Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

That would seem all the more reason not to use the term Darwinism, I would have thought. Just evolution, with all the complexity of processes that it entails.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That would seem all the more reason not to use the term Darwinism, I would have thought. Just evolution, with all the complexity of processes that it entails.
Click to expand...

If that's what you intend to refer to, yes. The terms aren't interchangeable, that's all.
 
Look at the terminology and think: theory, believe in, strict Darwinism and so on.

It is a theory. Only a theory! Not a dogma!!!

Any really credible evidence of a truly and certifiably new specie "since the inception" of what we see as "Darwinism" these days - the most widely spread common sense "survival of the fittest/all against all only or mostly" nonsense, that is? Nope, not that we have anything credible, i.e. it's all from "New Scientists" and such twatish bull "sources"...

If that is so and believing is involved then those who don't use their own brain for critical evaluation but only regurgitate the same old same old [usually a very specific variation of the original theory] are dogmatic believers and nowt more. Darwin would have been offended, as he stood up to such stuff!!! Intelligent critics are much more preferable to either the in- or unintelligent apologetic shite...

That is not to say that Darwin/Wallace's [not only their baby, btw!] theory isn't the least shitty attempt we have so far, that there isn't plenty of evidence that shows in that direction - but sure as hell isn't simple and uni-directional, purposeful and deterministic etc. etc.

Plus, we certainly do not need the kind of belief in it we have seen Darwin stood against, as it were... That would have killed the meaning and purpose of the darn thing!!!

And it sure as hell doesn't apply straight from the Animal Kingdom to our Empire of Freedom!!! Any unmediated attempt to do anything of the sort will end up disastrously!!!
 
gorski said:
. . .but sure as hell isn't simple and uni-directional, purposeful and deterministic etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I think you may be confusing evolutionary theory with creationist caricature - I've never heard a remotely informed person speak of evolution in such terms.
 
gorski said:
Look at the terminology and think: theory, believe in, strict Darwinism and so on.

It is a theory. Only a theory! Not a dogma!!!

Any really credible evidence of a truly and certifiably new specie "since the inception" of what we see as "Darwinism" these days - the most widely spread common sense "survival of the fittest/all against all only or mostly" nonsense, that is? Nope, not that we have anything credible, i.e. it's all from "New Scientists" and such twatish bull "sources"...
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Speciation has been observed in the lab. It happens.
Here is a list of examples, with proper references to scientific papers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
That is not to say that Darwin/Wallace's [not only their baby, btw!] theory isn't the least shitty attempt we have so far, that there isn't plenty of evidence that shows in that direction - but sure as hell isn't simple and uni-directional, purposeful and deterministic etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Evolution is none of those things, as anyone with more than a shaky grasp of it would tell you.
And it sure as hell doesn't apply straight from the Animal Kingdom to our Empire of Freedom!!! Any unmediated attempt to do anything of the sort will end up disastrously!!!
Click to expand...
Your evidence for this is what exactly? All the observed data points to an unbroken chain of descendance from a common ancestor with the apes around 3 million years ago. What theory do you propose that fits the data?
 
Hehe, maybe you are an animal.:p Maybe [to you and your ilk] to reduce and keep reducing a Human to an animal level is an achievement and a goal worth "striving" towards:rolleyes: but count me out!:cool: To many, obviously, t's all very infatuating as it involves no effort whatsoever but to me a different kinda effort in the opposite direction is much more interesting and it is demanding, sure... But I don't run from it - quite the opposite!!!;)

As for darwinistic determinists [for instance] who see themselves as very informed... - read this forum a bit...:rolleyes:
 
Could you pretend you're writing for a university course instead of imitating the public speaking style of a speed-addled tramp? It would help me understand your posts better :)
 
Well that's the problem I have with you gorski, you never explain your point of view. You just laugh at other people's and tell them they're stupid. I'm willing to listen to and understand points of view I don't agree with - religions for example - but I don't even understand what your point of view is. Your writing style doesn't help, but your condescension really gets in the way.
 
Oh, no, you don't: I explained my points so many times and in such detail, picked apart so many "arguments" and spent so much time doing it and the only thing one gets for it is that most people ignore the "unpleasant" questions I pose...:eek::confused::(

So, what is the fucking point?!?:hmm:
 
One of the people listed is William S Harris from the University of Minnesota, he co-authored a book called 'Intelligent Design: An Alternative to Evolution'

On page two, barely after the introductions, he says this in the book.

Origins Science
As used in this essay, origins science is the science that seeks to explain the origin (or causes) of the universe, of the earth, and of life and its diversity. Origins science is historical rather than strictly empirical in nature. Thus, it differs from experimental disciplines like chemistry and physics because experiments cannot be used to directly test its hypotheses. The historical nature of origins science is explained by Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr.

For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.2"


The problem I have with this is that Evolutionary Biology is a demonstratable phenomenon. In very fast reproducing simple life forms we can see it in action. We can see it in transition with animals both in fossil and alive.

How can you claim Evolutionary Biology is an "historical" science when what it posits can be tested and proven with experimentation. The only historical part is the back tracking and explaination of where we come from. The actual science is not historical at all.
 
