Is it just me?

[Jerry Smith]

Or has this forum started to become another generic faith discussion forum? We had several threads moving on the substantive issues of evolution, with all kinds of evidence and counter-claims - and now... well, the only threads getting any posts are the one about what atheists believe and the one that degenerated into a discussion of fish and satanism.

[irony]Where did the evolution controversy go? Did it get resolved right here on this board?! If so, maybe we've made political history!![/irony]

 

[LouisBooth]

No, but its the same arguments people have already seen. So there isn't really anything new that I've seen. I did't read them all this weekend though...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Or has this forum started to become another generic faith discussion forum? We had several threads moving on the substantive issues of evolution, with all kinds of evidence and counter-claims - and now...

... And now it's to the point where the proofs require a level of science background such that no one who can understand them isn't already convinced.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by seebs


... And now it's to the point where the proofs require a level of science background such that no one who can understand them isn't already convinced.

Maybe so. Why do you not see the creationists from those threads saying something like "hey, my objections were not sound, and I really don't have the background to discuss the more complicated matters that would fuel this discussion further, so I will acknowledge that the evolutionists are at least on a better track than I was on. It isn't important enough to me to find out more about it, so instead of pursuing a stronger science background, I will concede the debate and quit trying to get the creationist ideas I was once so fond of taught to the kids by the government."?

Pardon the run-on sentence. Instead of doing this, I suspect that the same ones will be back on the debate boards starting over from "macro-evolution is impossible" and "there is no evidence for evolution," after they think the coast is clear and they can make these assertions without being called to task by the science advocates.

I'm glad that there are people like you (seebs), who do not let their religious ideas turn them into dishonest propagandists against legitimate science. You have a lot on the ball, and I do appreciate it.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Maybe so. "

hmm..I think this is the case of the puffed up egos

The fact is that evolution isn't all that airtight, or it wouldn't be debated so much in scientific circles. (ie not CHRISTIAN scientific circles, just scientific circles).

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

hmm..I think this is the case of the puffed up egos

The fact is that evolution isn't all that airtight, or it wouldn't be debated so much in scientific circles. (ie not CHRISTIAN scientific circles, just scientific circles).

Details are widely debated. Real scientists haven't had much debate about the core theory in ages. You get stuff like Gould's punctuated equilibrium (RIP, Mr. Gould; he died today), but no one seriously doubts speciation, macro-evolution, or common descent of every life form thus examined.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Maybe so. "

hmm..I think this is the case of the puffed up egos

The fact is that evolution isn't all that airtight, or it wouldn't be debated so much in scientific circles. (ie not CHRISTIAN scientific circles, just scientific circles).

That evolution has occured has not been in dispute in the biological community since the late 1800s. The fact of evolution is not being debated at all in scientific circles.

Now the detail of evolution like how it works, what causes it, etc. are being debated. But then again, the same is true for gravity.

 

[LouisBooth]

"That evolution has occured has not been in dispute in the biological community since the late 1800s. "

*sigh* yes, it has and always will be.

http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Maybe so. "

hmm..I think this is the case of the puffed up egos

The fact is that evolution isn't all that airtight, or it wouldn't be debated so much in scientific circles. (ie not CHRISTIAN scientific circles, just scientific circles).

I definitely think its a case of puffed up egos.

Whether or not neo-darwinistic evolution is air-tight (it is definitely good down to several km below sea-level), it is good that the details are debated in scientific circles, and even that the occasional non-biologists call into question the basic tenants based on arguments from their own fields. In science, it is almost as important to be productively wrong as to be productively right... (who said that?)

 

[LouisBooth]

No, the theory is in debate. I think its evolutionists with the puffed up egos Jerry.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"That evolution has occured has not been in dispute in the biological community since the late 1800s. "

*sigh* yes, it has and always will be.

http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

From the link:

"The diversity of life on earth," the group's platform used to read, "is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process." Now the crucial words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" have been dropped. The revision is clearly designed to allow for the possibility that a Master Hand was at the helm.

So, not even the NABT (National Association of Biology Teachers) is debating whether evolution occurred (much less the "scientific circles") - they are merely removing language that makes it seem that the evolution they are teaching is necessarily atheistic. Despite the fact that evolution doesn't require "personal supervision", there is no reason to adamantly exclude the possibility. I see this as a good move on the part of the NABT - taking the religious overtones out of the curriculum. They don't have a place there anyway.

