That should be:
To be honest I’ve seen you debate on other boards, and I don’t see how you can put up with it.
The “it” being the willful ignorance of some people.
I mean, which essay of mine?
Oh! Erm…I believe I linked to both of them (the molecular genetics one and the geology one). In my hazy memory I recall linking them with some other links (like talkorigins), in order to provide some quality links to some of the posters.
From a strictly libertarian perspective, I’d say you have a definite point. And I can see a definite incline with a less-than-ideal friction coefficient in any attempt to define an absolute here.
However, I submit to you that the collective wisdom of this country starting in, IIRC, the 1830s and building for a century until it became mandatory to do so, is that “the state” – i.e., the collective citizenry acting through their elected representatives – has defined itself as having a vested interest in having successive generations of itself equipped with an adequate education to be self-supporting and to make reasonably good choices as to what its representatives will enact into law and set as public policy. This too could be debated at length.
Given that position, however, for the state to set minima against which a child’s education must measure up, leaving how that child obtains that education to the free choice of the parents (but providing that some level of education must be provided, and (in the absence of Libertaria) taxing all citizens to provide that tuition-free public schools shall be available for students/parents who wish to utilize them, at public expense, is not an unreasonable position to hold. (As noted, from a strict libertarian perspective, all you child-laden types taking tax money from childless me-and-Barb to pay for your kids’ education is nothing short of highway robbery. However, in point of fact, I support the idea of all kids being entitled to as good an education as they’re willing to pursue, and will willingly pay my fair share in taxation towards that goal – provided that the schools are duly providing a good education and not run by the American Fascisti, AKA the typical school administration bureaucrat, who as a rule seems to have assumed that the Constitution doesn’t apply to his private fiefdom – a rant I will conduct further in the Pit if circumstances call for it.)
I just hopped over to that Creation Talk board and I don’t know how you put up with it either. Ee gads!!
…now, if we can only find a way to actually do that…
There are a lot of things that are desirable in society that we don’t yet know how to do. The only thing available to us is to keep trying.
SPLORT!!
But, like David Simmons says, the way to accomplish that is to keep on keepin’ on…
Me, I’m a Square Earther.
Scary isn’t it?
You know, I am a bit ashamed at how I post over there. I used to just post stuff and tried not to take it personally. I have lately found myself to be aggressive and somewhat insulting-which stress me greatly because that doesn’t help the situation and it strains my credibility.
Not necessarily. No, but everyone in the scientific community does not believe in “evolution” (a term that tends not to get defined in these discussions.)
Time is short, so I will not be too precise atm. I will try to follow up later this evening. Your first question is what I think creates much of the problem. There is an assumption by many that evolution is “fact” and that all credible scientists believe in evolution. Such is not the case. Matters get more complicated when people try to put evolution on the same scale as gravity because they are both “theories.” I understand people’s frustration with the “just a theory” approach. I made it once in jest on this board and learned quickly that people take such very seriously. The problem is that most responses to the “just a theory” approach seem to imply that “it should be a law.” Of course, that is impossible because the length of time necessary for observation of the evolution phenomenon is simply too large. That does not diminish evolutionary possibilities, of course, but it creates practical problems.
To rationally talk about evolution, or creation for that matter, requires a definition of terms. Most evolutionists I have met are not Darwinian, but Neo Darwinian, which seems to be the prevailing theory to date. Second, there is a huge distinction between macroevolution (which I don’t believe has been proven) and microevolution (which I think is compelling).
The dishonesty of the scientific community comes from the out of hand disbelief in the possibility of creation. There is also a great tendency to believe papers published that seem to support evolution without the typical scrutiny one would expect of the scientific community. Many still quote the pepper moth study as if it were sacrosanct, and it still finds its way into many textbooks despite some very critical proof that the study was flawed in the extreme.
To my mind there are two problems with evolutionary debates, at present. The evolutionists discount the idea of naturalism, and if something points to naturalism, it is simply dismissed out of hand. This is scientifically and intellectually dishonest. The creationists do the same thing, but instead, they assume creation, and accept only what fits into that theory. This is scientifically and intellectually dishonest. These are, of course, very broad generalizations.
