In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
This sounds to me like the typical paranoid, anti-American claptrap we
hear from the tabloids. The proponents of ID are not "dangerous
nutters".
Any group that manages to significantly reduce the educational options of
a nation is a group of dangerous nutters.
Where creationists (as opposed to ID's) have tried to have creationism
taught is schools, and not evolution then I agree this is foolish and
potentially dangerous. In the most recent case of the Dover School Board,
they wanted to introduce ID alongside traditional evolution.
ID is Creationism. They have just changed the name.
I don't see how teaching the strengths and weaknesses of two differing
theories results in a "reduction of educational options".
Te;ling them they are two different scientific theories is a lie. Any teacher
that taught that would be a crap teacher. Any employer who pressurised a
science teacher to teach that would be what I termed 'a dangerous nutter'.
Kids need to learn that there are controversies in life, that things are
not always cut-and-dried.
Pretending that ID is a scientific alternative is a lie - not an alternative
explanation. Pretending that ID is an alternative of any kind to evolution is
a lie.
Scientific fact should be taught as fact, and theory should be taught as
theory.
Good. Evolution is a fact just as certain as gravity is a fact and the planets
moving around the Sun is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact just as certain
as the Peridic Table describes the relationships of the Elements. Details of
exactly how natural selection works in particular species is debated and
tested just like any scientific work.
Any group that manages to influence the government of the richest nation
to divert its support for saving lives is a group of dangerous nutters.
Note sure what you're referring to here. Has the US government stopped
supporting research into flu vaccines? That would be ludicrous if true.
If it hasn't then I wonder why not. The whole thing is based on the assumption
that evolution is working there and the research would be irrelevant
otherwise. Perhaps the fact that practically every scientist (except those
planted by the Creationists) rejects the stupidity of their President and 50%
of their fellow citizens.
Any group that gets the same government to believe that evolution doesn't
exist just when we are faced with a possible
No! This is where you've got it wrong. ID doesn't deny all forms of
evolution, it simply states that evolution does not explain everything.
Having lost the first argument completely they have changed their tactics -
though withut any additional 'evidence'. They're still working on the same set
of 4,000+ year old myths for their 'science'.
ID says that evolution by natural selection does not have all the answers.
Not quite true if you read their literature. exactly what they believe depends
upon who they are arguing with. They seem to give the old story to their less
capable supporters and trot out the new version when they have to argue the
case with someone capable. They're still wrong because none of their ideas are
based on science. Whilst it may (in real scientific circles) be argued that
there is room for a Lamarckian style of evolution in certain circumstance I
doubt that would satisfy the Creationist (or ID) zealots.
There are too many holes in the observable evidence, there are too many
holes in the fossil record.
There will always be holes in the fossil record. Do you really appreciate just
how unlikely it is that anything is ever fossilised? Despite that there really
is no doubt about the facts of evolution - but there is plenty of detail to be
filled in. sadly for your case none of the details come within a million miles
of permitting room for a non-evolutionary explanation for the range of life on
this planet.
There are too many things that (at least appear) to make evolution
impossible in some cases.
No. There is nowhere where evolution is impossible. There are many links that
have not (yet) been entirely explained - but no-one would suggest that every
link has to be there. These days you can follow someones path through a city
on CCTV - but, if there was a 5-minute gap where you couldn't see them, you
wouldn't then suggest that was good evidence for them using a Tardis to jump
from one spot to another. That effectively is what you are suggesting. There
are gaps in the fossil record just where you would expect it - in areas where
the population is low and the terrain is unsuitable for fossils to form.
In any case your argument depends on evolution not working. It does.
ID does not deny evolutuion, it builds on it.
Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it. ID denies (or curtails the
effect) of evolution. It has no basis in evidence and brings nothing to the
debate. It's a dead end that was dead hundreds of years ago and it's only been
brought up again because it's possible to make money and have power over the
gullible by giving them simple stories and telling them they understand
science as well as religion. ID is religion. Go away and discuss it with you
fellow believers and stop pretending that it's something it isn't.
The sooner some scientists start to look outside of their blinkered view of
things, the sooner we will all learn the truth.
Crap. Scientists would be far better off spending their time trying to
understand all these ideas better rather than waste the time arguing an idea
that died centuries ago.
Unlike Dawkins I can see the use and the need for religion and religious
ideas. That does not mean that I should welcome the destruction of scientific
progress just because someone falsely purports to be able to 'do science'
without any of the fundamental tests of the scientific method.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing