in the scientific literature and thus they deserve no special comment or respect. However, I posted a link to some comments on Behe and ID in general and gave a link. I was told that this site is not supposed to be used in that way so google my name and ID to see my comments.

Well if they deserve no special comment or respect, why are you bringing it up? Exactly how do present it as an "example" in science class of pseudoscience without parts of their presentation?

Do you expect me to believe that the extent you have used it as a counter-example to evolution is simply to say "Guess what, this theory is believed by people, they have nothing published in accepted peer-reviewed journals, so they are pseudoscience. Class Dismissed!"

Come on. You must be actually looking at whatever their assumptions are and picking them apart. Why are you loathe to start off the argument by bringing forth their arguments?

It'd be no different than me refusing to tell them what parts of the Bible I would argue against. Instead, just continually saying "Oh it doesn't matter what they say because it's not published in the accepted World History book, so it's not scientific truth".

I agree with Aineo. If you don't bring forth anything, don't bring it up.

[Joe Meert]

Post edited out by Aineo. You have been warned about discussing ID and where such discussions are to be posted.

[Tommy J]

All-in-all with questions and answers, it takes me about 15-20 minutes of class time to deal with present day ID. In my opinion, you should not whine to me about why ID is getting no respect you should be going to the fellas promoting the idea and tell them to get busy in the classroom!

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe, I'm an evolutionist as well as an athiest, but I agree with Just for Fun on this one as well as Aieno. Post their arguments and refute them.

Quite frankly it's getting dull and redundant seeing you go back and forth with Aieno about 'peer review'.

Can we move on PLEASE?

[Joe Meert]

Joe, I'm an evolutionist as well as an athiest, but I agree with Just for Fun on this one as well as Aieno. Post their arguments and refute them.

Quite frankly it's getting dull and redundant seeing you go back and forth with Aieno about 'peer review'.

Can we move on PLEASE?

Post edited by Aineo for comments on ID.

[Aineo]

I can edit and even delete every post you make that attempts to get around the warnings you have been given. However, the next infraction will result with something more than a simple edit.

[Joe Meert]

I can edit and even delete every post you make that attempts to get around the warnings you have been given. However, the next infraction will result with something more than a simple edit.

JM: Wow! Impressive.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

I can edit and even delete every post you make that attempts to get around the warnings you have been given. However, the next infraction will result with something more than a simple edit.

JM: Wow! Impressive.

Cheers

Joe Meert

I really doubt you are. For a man with an advanced degree and who asserts his knowledge is so superior I would think you could come up with something to say that is more impressive that what you did.

[Yehren]

I agree, this is getting dull. We need to get past how offended we are, and focus on the ideas instead of the people.

The question was "Why are academics evolutionists?" One answer is, "many of them are not."

In the literature departments and others, the postmodernists think evolution is just icky, and they want to find a nicer alternative.

It's more solid in the science departments, for the obvious reason; icky or not, that's what the evidence shows, and the people there are acquainted with the evidence.

Knowing what the evidence is, is a great help.

[Aineo]

Evidence is interpreted by human beings and scientists are human being. Science is cold in comparison to the liveliness of literature. It seems science has little room for "questioning" while philosophy and literature are free to question and explore other possibilities.

[justforfun000]

Evidence is interpreted by human beings and scientists are human being.

How else can we define evidence other than our own capabilities of the five senses and reason? Objective evidence is something that can be verified by many people so we know it isn't in our head. If we're all taught what an orange is (or what we call it anyway), then you could throw one in the middle of the ball field and everyone going up to look at it would see an orange.

Since there are no general reports around the world of objects just "changing" form all of a sudden like an orange into a grape, then we rightly assume that the THEORY that objects remain what they are unless physically altered, to be fact. No?

Are you suggesting that our abilities to DISCERN things are too unreliable? Then you are starting a whole new ball game.

Science is cold in comparison to the liveliness of literature.

It's meant to be cold. It has no place for emotion. It's a pretty simple method to determine truth from the world around us. It is LITERALLY the best method we have. It's the only method that can be independently verified by another human being.


