RightFaith Clouds military


Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll
Aggregators

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Evolutionists Score Californian Victory

Evolutionists Going Ape over Intelligent Design

A California school, under the threat of litigation, has discontinued the course, "Philosophy of Design." This is simply one more example of fear, intolerance, abridgment of academic freedom, preference to communistic indoctrination, limiting free speech, the lack of understanding the difference between endorsement and recognition, the hatred of any authority that questions naturalistic secular-humanism, and the utter hatred to all things that smells faith-based--whether it is or not--associated with Intelligent Design (cite).

On the other side of the country, the Ohio school board rule 9-8 to continue allowing curriculm that critically analyzes evolution--not creationism nor even intelligent design--just a critical look at a failing theory. Lawsuits are already being threatened. What's happening here?

Evolutions are taking thier cues from the secular progressivists and democratic party. As this article points out, evolutionists "will perpetuate their biased rationalistic, materialistic, and uniformitarian philosophy through judicial fiat." Because these people can't win elections, judicial fiat is the preferred methodology for imposing the radical, secular progressive agenda on the American people. The most obvious agent of this evil is the ACLU whose daily quest to redefine America takes center-stage in the courts. Because these liberals can't win in elections, they bypass the electoral system and head straight to the courts where judges then make sweeping rulings.

Just like liberals can't win elections because they have losing ideas in the public arena, evolutionary ideas can't win in the sphere public approval either; thus, judicial decree is the only outlet available to them both. "Ah," you say, "What about the Dover school board responsible for including a two-paragraph statement suggesting flaws about evolution, Weren't they voted out?" Yes, they were. To which I respond by citing, poll after poll after poll that suggests that the majority of American public rejects evolution.

To which the liberals respond, "The majority of Americas are stupid. The scientific elite are the only one qualified to make such rulings." That's one of the great flaw of the left today, they treat everyone as idiots--but I've digressed. It's true that many scientists fall on the side of evolution, but many don't. At the recent hearing in Ohio where the school board rule 9-8 that a critical analysis of evolution was permitted, 52 scientists including "Ph.D's in chemistry, nuclear physics, Biology, engineering and many other diverse physical and life sciences" came out to support the critical analysis (cite). Idiots indeed, but that's how non-evolutionists are portrayed.

If evolution is fact, evolutionists have nothing to lose if it is or is not taught in the schools. Think about it, if we are the result of natural law and then we die--we have nothing to lose. If evolution is sanctioned by science and the courts, then we don't even need to consider the possiblity of God. And, then we die.

But, if evolution is not fact, then we are compelled to accept the possibility of God and the consequences of an authority higher than our scientific quests. Then, the question of what is taught in schools becomes very sigificant, indeed.

Thoughtful Readers Speak:
No offense, but your post is in error: it's the intelligent design crowd that consistently loses elections, and is forced to insert their views into schools via judicial action.

The majority of Americas support some form of evolution, contrary to your nonsense about "poll after poll." Strict creationism remains the dogmatic belief of only a few, thank goodness.

Of course, it's irrelevant. Scientific truths are not determined by committee or by election but by evidence. The majority of Americans don't have the training necessary to be involved in science, so what have you proved?

If evolution is fact, evolutionists have nothing to lose if it is or is not taught in the schools.

Except that today's students are tomorrow's scientists, so, indeed, science-positive people have much to lose from the dilution and perversion of the science classroom. And thank you so much for the ignorant and insulting assumption that materialists are nihilists.
 
Pascal's Wager? Yeah, never heard that one before.

Proving evolution wrong doesn't prove Creationism right. This is how it would look:

Hypothesis: There is a change in allele frequency in populations over time.

Null Hypothesis: There is no change in allele frequency in populations over time.

Notice how if we are forced to accept the null hypothesis, it implies absolutely nothing about God, the Tooth Fairy, or djinni in bottles.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harry is qualified to make statements about the work scientists do, then why does anybody bother to get degrees? Why am I going through grad school when I could have just walked over to Dow Agrisciences and said "Hire me, I already know everything." It's good to know that I'm already qualified to do every single job ever, just by being a member of the American public. I'm tired of being a poor grad student, so I think I'll go be an engineer tomorrow. Or maybe I'll be your doctor.

Science isn't decided by committee. You don't get to vote that the sky is pink or that the speed of light is 2 mph. Reality doesn't change just because the majority of Americans don't like it, or because you happen to believe a 2,000 year old fairy tale is literally true. The reality is that:

variation + heredity + differential reproduction = change over time

P.S. If it's such a failure as a theory, why is it just so darn useful? Quick, JR, you'd better head over to the biological sciences at your school and tell them they're basing their research on a failing theory. While you're at it, why don't you call up some biotech companies and save them the billions of dollars they're wasting by doing research that involves the ToE?
 