Evolution speaks to method, creation to agent. Yet in many discussions, you would think that the creationist and evolutionist think they are talking about the same thing. I think one of the main problems with the debate in general circles outside of the scientific community is that many creationists are creationists by faith alone and have not really tried to understand the evolutionary theory. They will nonetheless try to jump into a scientific debate armed solely with their faith, but no understanding of the facts, and therefore come across as complete idiots. That does not prove their conclusions are wrong, but it leads to absurd and frustrating debates.
Many very intelligent scientists have questioned evolution, and every serious scientist should welcome critical questioning, because if we are genuinely searching for the truth, then refinements and criticisms of prevailing views are a healthy thing. I don’t think the scientific community as a whole is welcoming any discussion that naturalism may be provable or may be disproven. I don’t think we will get to a true understanding of origins until that matter is taken seriously.
There are many holes in evolutionary theory at present. I don’t believe in macroevolution (although it would not affect my faith to do so) because I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to support it. Darwinian evolution states that all life descended from a single primitive source. That source would necessarily have been so simple that it could have derived from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory I have ever seen that could account for this. That is the root of my skepticism.
To sum up, I don’t think that the evolutionary debate is being conducted honestly by either side for the most part. Science should seek the truth, and live with that truth whatever it might be. I don’t see that happening in the study of evolution.
Serenity evolution HAS been scientifically proven, this means that the level of proof for evolution has reached such a level that it can be regarded as a scientific fact.
You will simply not find a scientist, working for a reputable scientific instition who does not take evolution as a fact.
Hate to disappoint you, but evolution has been proven and you don’t understand the terms. A “Law” is not an increase in valitidity .
No there isn’t. What is the distinction?
This is nonsense. Do you have any evidence-from non-bias sources, to support your assertion?
Scientists question every scientific theory-that’s how science works.
Let’s here the holes.
No it doesn’t necessarily. You are integrating abiogenesis into evolution.
Also, a scientific theory does not require direct observation to be proven, it requires enough evidence, which evolution has in abundance.
“Neo-Darwinian” refers to a school of thought, or a collection of theories, not a theory. Strict Darwinists are of the mind that natural selection prevails above all (as Darwin did, with sexual selection playing a minor role), and is sufficient to explain both micro-changes (adaptations) and macro-changes (the evolution of novelties and divergence of higher taxa). Most evolutionists today are not, indeed, strict Darwinists. There is debate as to what extent natural selection can account for high-level changes, but there is little debate that selection in some form does operate at different levels (gene, organism, population, species, etc.). The distinction between macro- and micro-evolution, then, refers to action of selection at the higher levels (above the level of organism).
**
There is a distinction, but it isn’t nearly as huge as you make it out to be. Ultimately, it boils down to what is being selected: organisms and genes generally fall into “micro-evolution”, while populations and species are under the domain of macro-evolution. To claim that you do not “believe” in macro-evoltuion, you would have to believe that there is no selective “force” operating at those levels. Which you are certainly free to do, but there is a large volume of literature which would deny your claim.
**
Which has more to do with how textbooks get reviewed and published than it does any current state of evolutionary theory. I, for one, have never encountered any reference to the peppered moth throughout college - and I majored in evolutionary biology!
**
Excuse me? Are you sure you know what “naturalism” means?
**
Evolution likewise speaks of agent - why do you think the debate even exists between creationists and evolutionists? The agent of creation is God; the agent of evolution is the “natural world” - the operation of natural forces, which do not require (but also do not rule out the existence of) supernatural intervention.
**
Which is where ID comes in. ID proponents have certainly made the claim that naturalism can be disproven, but, as it is a metaphysic, such is really not likely to happen. And the frustration of IDers in this regard is evident.
**
Oft stated, but never clarified.
**
To quote Darwin:
“How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.” (The Origin of Species, “VI. Difficulties of the Theory: Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication”).
Darwin himeself was not concerned with the ultimate origin of life, as his theory of natural selection was not affected by how life first came to be.
**
You haven’t looked around much, would be my guess. Claims about the “truth” of this or that metaphysic do not lie within the realm of science in general, and evolution in specific. Yet, it should be noted, it is the creationists who adhere to an idea which depends on a given metaphysic being true. Evolution can occur regardless of the “real” metaphysic.
Finch wrote:
A profoundly true and startling statement, the careful study of which would edify us all.