That doesn't mean it can't be fascinating or beautiful however. It just lacks MEANING to people who are holding it up to the standards of a religion. Science doesn't exist for the purpose of making people feel good. It's simply a tool of observation, and verification. That's it. It can answer the "how" of things, but the question "why" is in some contexts not a question science concerns itself about. Why are we the third planet from the sun? Why isn't the universe set up so the fourth planet would be ideal for life? Why isn't the sun twice as big and our planet a different distance? Why do dogs bark and cows moo?

These are questions that are philosophical. Science doesn't answer them and has no interest in doing so because they CAN'T. This kind of "why" question assumes there is a REASON for the motivation behind something being the way it is. That's where philosophy and religion come into play.

If people could truly learn to draw the line where it belongs and stop trying to bring opposing modalities into areas where they aren't compatible, then we would have less arguments between religion and science.

It seems science has little room for "questioning" while philosophy and literature are free to question and explore other possibilities.

And this is completely opposite to the truth. Science has EVERY room for questioning. They never stop. Science is NEVER considered to be complete . It can be content with what they know at the TIME, but it's never satisfied. More answers lead to more questions.

Aineo, The statement that you believe science is rigid in their mindset, is exposing your feeling that you obviously think of science as a system of beliefs instead of theories with evidence supporting them better than any others that are presented. You are doing a disservice to what science really is and the rules they follow. Some rogue scientists out there can certainly be brought up as examples of not following good science, (and that's why they are debunked and ignored), but the major players, the major associations, they all hold to the high standard of good science. Organizations like NASA are an excellent example as to the necessity of science to be workable. They would not be able to do ANYTHING related to space travel without needing the scientific principles to be rock-solid or death for astronauts, and billions of dollars down the drain would be the result. This is the proof in the pudding of science being correct in their theories that are bourne out by testing.

True science is not flawed Aineo. It is literally the best truth we can experience that is both trustworty, and willing to be expanded by anything new that adds to or shoots down a theory. I hope you truly see this and just do your best to verify the INDIVIDUAL and their use or misuse of science. Be sure they are REALLY holding up the the true rules before you agree or disagree with someone.

And for the record, religious thought is totally guilty of what you were accusing science of being. It has little room for "questioning" at all. Biblical inerrists like yourself START with the conclusion that the Bible must be true in all things, and then try to make the facts fit the theory. Absolutely backwards to science.

[Aineo]

Science allows questions within narrow rules. For instance question evolution and you get what we have going on now. There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact. The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal. In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.

Another example of "questioning" science that makes many scientists go ballistic is to question the consistency of the speed of light. Any science that removes all variables in any equation by defining them as constants and then defining the value of the constant is not looking for truth.

Now take your orange analogy. We can develop new strains of oranges. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat today are in fact hybrids of what are found in nature. We have improved them by design. Have you ever seen a wild rose, if you have compare it to a grandiflora or a hybrid tea.

Although science should be cold and unemotional, when science wants to so control the hearts and minds of men that emotion is left by the roadside society in general suffers.

To me Darwinian evolution is illogical as it depends on chance bringing together so many necessary componants of life that if valid should still be happening today. And the truth is evolution on the grand scale of the Cambrian explosion only happened once.

[Joe Meert]

Another example of "questioning" science that makes many scientists go ballistic is to question the consistency of the speed of light.

JM: I don't know of a single scientist who 'goes ballistic'. In fact, we know that the speed of light is not constant so I have no idea where you got this idea.

And the truth is evolution on the grand scale of the Cambrian explosion only happened once.

JM: Murders only happen once, does that mean they are unsolvable?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Another example of "questioning" science that makes many scientists go ballistic is to question the consistency of the speed of light.

JM: I don't know of a single scientist who 'goes ballistic'. In fact, we know that the speed of light is not constant so I have no idea where you got this idea.

If we know the speed of light is not constant why was c defined in about 1939? Also you should read the thread on the speed of light.