No it can't be experimented on/simply observed/shown from the evidence we have in fossils accumulated so far. Maybe one day but not yet. We miss a helluva lot of evidence for what you want. That's wishful thinking. In search of a dogma. Humans can't do that, sorry. That's for Gods.

What Darwin did is precisely as charged. I would praise him for that. Marx did, for such elements of his work. He also criticized him for the methodological part of his work. Malthus and all that, for instance, as both Wallace and Darwin have admitted...

The two professors criticizing Darwin, however, also do not understand the ABC of methodology but that's another matter. No wonder they can't think, they have no clue about Philosophy. And no wonder they want a-historical shit. Bah!:rolleyes:

But Darwin wasn't just one-dimensional and neither was his work! He had the guts to explore and go against the grain, even if somewhat carefully...;)
 
It can be experimented on. Only with fast breeding species, but experimented nonetheless. We can change the environment for a population of organisms and watch natural selection right there in front of us. To the point of speciation, in some cases.
 
Though for a long time this wasn't the case, which is why confusion can arise if you only have access to old texts.
 
Crispy said:
It can be experimented on. Only with fast breeding species, but experimented nonetheless. We can change the environment for a population of organisms and watch natural selection right there in front of us. To the point of speciation, in some cases.
Click to expand...
Now, now, you should know better than arguing with gorski using facts. It's so vulgar.
 
The Discovery Institute eh?

Ever hear about their "Wedge Strategy"? It's quite an interesting document. The basic idea is pretty similar to that of the PR organisations who try to undermine public trust in other areas of science their clients find inconvenient; the pioneers of these techniques being the tobacco and asbestos industries and they've more recently been used very aggressively by those inconvenienced by the science around climate change (e.g. Exxon).

In the case of evolutionary biology, the idea is to take some crackpot pseudo-science that sounds superficially plausible, Intelligent Design and various quibbles the creationists have come up with by misunderstanding actual scientific questions, and to use it to foster the illusion that there is genuine doubt about basic concepts of evolutionary biology that contradict what they think the sky fairy told them to believe.

As you'll see from the text though, it's about more than just protecting unreason from reason. It's about social engineering on behalf of the extreme right of US politics. It's no surprise then that there is a great deal of crossover between these guys and the guys who try to undermine other areas of science and also between the PR front groups who promote other 'conservative' bright ideas like invading Iraq or research purporting to show that black people have smaller brains.

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
Click to expand...

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
 
Dravinian said:
For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Click to expand...
so then cosmology is a historical science too.. i don't really have a problem with considering either evolutionary biology or astrophysics as real sciences.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
The Discovery Institute eh?

Ever hear about their "Wedge Strategy"? It's quite an interesting document.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Click to expand...

This was mentioned in an intersting, if a little soft, film i watched last night Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus - as was the DI funded William Harris mentioned above, basically admitting on camera that he did not have the intellectual/academic backgrund to intevent authoratively in the debate.

(Someone else connected to namesless poster on here who will surely pop up at some point on this thread also made an interesting contribution)
 
ViolentPanda said:
gorski in "arrogant, dismissive cunt" non-shocker!!
Click to expand...

As if that came from a vacuum, yessss?!? And as if you're a stranger to that sort of dismissive "debating", eh:rolleyes:

No, that's us experimenting, Crispy and co. - that's not evolution. Fact!!! By definition. But why bother with such details, eh?:rolleyes:

Or with the fact that it is "historical", which means "our own little input is essential" in all this... No such thing as "nothing to do with us, Gov"! Which means, in English, the observer can not merely observe but is also a product of developments around one and as him/herself produced not merely by the "factors without" but also, being Human, "factors within" and hence...:hmm:

Oh, never mind...:rolleyes:

We have so many geniuses here one can't possibly bring in any new elements into any of this. They need not hear anything at all. There's nothing they can learn from anyone who differs. It's "either-or", nowt else is possible... Eh-hmmmm, ain't you the bad lot... Killer debaters!!!:rolleyes:
 
8ball said:
That's the sort of thing Dr. Mengele would do. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, he would experiment on anything that moves...:rolleyes:

But he would also share your dismissive attitude to anyone who dares think differently...:hmm: No criticizm in mein shop, nein!!!:rolleyes::D
 
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."
Click to expand...
Hume: 'Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Section X; Of Miracles'
 
gorski said:
As if that came from a vacuum, yessss?!? And as if you're a stranger to that sort of dismissive "debating", eh:rolleyes:

No, that's us experimenting, Crispy and co. - that's not evolution. Fact!!! By definition. But why bother with such details, eh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So isolating things in the lab to understand them automatically means it has no relevance to the real world? You're dismissing the entire scientific method here. Or at least I think you are. I'm trying not to be rude, but please be a bit more clear and measured in your writing. I find it confusing and hard to tease the meaning from the emotion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spymaster
First Space Launch From UK Soil Today
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
469
Signal 11
Signal 11
H
Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air
Replies
1
Views
270
HAL9000
H
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
252
bcuster
bcuster
fishfinger
Watch a 10-Year Time Lapse of Sun From NASA’s SDO
Replies
24
Views
709
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom