Just After Darwin Day...
14/2/11 09:15![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYou really have to feel sorry for kids living in the world's last remaining superpower, don't you?
I mean, it is not their fault that they get fed on junk food from Macdonalds that gives them an obesity problem, is it?
And now, people who are old enough to know better want to bring in legislation that will ' teach the controversy' in schools, and develope their 'critical thinking'... yeah, right !!!
Oh, before I forget, have a link:-
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/02/11/%E2%80%98science-guy%E2%80%99-speaks-out-bill-nye-says-nay-to-anti-evolution-crusade-as-bills-pop-up-in-the-states/
Now, the obligatory opinion....
The fact is, there is no controversy regarding biological Evolution in science. Scientists are people who go into the field and into the lab and do their own original research and make their own discoveries and publish the findings for peer review among people well qualified in the same and in related fields, and the consensus among the scientific community is that the Earth is billions of years old and that our species has been around for a lot longer than the 6,000 years allowed for by a literal reading of the book of Genesis.
OTOH, Craetionists turn out overwhelmingly to be people who quotemine and misrepresent the findings of others, and then go on to copypaste the claims on Creationist websites. Rather than doing original research and making ground breaking discoveries like 'Lucy', the big names in Creationism, people like Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and Ken Ham simply sell their books and videos to make money off of a gullible audience. These websites, and the related books and videos advertsied thereon, are packed with misrepresentations and inaccuracies - and sadly, this is what some adult Americans actually believe to be true.
In a recent discussion on Facebook, the following comment was made-
Marcus Clark What they don't tell you is that "Lucy" is not only a compilation of bone fragments of multiple bodies but likely of multiple species. These bone fragments were also collected over a rather large area. By doing a little "digging" you'll find that "Lucy" is a total farce.
And this was cited as ' evidence'
Marcus Clark
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html
and
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp
...and
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf
just to show a few.See more
However, as this crushing refutal shows, the original claim was misrepresentation - nobody claimed that the 1973 find was part of the Lucy skeleton, (except the creationists , of course) and the guy who discovered Lucy was quite clear that the knee joint find was from another individual, albeit of the same species - A aferensis.
Go take a look -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Saturday at 12:53
Now, if this ever comes up in class, how many teachers of the creationist persuasion are going to show both sides of the case, and how many are going to do a good job in demolishing guys like Hovind, Ham and Gish? How many Creationists are actually honest?
It does not bode well for the future of the USA when an agenda driven by the Religious Right gets taught as fact in the classroom. I hope that American kids will get a good deal for once and that this legislation will be rejected for what it is, a cunning plot to bring Creationism into class - but I am a realist. I know how many Americans believe in Creationism, and that many of these will sit on School boards, and have a vote in State politics. People do have a right to be wrong if they choose, it goes with the turf in a democratic nation. However, I don't thiink that these people are making a choice that willbe good for their kids or their country's future if they allow Creationism into the class room.
I mean, it is not their fault that they get fed on junk food from Macdonalds that gives them an obesity problem, is it?
And now, people who are old enough to know better want to bring in legislation that will ' teach the controversy' in schools, and develope their 'critical thinking'... yeah, right !!!
Oh, before I forget, have a link:-
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/02/11/%E2%80%98science-guy%E2%80%99-speaks-out-bill-nye-says-nay-to-anti-evolution-crusade-as-bills-pop-up-in-the-states/
Now, the obligatory opinion....
The fact is, there is no controversy regarding biological Evolution in science. Scientists are people who go into the field and into the lab and do their own original research and make their own discoveries and publish the findings for peer review among people well qualified in the same and in related fields, and the consensus among the scientific community is that the Earth is billions of years old and that our species has been around for a lot longer than the 6,000 years allowed for by a literal reading of the book of Genesis.
OTOH, Craetionists turn out overwhelmingly to be people who quotemine and misrepresent the findings of others, and then go on to copypaste the claims on Creationist websites. Rather than doing original research and making ground breaking discoveries like 'Lucy', the big names in Creationism, people like Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and Ken Ham simply sell their books and videos to make money off of a gullible audience. These websites, and the related books and videos advertsied thereon, are packed with misrepresentations and inaccuracies - and sadly, this is what some adult Americans actually believe to be true.