And the truth is evolution on the grand scale of the Cambrian explosion only happened once.

JM: Murders only happen once, does that mean they are unsolvable?

Cheers

Is that the best you can do? Murder is the result of a human action usually based on emotion. Evolution is supposed to be a cold hard fact.

[Yehren]

Evidence is interpreted by human beings and scientists are human being. Science is cold in comparison to the liveliness of literature.

On the other hand, science, even though it can only progress with evidence, has been spectacularly successful at understanding the physical universe.

We have a long way to go, but without science, we'd still be living in stone huts.

It seems science has little room for "questioning" while philosophy and literature are free to question and explore other possibilities.

Science rewards people who ask questions, and come up with answers that stand examination.

Literature is more "free", because it doesn't have to correspond to reality.

That's fine. It's what literature is for.

But in science, not every opinion is equally valid, and just wanting it to be so is not good enough to make it so.

And evidence is the way we know. It's very effective. It couldn't be, if you were right about evidence.

[justforfun000]

Science allows questions within narrow rules. For instance question evolution and you get what we have going on now. There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact. The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal. In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.

Well I'm not a scientist, so I go by what the majority have given their consensus on. Obviously if what you suggest could LIKELY be an alternate theory with equal or greater amount of evidence, then they would have brought it forward. To suggest otherwise it to accuse scientists all over the world of a global conspiracy. I DEFINITELY do no buy that.

I'm asking a group of very hardcore science types on a favourite forum of mine to comment on your above paragraph. I'll let you know what they said.

Now take your orange analogy. We can develop new strains of oranges. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat today are in fact hybrids of what are found in nature. We have improved them by design. Have you ever seen a wild rose, if you have compare it to a grandiflora or a hybrid tea.

Sure. I agree totally. But that's not what I was going at for an analogy. lol. I just meant that objectively we can all prove we see the same thing.

Although science should be cold and unemotional, when science wants to so control the hearts and minds of men that emotion is left by the roadside society in general suffers.

Science is only a TOOL. It doesn't HAVE to replace religion you know. If someone wants good morals to follow, (and in my opinion FAR superior morals compared to Christianity as we know it today), try here:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html

To me Darwinian evolution is illogical as it depends on chance bringing together so many necessary componants of life that if valid should still be happening today. And the truth is evolution on the grand scale of the Cambrian explosion only happened once.

I know nothing about it, so I can't comment. However as the other large essay I posted before explained quite clearly, Darwinian theory has nothing to do with evolution as a fact now. As it described, many later discoveries confirmed evolution, and updated a vast majority of points regarding it.

[Joe Meert]

If we know the speed of light is not constant why was c defined in about 1939? Also you should read the thread on the speed of light.

JM: The constancy of c is only for special circumstances, it is not constant everywhere. Light has been slowed to a crawl in the laboratory so your assertion that scientists 'go ballistic' is impossible to believe.

Is that the best you can do? Murder is the result of a human action usually based on emotion. Evolution is supposed to be a cold hard fact.

JM: There is a very strong logical disconnect in your statement. The point being made is that one time events are amenable to science in many cases. Evolution, by your own multiple admissions on this website IS a cold-hard fact. You just place some Aineian limit on its efficacy. If you want to change the science in favor of something new, it's up to you to provide evidence as to why your limits are real. Merely repeating the mantra given to you by ye-creationists that "no one has seen it" is not science. I also noticed that you never discussed HeLa cells and the evolution from vertebrae to single-cell organisms (precisely the sort of leap you've deemed impossible).

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Well I'm not a scientist, so I go by what the majority have given their consensus on.

But you don't have the same view when the majority of society disagrees with you on social norms.

Joe, I think if you take the time to read what I posted I said science says Darwinian evolution is a stone cold fact. The fact there are hundreds of breeds of dogs (most designed by men) is essential proof of limited evolution. However, the concept that apes and mankind evolved from a common ancestor is yet to be proven by science and is considered scientific fact by definition.

