Evolution court in session | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

X

Page 1 of 15 1 2 11 ... Last
Results 1 to 20 of 281
  1. #1

    Evolution court in session

    Evolution court in session

    Darwin's critics take the stand

    By Scott Rothschild, Journal-World
    Friday, May 6, 2005


    Topeka — Science, religion and politics collided Thursday in the fight over teaching evolution in Kansas classrooms.

    Critics of evolution paraded before a like-minded subcommittee of the State Board of Education Thursday to depict Darwin's work as a theory that would crumble if establishment scientists didn't protect it like a religion.

    "This is taken as dogma and dogma has no place in science," said William Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine.

    But Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney who is defending evolution before the board, referred to the hearing as a "kangaroo court" and the witnesses as purveyors of "junk science."

    "There is not one scientific association that supports their claims," Irigonegaray said.

    In dispute are curriculum standards before the State Board of Education that will be used to guide science instruction for Kansas' 450,000 public school students.

    A science standards committee has recommended teaching evolution, but some members of that committee provided a report that criticizes evolution.

    ...

    Kansas Board Holding Evolution Hearings

    By JOHN HANNA
    The Associated Press
    Saturday, May 7, 2005; 3:31 PM


    TOPEKA, Kan. -- Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.

    Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.

    A board subcommittee had a third consecutive day of hearings Saturday, with a final day scheduled for Thursday. The entire board plans to consider changes in June to standards that determine how Kansas students are on science.

    State and national science groups are boycotting the hearings, viewing them as rigged in favor of language backed by intelligent design advocates.

    In turn, intelligent design advocates contend they've been portrayed unfairly as advocating creationism. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that they're best explained by an intelligent cause.

    Repeatedly on Friday and Saturday, Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, representing the drafters of the evolution-friendly standards, questioned witnesses about their personal beliefs.

    Witnesses said they didn't believe all life had a common origin or that man evolved from earlier, ape-like creatures. Some said they accept the widespread scientific conclusion that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but two said they believe it is between 5,000 and 100,000 years old.

    Nancy Bryson, a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, said having life appear from chemical molecules is "utterly impossible." Bryson came under fire for giving a public lecture in 2003 criticizing evolution and eventually lost her position as division science director at Mississippi University for Women.

    "In my personal opinion, I believe there is an intelligent designer," she said.

    Other scientists said such statements showed the witnesses' true motives _ opening up the science curriculum for religion.

    "They're creationists first and scientists second," Robert Bowden, a Kansas State University plant pathologist, said after Friday's hearing.

    Witnesses said the language backed by intelligent design advocates would allow freer debate in the classroom.

    ...

    what do you think?

  2. #2
    I think it's a battle of straw men and red herring, both sides unleashing their own squads (or schools, in the case of the herring) of both.

    Anyway, the ID hypothesis is impossible to test scientifically. It's a hypothesis that some obervations point to but can never be verified. Lawsuit is a propaganda stunt. Teach Darwin as science and not as Truth or Dogma, and the kids will be fine. That is, teach Darwin in Science class, and teach ID and Darwin together in Communication Arts class, like Rhetoric or Composition. Problem solved. Students would benefit from the discussion.

  3. #3
    "propaganda stunt"? hardly: it's the Kansas board who removed evolution from the curriculum in 1999, there is a legitimate grievance here since Kansas students are being unfairly disadvantaged by the state's refusal to guarantee at least the same quality of science education afforded to others.

    the strawman/red herring in this case being the familiar creationist refrain that “evolution is dogma”, despite the fact that even the most vocal scientist working in the field defines scientific fact as

    In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
    the more perceptive if not unbiased would recognize this particular attempt by the ID/creationist crowd to discredit the theory of evolution as a simple ploy to obtain thru politics the credibility they have failed to attain thru legitimate science.

    while there is no shortage of new discoveries lending support to Darwin’s theory, since when has anyone heard of ID’ers/creationists traveling to Africa or Indonesia to test their so-called “hypothesis”? since when has anyone seen an ID’er/creationist whose idea of “proving” ID/creationism isn’t simply attacking evolution? since when has anyone read an ID/creationist article that amounts to anything other than a rhetorical diatribe against Darwin et al? since when has anyone heard an ID’er/creationist appeal to an argument other than the “injustice” of teaching a less-than 100% confirmed theory such as evolution?