In a recent discussion on Facebook, the following comment was made-
Marcus Clark What they don't tell you is that "Lucy" is not only a compilation of bone fragments of multiple bodies but likely of multiple species. These bone fragments were also collected over a rather large area. By doing a little "digging" you'll find that "Lucy" is a total farce.
And this was cited as ' evidence'
Marcus Clark
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html
and
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp
...and
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf
just to show a few.See more
However, as this crushing refutal shows, the original claim was misrepresentation - nobody claimed that the 1973 find was part of the Lucy skeleton, (except the creationists , of course) and the guy who discovered Lucy was quite clear that the knee joint find was from another individual, albeit of the same species - A aferensis.
Go take a look -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Saturday at 12:53
Now, if this ever comes up in class, how many teachers of the creationist persuasion are going to show both sides of the case, and how many are going to do a good job in demolishing guys like Hovind, Ham and Gish? How many Creationists are actually honest?
It does not bode well for the future of the USA when an agenda driven by the Religious Right gets taught as fact in the classroom. I hope that American kids will get a good deal for once and that this legislation will be rejected for what it is, a cunning plot to bring Creationism into class - but I am a realist. I know how many Americans believe in Creationism, and that many of these will sit on School boards, and have a vote in State politics. People do have a right to be wrong if they choose, it goes with the turf in a democratic nation. However, I don't thiink that these people are making a choice that willbe good for their kids or their country's future if they allow Creationism into the class room.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 11:13 (UTC)"They rather argue that the mainstream scientific views on these issues are demonstrably incorrect.""
Right. As opposed to using an 'of the gaps' argument as alleged by the previous commenter.
"My point is that they do indeed make thse claims..."
Right.
"...but do it by 'quotemining' and misrepresenting the original statements, and the original evidence unearthed by others."
I'm not sure why you fixate here on quotemining. What we quote from Darwin seems to be a rather strange metric for claims we presently make about phenotypic variability.
But in any case, there are presumably an assortment of problems with their position on the matter.
Among these problems is not--I repeat, and contrary to the previous commenter's assertion--that it is simply an 'of the gaps' argument. It's not simply an 'of the gaps' argument. An 'of the gaps' argument would go like this: we don't or can't know how to explain (e.g.) phenotypic variability, therefore God did it. Rather, what gets said in these cases is that (e.g.) neo-Darwinian explanations of phenotypic variability are demonstrably incorrect. The problem with this is not that it's an 'of the gaps' argument (it's not), but simply that it happens to be wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 11:46 (UTC)For me, it seems that the problem with the "God in the gaps" hypothesis is that our knowledge is growing and the gaps are getting smaller. i am already going for the Theistic Evolution argument as a faith position . Scienctists can make no rulings on faith , it is outside their field. however, my faith does not deny observable reality. if it looks like planet earth is billions of years old, then to me it seems logical that God spent billions of years in making it.
My contention against Young Earth Creationists is no so much about 'gaps' as their misuse of other people's discoveries and statements.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 12:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 12:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 13:55 (UTC)Well.......
Date: 15/2/11 01:56 (UTC)Re: Well.......
Date: 15/2/11 04:08 (UTC)Re: Well.......
Date: 15/2/11 04:10 (UTC)Re: Well.......
Date: 15/2/11 07:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 22:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/2/11 07:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/2/11 08:56 (UTC)Yes, it's "meant to be a demonstration of the incorrectness of neo-darwinian accounts. There's nothing fallacious about such an argument. It's obviously a vicious circle to exclude any criticism of neo-darwinian accounts on the basis that it must be an 'of the gaps' argument and then conclude that there aren't any criticisms of neo-darinian accounts. The objection to make against irreducible complexity isn't that it's an 'of the gaps' argument (it's not; it's a perfectly valid was of objecting to neo-darwinian theory). The objection to make against irreducible complexity is rather that it happens to be wrong."
(no subject)
Date: 15/2/11 11:11 (UTC)