The physical sciences attempt to explain our physical world. The social sciences attempt to explain societies. One "law" of one social science states that when cultural myths are similar in details they are in fact a restatement of real events; like a worldwide flood. So whose laws should govern society and the hearts and minds of men?

As to the the constancy of the speed of light if you agree that the speed of light is decaying with time then plug c into any formula used to show the age of rocks as twice the defined number and see what happens. The formulas used in physics are meaningless if c is not defined as constant.

[Joe Meert]

Joe, I think if you take the time to read what I posted I said science says Darwinian evolution is a stone cold fact. The fact there are hundreds of breeds of dogs (most designed by men) is essential proof of limited evolution. However, the concept that apes and mankind evolved from a common ancestor is yet to be proven by science and is considered scientific fact by definition.

JM: I am utterly and thoroughly convinced that you do not read any of my posts with an eye towards comprehension. I've indicated that the 'breed of dog' is an artificial limit imposed by you and not by science. I'm also convinced by your constant use of the word 'prove' that you have no inkling of how science is done. Then again, in the very next breath you seem to show an understanding. I'm having trouble dealing with your logical disconnects.

As to the the constancy of the speed of light if you agree that the speed of light is decaying with time then plug c into any formula used to show the age of rocks as twice the defined number and see what happens. The formulas used in physics are meaningless if c is not defined as constant.

JM: Once again, you did not read what I said. I never acknowledged that there is any decay of c that is fatal to our understanding of the universe. I said that the constancy of c is specifically defined for specific conditions. We know 100% that c is not constant in all situations. The decay of c of which you are enamored has no scientific support. It might be good to review how c varies under natural conditions, when c is considered a constant and how a variable c would affect relative and absolute time. I'm quite willing to discuss this with you, but only if you are willing to learn from your many mistaken ideas. Before you accuse me of being condescending, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that you wil probably disagree with what I have to say about the constancy of c under specific conditions, but it really would help all involved (including lurkers) if the importance of c is discussed clearly. I've looked at the threads on here and found nothing but a whole lot of confused physics (especially the posts by tuppence). How about it, you willing to start over and discuss

(a) Under what conditions modern science considers c constant (remember you are free to disagree with this) but it might help as a launching point)
(b) How c varies under natural conditions
(c) How c may have behaved early on in the formation of the Universe (again you may disagree completely with this)
(d) The effect of variable c on relativistic effects.

It is important to clarify what each of these points means before we can argue the finer points. I'm up to it, are you?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

And I am utterly convinced you are not reading my posts with understanding. I have never stated that microevolution is something to be questioned. You can prove gravity by jumping off a roof or to be less drastic a chair. You can prove sun produces heat by standing in the sun. We don't need science to explain the whys of gravity or why the sun produces heat to live productive lives. If scientists want to understand how gravity works beyond experience fine. If science wants to try to explain the diversity of life on this planet that is also fine but when science forces one interpretation based on limited physical evidence and no real experience then science has made itself a demigod. When evolutionists and atheists appeal to the courts to enforce an atheistic based concept of the origins of life then true science and scientific enquiry go out the window. Scientists other than creationists are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and this along with their evidence for questioning Darwin’s theory should be part of the educational experience.

As to the constancy of the speed of light that is one subject that has been discussed on this forum that ceased when you arrived. And that discussion will not proceed until you leave by choice or are banned since so far you have demonstrated that you are not interested in questioning your preconceived conceptions of what is and what is not true based on science.

I do understand how science determines what is and is not fact although I don’t have to agree with theories being defined as indisputable facts only because the majority of scientists want to define theory as fact.

[justforfun000]

Well I have two particular comments on that above paragraph:


Science allows questions within narrow rules. For instance question evolution and you get what we have going on now. There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact. The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal. In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.

Oh, very clever. He uses the term "adapted" instead of "mutated," thereby making it seem as though evolution posits that every mutation is an advantageous adaptation to the environment. In reality, what he's describing is a disadvantageous mutation that occurs in certain members of a species and then those members die off. The current mechanism of natural selection, however, does not allow for a disadvantageous mutation to spread throughout a population. Though as I understand it, there is debate going on as to whether natural selection is the only driving mechanism behind evolution.