    and it is that underlying hypocrisy which exposes who’s really adhering to a dogma here: the ID/creationist camp has not even bothered to test their “hypothesis” because theirs isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a pre-conceived, pre-packaged notion complete with ribbons – which they dare not allow themselves to doubt let alone challenge.

    sure, science does not and cannot aspire to a standard of truth equivalent to that claimed by religion; but what science can rightfully assert is that it can provide us facts which we can reliably base decisions on with a hell of a lot more than zero confidence: what those lying ******** in Kansas are trying to sneak by everyone is the anointing if not deodorizing of conjecture with the same plausibility as the provable...

    ...can anyone say 'free ride'?

  4. #4
    Oo nga naman, ano? What right do these creationists have to clamor for "equal time" when they don't even have anyone on the field doing scientific research to back their claim?

    It's not as if we're immune from bullsh!t here, either. This high school textbook made my blood boil. Worse, it's available (front and center) in any National Bookstore wherever you go.

    The very first chapter paints a very negative (and very wrong) picture of evolution - pitting evolution against creation, claiming that Darwin reconverted to Christianity on his deathbed (a lie that some Christians like to spread around to this day), and talking about evolutionary theories as if they had a gun to their head, saying that "teachers would be fired if we didn't deal with this in the textbook."

    This - and the hubbub in Kansas - is why I'm not convinced anymore that most Christians are really after the truth.

  5. #5
    die boy abunda die! Lucca Yamazaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    ...in my pants!
    Hey, micketymoc... don't let Sonia Zaide make your blood boil. She's a bit of a kook, anyway (or at least as said by one of her former students). We've been, uhm, "indoctrinated" with her crap back in high school. Lemme tell you that there's a very small (microscopic) chance that I know more about world history than she does...

    I prefer letting them blokes go extinct, like a nice evolutionist would.

  6. #6
    Umaangat ang pagka-rational humanist ko kasi, Lucca... making this a learning experience is more rewarding than simply letting them go extinct without a hirit. But then again, that's just me. Oh, by the way, I finally did blog about the textbook.

  7. #7
    mixing creationist theories with scientific methodologies would only result in the corruption of the minds of their students. Darwin's theory of evolution is just a theory. I don't believe it is protected like dogma by progressive scientists. They are trying to prove it and recent studies show that Darwin's theories are not as fullproof as initially believed. For example scientists are coming to a realization that the human race did not come from only one line of primitive apes coming from Africa but they now believe that several lines developed simultaneously resulting in what we see today.

    its fine to believe in an intelligent design or creator if that's what they want but teaching it without rational or factual scientific basis is for me more akin to brainwashing than science. Its basically Christian Living in our catholic schools.

  8. #8
    METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. Excerpts from Dr. Angus Menuge's expert testimony at the hearings in Kansas. Dr. Menuge is a philosopher of science at Concordia University in Wisconsin.

    "Methodological naturalism should be carefully distinguished from philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical thesis, the view that nature, the spatiotemporal realm of undirected causes, is all there is, or more specifically, "the doctrine that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid" (Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language). Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is a practical rule of scientific method, which says that scientists should proceed as if philosophical naturalism is true.

    "Methodological naturalism "requires that scientists limit themselves to materialistic explanations when they seek to explain the nature and/or origin of natural phenomenon, objects, or processes. On this understanding...explanations that invoke intelligent causes or the actions of intelligent agents do not qualify as scientific." (Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, eds. Campbell and Meyer) Since only intelligent entities, those with goals, intentions and purposes, can literally design anything, methodological naturalism assumes that any appearance of design in nature is an illusion. In this vein, the noted Darwinist Richard Dawkins writes:

    "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose...Natural Selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process that Darwin discovered...has no purpose in mind. It it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the *blind* watchmaker."

    "Since methodological naturalism asserts that scientist may only consider undirected causes, and since these causes cannot literally design anything, methodological naturalism implies that there can be no such thing as scientific evidence for design, or for a higher purpose or meaning of life. Thus even if there is the most powerful empirical evidence for design, methodological naturalism rejects it as inadmissible when doing science.

    "Methodological naturalism is not to be confused with "empirical natural science." Empirical natural science seeks to provide the best theoretical account of observable natural phenomena, but it does not follow that this account must only include undirected natural causes. Viewed objectively, natural science does not imply methodological naturalism, since the best scientific account of at least some natural events might invoke intelligent causes. If scientists were allowed to follow evidence wherever it leads, they may conclude that some of the apparent design in nature is actual design, rather than merely an illusion to be explained away. This is the claim of "Intelligent Design," defined below."

    THE EFFECT OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

    The effect of methodologlogical naturalism in science education is to teach students an artificially constricted or abridged view of science. This is what business lawyers would term a "failure of full disclosure". A company can be made to seem much more financially healthy that it really is by only disclosing its assets and successes and not its deficits or failures. Likewise a scientific program, such as Darwinism, can be made to seem more certain than it is, by only disclosing the evidence in favor of the view and not disclosing the problems the theory does not or cannot account for, according to qualified, dissenting experts. Methodological naturalism, by allowing only evidence for undirected causes to be presented, allows Darwinism to be taught without full disclosure, since the evidence in favor of actual design cannot be presented. As noted above, in logic this is called the fallacy of suppresed evidence, which makes a conclusion seem more certain that it actually is by only presenting the evidence in favor of the conclusion, while suppressing the evidence that points in a contrary direction. Methodological naturalism fails to properly inform students by suppressing the evidence in favor of actual design in nature. In this way, science education fails to be "neutral and non-ideological," inflating the case for one perspective by exclusively adocating that perspective."

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    (Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, eds. Campbell and Meyer)
    This book, part of MSU's Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series, is a collection of twenty-six essays dealing with the controversy engendered by the push to teach Intelligent Design (ID) alongside evolution in the public schools. John Angus Campbell, one of the editors, is a professor and director of graduate studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Memphis. In his research he has specialized in the study of the rhetoric of science and has published numerous articles and book chapters analyzing the rhetorical strategy of Darwin's Origin of Species. The other editor, Stephen Meyer, is director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He is a prominent spokesman for ID.

    http://www.discovery.org

    Quote Originally Posted by micketymoc
    The very first chapter paints a very negative (and very wrong) picture of evolution - pitting evolution against creation, claiming that Darwin reconverted to Christianity on his deathbed (a lie that some Christians like to spread around to this day), and talking about evolutionary theories as if they had a gun to their head, saying that "teachers would be fired if we didn't deal with this in the textbook."

    This - and the hubbub in Kansas - is why I'm not convinced anymore that most Christians are really after the truth.


    Personal Background:

    I had a somewhat Christian upbringing with a mixture of Roman Catholic and Church of England elements. Whilst a teenager, I became an agnostic, but retained an interest in religion and continued to find religious answers more persuasive than secular ones. Whilst at University I met the woman (Vicki Lynn Hubert) who is now my wife. She drew me back to the church, and I became an adult confirmand of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. This helped to heal the wounds of my heart, but I still lacked an intellectual foundation for my faith. It was here, whilst I was supposed to be doing research in basically secular philosophy, that an unplanned (by me) foray into the works of C. S. Lewis was crucial. It all started with Surprised by Joy.

    My interests now are in promoting Christian teaching and scholarship, and developing my own meager talents in that direction. Interests of mine are currently C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Christianity and Culture, and the battle for the Christian Mind (if you want to know what that is, get George Marsden’s The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship).

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. yotsuya
    its fine to believe in an intelligent design or creator if that's what they want but teaching it without rational or factual scientific basis is for me more akin to brainwashing than science. Its basically Christian Living in our catholic schools.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. yotsuya
    its fine to believe in an intelligent design or creator if that's what they want but teaching it without rational or factual scientific basis is for me more akin to brainwashing than science. Its basically Christian Living in our catholic schools.
    I don't think there would even be any debate if there were no "rational or factual scientific basis" for intelligent design. What are we to do with all the creationist scientists of the past and of the present?