*sigh*
As seebs so correctly stated:

That evolution has occured has not been in dispute in the biological community since the late 1800s. The fact of evolution is not being debated at all in scientific circles.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
No, the theory is in debate. I think its evolutionists with the puffed up egos Jerry.

Sure the theory is in debate. Just not in scientific circles. Particularly not in biological science circles. The debates tend to fall apart as soon as someone forces them to center on the evidence... they regroup later in terms of rhetoric and hand-waving. You are right that it is easy for some evolutionists to get puffed-up egos.. after all, when you've got the best product, its hard not to be proud of it. I think you will find that all in all, evolutionists are a fairly modest bunch, considering the strength of their position.

 

[LouisBooth]

*chuckles* I don't think you read the whole thing did you?The point is that the article clearly shows that it is in debate and not concrete at all. Its pretty funny that a realistic evolutionist will say that the evidence leans neither way and that evoultion is just their best guess, though not concrete at all and still up for debate. but, also the puffed up egos of the evolutionist camp will hold on to it even if proved wrong, which I do beleive will happen eventually

 

[RufusAtticus]

Louis,

I read your link and I saw no mention of scientific controvercy. What I saw was references to a lawyer and a some off-subject scientists writing books for the public at large. There was nothing in there about evolution being challenged at all in scientific circles. The Discovery Institute, which Johnson, Behe, et al. belong to, is not a scientific organization. They clearly state that they are a "public policy organization." In other words, they are involved in the political controvercy, not any scientific one.

So the original comment by seebs still stands.

 

[LouisBooth]

*sigh* whatever you say then. I'm tired of bringing good evidence and ya'll not beleiving it, I even went to a nonchristian site this time too. *sigh* I'll just bow out so you can feel better and pat yourselves on the back and keep in your box.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
*sigh* whatever you say then. I'm tired of bringing good evidence and ya'll not beleiving it, I even went to a nonchristian site this time too. *sigh* I'll just bow out so you can feel better and pat yourselves on the back and keep in your box.

You provided evidence of an unrelated point.

You showed no evidence of *scientific* controversy. Public policy controversy? Of course! Lots of *non-scientists* don't accept evolution, and are offended by the very concept.

I have no idea why; it's like being offended when you're informed that the protons, neutrons, and electrons in people are the same type used everywhere else.

 

[mac_philo]

Well, if you don't believe the Discovery Institute is scientific, you're just the kind of 'dogmatic' evolutionist that won't give equal time to ID in the curriculum.

Sure, the Discovery Institute is just a policy organization that has never done one whit of research nor published a scientific paper. But the creationists *like* them, so you'd better take them seriously!

 

[LouisBooth]

funny, the other side could say the same thing about talkorgins.com..hey mack, your bias is showing might want to cover it up.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
And now it's to the point where the proofs require a level of science background such that no one who can understand them isn't already convinced.

Oh, that's so true. It's a shame we ignorant religious fanatics aren't as brilliant and educated in these topics as you evolutionists are, because if we only knew as much as you do, I'm certain we'd all abandon our belief in creation and agree with you.

What I admire most about you folks is that you aren't only brilliantly educated in biology, paleontology, etc., but you're also psychic and know the educational backgrounds of everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Oh, that's so true. It's a shame we ignorant religious fanatics aren't as brilliant and educated in these topics as you evolutionists are, because if we only knew as much as you do, I'm certain we'd all abandon our belief in creation and agree with you.

What I admire most about you folks is that you aren't only brilliantly educated in biology, paleontology, etc., but you're also psychic and know the educational backgrounds of everyone who disagrees with you.

I don't know them - I just infer them from the kinds of criticisms raised.

BTW, I'm not particularly well-educated in biology. Well enough to spot the obvious stuff, but a lot of the time, I can't *immediately* tell you what's wrong with a YECS claim about biology, and I need to ask someone who actually has a degree in it to explain what's going on.

Other times, such as Teno's questions, the only reason I involve my biologist friend is to try to get her to take a bet on whether or not she can make it through the document without laughing.