But a transitional species going extinct is not disallowed by natural selection. In fact, that's the whole point of being a transitional species. Transitional species serve as stepping stones.

As for reptiles evolving into humans ... whatever. I'd love to see some sort of source on that. Chances are he's referencing some ridiculous fringe science publication.

and another one...

In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.

I find that statement incredibly ironic.

There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact.

Evolution is falsifiable. If a modern mammal were to be found in a strata dated at 65 million years ago, that would put current theories into question, for instance. Fossils are "real" evidence. And what are these "fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans"? Care to provide them for peer review and analysis?

Anyway, evolution has been observed under controlled conditions. It is no longer simply a descriptive theory, much less a mere hypothesis.

The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal

All forms are transitional. Anyway, this person claims that it is conceivable that animals adapt, yet he also says that it is just as plausible to claim that those fossils he sees as transitionals are really dead ends and then decrys the lack of transtionals? LOL![/quote]

[justforfun000]

But you don't have the same view when the majority of society disagrees with you on social norms.

Huh? Where did I ever disagree on something that fits that statement?

[Aineo]

justforfun000, adaptation is a word used by evolutionists to describe the mutations found in species; so the comments from the other forum have chosen to ignore that fact.

Facts can be proven. George Washington was the first President of the United States is a fact. The Big Bang is a theory to explain the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory to explain the origin of species. Neither the big bang nor Darwinian evolution can be proven factual in the same sense we know Washington was the 1st President of the United States.

Evolutionary biology may be the best theory for the origin of species according to current knowledge but it is not a fact. Prior to Einstein the idea of a big bang would have been treated with the same contempt Meert and his associates treat those who refuse to accept the origin of species. Even Einstein had to be convinced his own theory could show the universe had a beginning in time and space. One man made with a new theory changed the course of physics.

[Yehren]

justforfun000, adaptation is a word used by evolutionists to describe the mutations found in species; so the comments from the other forum have chosen to ignore that fact.

Not quite. Adaptation is a word used to describe a change in phenotype (actual body form, perhaps) that makes the organism more fit for its environment. The mutation that causes it is not the adaptation. Moreover, it can refer to changes within a species, or changes that occur when a new species evolves.

Facts can be proven. George Washington was the first President of the United States is a fact. The Big Bang is a theory to explain the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory to explain the origin of species. Neither the big bang nor Darwinian evolution can be proven factual in the same sense we know Washington was the 1st President of the United States.

In fact, George Washington was not the first president of the United States. He was the eighth.

http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/14_washington.html

There were seven men before him, who were elected to the office of President of the United States. Washington was the first under the new Constitution, but there were seven American presidents before him under the Articles of Confederation.

There's a lesson here: even though something seems dead certain by the evidence you have, logical certainty is a very hard thing to obtain. We can only have logical certainty in things like math, when we get to make the rules.

Evolutionary biology may be the best theory for the origin of species according to current knowledge but it is not a fact. Prior to Einstein the idea of a big bang would have been treated with the same contempt Meert and his associates treat those who refuse to accept the origin of species. Even Einstein had to be convinced his own theory could show the universe had a beginning in time and space. One man made with a new theory changed the course of physics.

Actually, Einstein was wrong about that part of his theory. He later admited the cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of his life.

[Aineo]

Washington was the first President of the United States of America and the eigth President of the federation of Colonies. The United States did not become a legal entity until after the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution. Washington was the first man elected President of the United States and is viewed as such in our countries history.

Seems like you want to pick and choose what is and is not factual except where science and evolution is concerned.

As to the use of the word adaption I have seen evolutionists on this forum use that term, which is why I used it.

[Yehren]

Washington was the first President of the United States of America

No, he was the eight to have the title of President of the United States of America.

and the eigth President of the federation of Colonies. The United States did not become a legal entity until after the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution.