  11. #11
    OK. What's your "rational or factual scientific basis"? Where are the hordes of intelligent design scientists posting new peer-reviewed articles in the science journals? These "creationist scientists" of yours, what creation-related research or discoveries did they do or make?

    Problema naman sa inyong mga creationists, you insist on creationism being taught alongside evolutionary theory, when there is no factual basis for creationism to be taught! There is no "theory" behind creationism, no positive evidence for a creation week.

    That's the reason why creationism (or its new version Intelligent Design) can't be taught in science class! Pwede pa siguro in a History of Science class, but not science per se. It's as scientific as the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. It's reassuring, but ultimately untrue!

  12. #12

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by micketymoc
    OK. What's your "rational or factual scientific basis"? Where are the hordes of intelligent design scientists posting new peer-reviewed articles in the science journals? These "creationist scientists" of yours, what creation-related research or discoveries did they do or make?
    You won't read works of ID scientists in popular science journals because of SCIENTIFIC BIGOTRY. Evolutionists are the judge and jury of leading science journals and have a solid history of hostility towards creationists. Heck, even evolutionists themselves admit it, like Dr. Margulis who is a doctrinaire evolutionist herself, strenuously opposed to creationism, and who has impeccable credentials (a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley) and is Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Unfortunately for her, her scientific evolutionary theory of Gaia (i.e., "Mother Earth") is suppressed by her own peers as she admits:

    "More and more . . . today's universities and professional societies guard their knowledge. Collusively, the university biology curriculum, the textbook publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduate Record examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zoological societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and oblivion; they award the faithful liturgists by granting degrees and dispersing funds and fellowships. Universities and academies . . . determine who is permitted to know and just what it is that he or she may know. Biology, botany, zoology, biochemistry, and microbiology departments within U.S. universities determine access to knowledge about life, dispensing it at high prices in peculiar parcels called credit hours." (Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997), p. 265.)
    And here's from Dr. Hannes Alfvèn, one of the world's most distinguished evolutionary astrophysicists, who referred to his own theory of the origin of the universe which differs from the orthodox "Big Bang" theory complains that the "Big Bang" evolutionary cosmologists conspire to prevent studies and publications on his own evolutionary cosmology:

    "This has been a great advantage because it gives me a possibility to approach the phenomena from another point than most astrophysicists do, and it is always fruitful to look at any phenomenon under two different points of view. On the other hand, it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the phenomena according to this formalism, most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers." (Hannes Alfèn, "Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist,"American Scientist (volume 76, May/June 1988), p. 250.)
    But despite the bigotry certainly many creationist scientists has been able to publish in notable scientific journals. You may go to the following link to get a listing:

    --> Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

    Problema naman sa inyong mga creationists, you insist on creationism being taught alongside evolutionary theory, when there is no factual basis for creationism to be taught! There is no "theory" behind creationism, no positive evidence for a creation week.

    That's the reason why creationism (or its new version Intelligent Design) can't be taught in science class! Pwede pa siguro in a History of Science class, but not science per se. It's as scientific as the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. It's reassuring, but ultimately untrue!
    Once again I quote from Dr. Angus Menuge who, in his testimony to the Kansas hearings, answer your objections above:

    2.4 “Scientific explanations of origins.”