No offense but you're wrong, its the evolutionist group that consistently loses elections and is forced their views into schools via judicial action.

Now, where did that get us?

Chet, check the link. "Poll after poll after poll" is correct. Oh, but it doesn't matter anyway that you're wrong.

In fact, by disavowing evolution tremendous gain can be made because we will no longer be forced to think in such boxed, archaic terms. No longer will we be forced to make sure everything fits our little paradigm.
 
"Proving evolution wrong doesn't prove Creationism right." You're right, it doesn't, so what are you so afraid of in presenting intelligent design?

But, there you go again, erica, showing us that you've had introductory research statistics--all your talk about null hypotheses...silly girl.

"Science isn't decided by committee" Sure it is. It's decided by a committee of like-minded researchers, by a committee of like-minded academic peers, by a committee of like-minded peer-reviewed journal editors. And, that's one reason that science is just a political as DC is; like-minded, self-replicating research institutes and universities are havens for bad thinking.

"you'd better head over to the biological sciences at your school and tell them" you obviously don't know what you're talking about here.

Laws of nature are useful and helpful [which evolution is not]. But, where did those laws come from?
 
Creationism was actually around before anybody made any observations about relatedness and common descent. A large part of that time was spent in the Dark Ages.

Are you going to address my arguments?
 
Where did your deity come from? Saying things came from a deity isn't a useful answer, since it just removes the question one step.

The fact that the sky is blue wasn't decided by a committee. It's simply an observation of reality. Likewise, variation, heredity, differential reproduction, and change over time are all observations of reality. Do you dispute that allele frequency in populations changes over time? Do you dispute that we have observed speciation events? Maybe you have trouble dealing with reality and that's why you cling to your fairy tales?

The ToE seems pretty useful to me, since I use it every single day.
 
"The fact that the sky is blue wasn't decided by a committee."

Science and fact are inherently different. Science is something men and women do to understand the environment around them. Fact is there whether people observe it or not. So, science is then decided by a committee.
 
"Where did your diety come from?"

How do you think I'm going to answer that?
 
"Fact is there whether people observe it or not."

Wow. That statement is completely full of Platonic philosophy. I'm sorry, but anyone who disagrees with Plato and/or any of his followers, would automatically reject your definitions of science and fact.

Heidegger, Sartre, any of the existentialists or even the rationalists would have a large problem with saying that "Fact is there whether people observe it or not." What you're toying with is a rather basic idea of reality.
 
I hate Plato and his stupid cave, too.
 
No offense but you're wrong, its the evolutionist group that consistently loses elections and is forced their views into schools via judicial action.

Evolution isn't a political party, it's a scientific model; so it's not immediately clear where you think "evolution is losing elections."

In fact, by disavowing evolution tremendous gain can be made because we will no longer be forced to think in such boxed, archaic terms. No longer will we be forced to make sure everything fits our little paradigm.

We're not forced, now. The scientist who disproves evolution is guaranteed to win the Nobel prize. There's more scientific merit and interest in results that are contradictory to expectations than conform to them; Issac Asimov once said that "the most exciting words in science are not 'Eureka!' but rather 'That's funny...'."

I don't know where you got this idea that science could ever operate as an insular community, rejecting meritorious ideas simply because they don't conform to othordoxy; science as a whole is structured so that the exact opposite is true.

The fact that intelligent design creationism still can't gain a scientific foothold, even in a community structured to accept and promote outsider thinking, is further proof of its inherent uselessness.

It's decided by a committee of like-minded researchers, by a committee of like-minded academic peers, by a committee of like-minded peer-reviewed journal editors.

Who reach that decision based not on their own personal interest or opinion, but on a professional assessment of the evidence. Evidence, not committee, is what determines scientific conclusions.

At any rate, the peer-review process assesses articles based on how their conclusions are supported by their evidence, not on how their conclusions conform to scientific dictat.

Laws of nature are useful and helpful [which evolution is not]

Do you eat food? Then you're benefiting from evolution. Evolution is the theory that turned biology into science when it used to be stamp collecting. To say that evolution is not "helpful" is idiotic at best and a flat-out lie at worst.
 
It's ok to lie, as long as you're doing it for Jesus.
 
chet, your opinion that science is somehow immune from human ambitions and bias is naive; jr is right to a degree, there is peer pressure within science too
 
and erica, you're just fool with comments like that--shut up
 
chet, your opinion that science is somehow immune from human ambitions and bias is naive; jr is right to a degree, there is peer pressure within science too

Uh-huh.

And you both know this from, what, exactly? Your graduate degrees in biology? Your years of employment in scientific laboratories? Decades of experience in physical research academia?

No? Yeah, that's kind of what I thought.
 
yes
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Social Conservative Action Centers

Archives
Web Blog Pinging Service
allianceanonymous


Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers
rwn