The United States was a nation after the revolution, but it was under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787. And the title of "President of the United States of America" preceded the Articles of Confederation.

Washington was the first man elected President of the United States and is viewed as such in our countries history.

No, he is actually the 8th.

Seems like you want to pick and choose what is and is not factual except where science and evolution is concerned.

Read the link. It's true. Remember the point. There is very little that you can prove, in the strict sense.

As to the use of the word adaption I have seen evolutionists on this forum use that term, which is why I used it.

It's a useful word in science, but it should be used correctly.

[Aineo]

Yehren, I am still waiting for you to share what degrees you have earned. Since you spamers have asked for my academic background, it is only fair each of you do the same.

The first man to be elected President of the United States per the provisions of the U.S. Constitution was George Washington. If you take the time to read the Articles of Confederation vs. the U.S. Constitution there are major differences. What we call the United States of America is the country established and governed by the Constitution not the Articles of Confederation.

[Yehren]

Yehren, I am still waiting for you to share what degrees you have earned.

Yes you are.

Since you spamers have asked for my academic background, it is only fair each of you do the same.

Perhaps you should ask the people who asked you. My opinion is that a person's arguments should stand on their own. Granted, people who have degrees in a subject are more likely to be knowledgeable, but I'm not a snob about it. My degrees are in the areas of biology, human factors, and systems. But my credibility here, like yours, depends on what we write.

The first man to be elected President of the United States per the provisions of the U.S. Constitution was George Washington.

But there were seven Presidents of the United States prior to that.

If you take the time to read the Articles of Confederation vs. the U.S. Constitution there are major differences. What we call the United States of America is the country established and governed by the Constitution not the Articles of Confederation.

Our nation, since it gained its indepedence from Britain, has always been called the United States of America.

From the Articles of Confederation:
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

[Joe Meert]

Yehren, I am still waiting for you to share what degrees you have earned. Since you spamers have asked for my academic background, it is only fair each of you do the same.

JM: Why is it that you feel it necessary to put a small personal attack in every post? I don't think any of us (including you) are spamming this board. We are offering up a discussion. You may not like our posts or agree with them, but that does not make them spam.
On to your other question... I think we should all remember that degrees do not necessarily make any of our arguments correct. At the same time, our qualifications do indicate a certain amount of time spent studying and reading about our respective fields. I have a BS and MS in Geology from the University of Florida and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Michigan. That means I've spent a lot of time studying geology and on matters geological I can speak with some authority. That does not mean I am correct, only that I can speak about the topic with some depth of knowledge. Someone else mentioned this, but it bears repeating. You would not go to a neurosurgeon who happens to drive a standard transmission to diagnose a problem with the clutch of your car. You would not ask a kindergartner to help you with your 1040 form. It's ok to question the declarations of experts, but it's also wise to remember that they have a much deeper understanding of the topic than someone with no training in the topic. Most of us (you included) do a lot of reading outside of our respective fields. We should respect that in each other. That's why I've been quite adamant about the lack of scholarly published research on the part of ye-creationists (on the topic of ye-creationism). I know that this is how science is done and how science makes progress.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

You are in fact spamming this board.

As to requesting the credentials of those who have chosen to spam this board; why should we accept anything any of you post?

Yehren, I have taken the time to read the Articles of Confederation other than the first article. Canada is mentioned in one article as being able to join the United States without the approval of the other states. This is not included in the present Constitution.

Now you can nit pick U.S. history without changing the fact that George Washington was the first man elected President by the people of the United States under the Constitution of the United States.

I guess you are ashamed of your degrees.

Joe, as to personal attacks when you accuse scientists of pseudoscience only because they disagree with you, you are in fact posting personal attacks aimed at people who are not here to defend their positions.

That's why I've been quite adamant about the lack of scholarly published research on the part of ye-creationists (on the topic of ye-creationism). I know that this is how science is done and how science makes progress.