    Logic distinguishes three different methods of inference. Deduction allows proof of the sort found in mathematics. In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Natural sciences is unable to give such proofs because its theories and explanations say more than the evidence strictly entails. No matter how strong the evidence, the theoretical conclusion could still be false, because the theory goes beyond that evidence in its claims. When developing laws, such as Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, induction is used to extrapolate from observed data to a more general regularity that also covers unobserved (and perhaps unobservable) cases. The proposed laws can then be subjected to further testing because the phenomena they describe are repeatable (either they recur naturally, or they can be made to recur experimentally). Induction, however, is unsuitable for scientific explanations of origins since these explanations focus on unique, historical events that are by nature not exactly repeatable, partly because so many variables were simultaneously operative, and partly because the evidence is generally not sufficient to identify all of these variables with any great confidence. As a result, historical or origins sciences typically use abduction, an inference to the best explanation of a historical event. Given the available data and competing pool of explanations, abduction selects the best current explanation (the one the is most comprehensive in accounting for a variety of data, that is most causally adequate, and which is both internally coherent and compatible with other well-established results of science).
    Hence, abductively speaking, ID claims to be the best explanation of origins based on available scientific data. If only the bigoted evolutionists would get out of the way.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    I don't think there would even be any debate if there were no "rational or factual scientific basis" for intelligent design. What are we to do with all the creationist scientists of the past and of the present?
    this is actually the first time i have read about this intelligent design concept and my first impressions of it were as i stated above. i'm basically speaking based on my personal background. i'm an engineer by profession and science for me is a tool. practical science.

    theories are there to be applied and each new application found adds to its credibility and one deviation from the theory is enough to discredit it. that applies also to Darwin's theory.

    As per your post, I understand that the creationists are specifically against "methodological naturalism" as a way of teaching the theory of evolution right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    THE EFFECT OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

    The effect of methodologlogical naturalism in science education is to teach students an artificially constricted or abridged view of science. This is what business lawyers would term a "failure of full disclosure". A company can be made to seem much more financially healthy that it really is by only disclosing its assets and successes and not its deficits or failures. Likewise a scientific program, such as Darwinism, can be made to seem more certain than it is, by only disclosing the evidence in favor of the view and not disclosing the problems the theory does not or cannot account for, according to qualified, dissenting experts. Methodological naturalism, by allowing only evidence for undirected causes to be presented, allows Darwinism to be taught without full disclosure, since the evidence in favor of actual design cannot be presented. As noted above, in logic this is called the fallacy of suppresed evidence, which makes a conclusion seem more certain that it actually is by only presenting the evidence in favor of the conclusion, while suppressing the evidence that points in a contrary direction. Methodological naturalism fails to properly inform students by suppressing the evidence in favor of actual design in nature. In this way, science education fails to be "neutral and non-ideological," inflating the case for one perspective by exclusively adocating that perspective."
    personally, i do not see any problem with methodological naturalism being applied to evolutionary studies. i do not view it as constricting the view of students. for me it is synonymous to "common sense". the simplest most logical explanation is most probably the right one based on the available evidence. i believe this applies most aptly to evolutionary studies since it deals mostly with history unlike physics or chemistry. i just view it as training for objective scientific reasoning.

    on the other hand, based on the posts already given, i right now view the use of "actual design" explanations for evolution as the creation of new theories to be proven. religion aside, i personally think its overcomplication of matters. but i want to ask if you can provide any specific example of a creationist's explanation applied to hard evidence say like the fossil record or anything related? the only way to be truely objective is to see how they apply they science compared to the generally accepted methodology right?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    What are we to do with all the creationist scientists of the past and of the present?
    um..nothing. i say let their work speak for themselves. that's what competition is about anyway. the true value of a scientific work is measured by its success in application. as history has shown us, some of the best scientific works have been rediscovered centuries after they were first published. if their work is good, i believe it will be accepted someday. If its not, it will just rot in the garbage bin.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    Hence, abductively speaking, ID claims to be the best explanation of origins based on available scientific data. If only the bigoted evolutionists would get out of the way.
    i couldn't help but comment but the explanation on abductive reasoning seems to be essentially the same as the one generally being used by archaeologists nowadays. in the scientific method, its called deducing a hypothesis based on what is observed. i fail to see what's special about the intelligent designer's version of this method. are their explanations more foolproof compared to conventional scientific thinking? assuming that they use as basis the same evidences, i believe they would come to the same conclusion.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. yotsuya
    this is actually the first time i have read about this intelligent design concept and my first impressions of it were as i stated above. i'm basically speaking based on my personal background. i'm an engineer by profession and science for me is a tool. practical science.

    theories are there to be applied and each new application found adds to its credibility and one deviation from the theory is enough to discredit it. that applies also to Darwin's theory.
    That's nice but scientific explanations of origins aren't exactly what you might call "practical science". On that basis alone Darwinism and ID is on the same footing, neither one deserving of a favored status in the classroom.