One of my uncles was the head of the engineering department of the University of Utah, I have a cousin who recently retired from teaching geology at the University of Missouri, I have another cousin with a Ph.D. in physics and all of them have informed me that getting any concept reviewed in scientific journals is next to impossible if the article contradicts the "party line". You know this to be true as well as I do, therefore your insistence that only peer-reviewed articles contain topics for discussion is both self-serving and ludicrous.

Behe, Wells, Meyers, and other scientists have published books and articles that are informative and, in my opinion, call many concepts of evolution into question. By your own admission you would rather debate what you refer to as a socio-political agenda than science.

Faraday, Michael
English bookbinder who became interested in electricity. He obtained an assistantship in Davy's lab, then began to conduct his own experiments. He wrote a review article on current views about electricity and magnetism in 1821, for which he reproduced Oersted's experiment. He was one of the greatest experimenters ever. Because he was self trained, however, he had no grasp of mathematics and could therefore not understand a word of Ampère's papers. In the course of his experiments, Faraday discovered that a suspended magnet would revolve around a current bearing wire, leading him to propose that magnetism was a circular force. He also discovered magnetic optical rotation, invented the dynamo (a device capable of converting electricity to motion) in 1821, discovered electromagnetic induction in 1831, and devised the laws of chemical electrodeposition of metals from solutions in 1857.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Faraday.html

Education in a specific field is not required to understand science or to do science.

As to your neurosurgeon example, I would not hesitate to ask a neurosurgeon with specific practical knowledge of mechanics a question regarding an engine or car if I knew the neurosurgeon personally and the individual had the knowledge to diagnose engine or car problems. I am not a mechanic, however my father was and I learned by the apprentice method how to diagnose most engine problems before I graduated from high school.

[Yehren]

Yehren, I have taken the time to read the Articles of Confederation other than the first article. Canada is mentioned in one article as being able to join the United States without the approval of the other states. This is not included in the present Constitution.

Right. But that doesn't change the fact that our nation was called the United States of America before we had a constitution, and that there were seven Presidents of the United States (their official title) before George Washington.

Now you can nit pick U.S. history without changing the fact that George Washington was the first man elected President by the people of the United States under the Constitution of the United States.

That's not what you said, was it? In fact, you said he was the first president of the United States, and he wasn't. The point was that logical certainty is not an easy thing.

I guess you are ashamed of your degrees.

What's your real name and address? I guess you're ashamed of your family name and where you live.

[Aineo]

What's your real name and address? I guess you're ashamed of your family name and where you live.

My real name, which is Robert Stephenson is shared on my website and anyone with any knowledge of domain names and how to find the owners of registered domains can find the information you say I am ashamed of without any problem. Also anyone with access to a phone book could find my address by looking up all the Robert Stephensons in Grand Junction, Colorado. For your information I am the only one listed.

The fact is Yehren I do not hide behind my screen name.

[justforfun000]

justforfun000, adaptation is a word used by evolutionists to describe the mutations found in species; so the comments from the other forum have chosen to ignore that fact.

Well that may be, but I just posted what they said for your examination as well as mine. I don't know who's correct.

But even if this is true, what this got to do with social norms? I thought you were suggesting I pick and choose which dissident views to believe and other times say oh no, majority rules. I've never taken the dissident side here.

Yehren, I have taken the time to read the Articles of Confederation other than the first article. Canada is mentioned in one article as being able to join the United States without the approval of the other states. This is not included in the present Constitution.

Is this true? I have never heard of this. Well being Canadian, I certainly hope it doesn't happen. We're far more tolerant as a society up here when it comes to differing views. We also adhere much more strongly to the separation of church and state. Even though that's not our specific amendment.

[Joe Meert]

You are in fact spamming this board.

JM: Ok, of you define spam as 'disagreeing with Aineo' then I am spamming. By all other definitions, I am not.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

You are in fact spamming this board.

JM: Ok, of you define spam as 'disagreeing with Aineo' then I am spamming. By all other definitions, I am not.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Flooding many threads with the same concept in an attempt to disrupt the orderly administration of a message board, which is exactly what you have done.