    As per your post, I understand that the creationists are specifically against "methodological naturalism" as a way of teaching the theory of evolution right?
    Actually, methodological naturalism is just the scientific approach that evolutionists use to arrive at their ideas. But that philosophy-driven approach is just as wrong as a religion-driven approach. All creationists are saying is that science and education must allow the evidence to speak for itself and to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But the ID view is not being disproven, rather its being censored in the schools.

    personally, i do not see any problem with methodological naturalism being applied to evolutionary studies. i do not view it as constricting the view of students. for me it is synonymous to "common sense". the simplest most logical explanation is most probably the right one based on the available evidence. i believe this applies most aptly to evolutionary studies since it deals mostly with history unlike physics or chemistry. i just view it as training for objective scientific reasoning.
    It seems like "common sense" to you because that's all you've been taught. You have not been taught of the problems of the evolutionary theory, nor were you taught other competing theories like ID. And so basically, you weren't really educated, you were indoctrinated. And that's the problem that you don't see.

    on the other hand, based on the posts already given, i right now view the use of "actual design" explanations for evolution as the creation of new theories to be proven. religion aside, i personally think its overcomplication of matters. but i want to ask if you can provide any specific example of a creationist's explanation applied to hard evidence say like the fossil record or anything related? the only way to be truely objective is to see how they apply they science compared to the generally accepted methodology right?
    The fossil record is a perfect example of the undisclosed problems with evolutionary theory. While evolutionists say that everything evolved over millions and billions of years, the fossil record prove otherwise by the sudden appearances of all kinds of species.

    um..nothing. i say let their work speak for themselves. that's what competition is about anyway. the true value of a scientific work is measured by its success in application. as history has shown us, some of the best scientific works have been rediscovered centuries after they were first published. if their work is good, i believe it will be accepted someday. If its not, it will just rot in the garbage bin.
    Not if they're being censored by bigoted evolutionists and hardly gets published as been the case today since the rise of Darwinism.

    i couldn't help but comment but the explanation on abductive reasoning seems to be essentially the same as the one generally being used by archaeologists nowadays. in the scientific method, its called deducing a hypothesis based on what is observed. i fail to see what's special about the intelligent designer's version of this method. are their explanations more foolproof compared to conventional scientific thinking? assuming that they use as basis the same evidences, i believe they would come to the same conclusion.
    They are essentially the same, yes, but whether they come to the same conclusion is determined by one's approach to the available scientific data. Someone who is committed to the naturalistic philosophy will come to a different conclusion from someone who has a commitment to another philosophy or from someone who's just following the evidence wherever it leads.

  19. #19
    ^i'd like to ask if you know of any certain scientific paper published by a creationist scientist regarding any topic generally tackled by conventional evolutionary theory (like parallel branches of human evolution for example)?

    i'd like to see for myself how different their conclusions can be or how disparate are the methods and philosophy behind them. it's very difficult to discuss something if you haven't seen any concrete examples of it right? right now everything's about the philosophy of the methodologies which i find inadequate. tnx.

  20. #20
    To conclude, it is quite apparent that creationists DO publish in notable refereed journals, much to the surprise of many evolutionists. Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: "I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don't actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists."
    Mordecai, i read your link. there's not a complete paper there but one comment caught my eye. why would they call themselves "biblical creationists" if what they really consider is evidence. By biblical, do they mean the Christian Bible? i certainly don't agree with this and i think this goes against the initial argument for ID who wants "neutral and non-ideological" science education.

    i think a complete paper would be an interesting read. forget the censorship, i just want to know their conclusions on some issues like the extinction of the dinosaurs or the age of the world and why. i believe we all have the brains here to judge for ourselves right?

Page 1 of 15 1 2 11 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •