Hey UTE, I like your style, putting everything within italicized quotes like that. The only trouble is that your refutation and denunciation of Marvin Lubenow based on 'peer-review' reminds me of the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals refutations and denunciations of Martin Luther's muliple theses critizing the professional opinions of the predominant 'religious' community and 'peer-reviewers' of his day.
On pages 156-157, Lubenow quotes Gould as confirming that evolution is intrinsically racist.
Oh, dear, I'd better give you the scientific lowdown this time or my scientific credentials will forever be disparaged by you on this forum. All right, here goes:
Lubenow states on page 156 (paragraph 2) of his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that Gould delivered a lecture at the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, on "Evolution and Human Equality" in 1987. He says that there was little mention of this lecture for fifteen years until it was made available on videotape in 2002 by Natural History magazine.
So I guess that you have to call up Natural History magazine to confirm that fact, UTE.
Christian Schools Sue State University
Discussion in 'Science' started by jcrawford, Aug 31, 2005.
Page 6 of 14
-
"The only trouble is that your refutation and denunciation of Marvin Lubenow based on 'peer-review' reminds me of the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals refutations and denunciations of Martin Luther's muliple theses critizing the professional opinions of the predominant 'religious' community and 'peer-reviewers' of his day."
It really does not matter what you think. You said he was a recognized expert. I want to know on what basis we should consider him a recognized expert. I gave you the normal test which he fails. So what other test do you propose and how does he fit that test?
"Lubenow states on page 156 (paragraph 2) of his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that Gould delivered a lecture at the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, on "Evolution and Human Equality" in 1987. He says that there was little mention of this lecture for fifteen years until it was made available on videotape in 2002 by Natural History magazine. "
Well maybe you could tell us what he supposedly said. Here are a couple of descriptions of the tape.
These descriptions make it sound as if he not only was saying just the opposite of what you claim, but that the entire lecture was opposed to what Lub claims. But these sorts of errors are quite common in YE "science." -
Not that you ever personally had fangs, nor even Adam and Eve. It would have been a biological ancestor from back before God chose the body into which to enfuse the living soul.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dear readers: Please note the repetition of the mantra without a single piece of qualifying logic to justify the mantra. That is all he's got - a repititon of a mantra. The science side keeps citing evidence. The anti-science side keeps denying the evidence is evidence, that's all they can do.
-
Since this case is not a case of religious discrimination, that's irrelevant.
There's no violation of such here. None.
They're not.
Not at all. One cannot cry "religious discrimination" and then be selective about the criteria which qualify.
-
-
It's wrong to say that the students are required to believe in evolution - they simply must understand what it is and why it is the prevailing theory.
I noticed that a couple other classes also were rejected - one in American history and one in American government. -
-
-
-
Since this case is not a case of religious discrimination, that's irrelevant.
</font>[/QUOTE]You read it first here on the Baptist Board, folks. Christians file a civil rights lawsuit based on religious discrimination against UC and Johnv writes that "this case is not a case of religious discrimination," it's irrelevant.
Maybe it's a case of racial discrimination after all. -
-
It is in that fashion, and that fashion only, there there is no evidence for evolution. It is all simply denied.
So tell me YOUR theory as to why dogs and cats were created able to make vitamin c in their own bodies while apes and humans cannot?
You know, I have the ability to actually wiggle my ears. The muscles for doing that do nothing else yet that function is utterly useless. In us, it is necessary for the ears to remain still so that the differences between sound waves arriving to the left and right ears can be compared and instant directional information be obtained.
Evolution theory explains to me why those muscles are there - they have remained. Seperate design theory fails that particular test.
It is not the only failure of seperate design theory. -
-
JC
And we are right back to a tautology ... -
I suppose we shall just have to wait for the facts of the trial to emerge. I'll keep everyone posted if I learn of any new developments in the case. -
On the other hand, I was courted and given perks by other professors who wanted me doing research for them because I was a good scientist. They didn’t care about my creationist beliefs—they just respected my scientific research and analytical skills. Does that clarify the question for you?
You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate. Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis. Evolution will not work from the standpoint of entropy and energy. Apply what you do know rather than swallowing the swill offered in the trough for public consumption. -
There are two strong parallels here that few people have seen.
First, this issue may be the place to apply the advice of a very wise, learned and respected Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel. His principle may be parodied for the current case as follows: If creationism is true, then it is folly to fight against it but if it is not true, then it will fall on its own in time. All the creationists are asking is an open forum to articulate their teachings in their own schools. It has nothing to do with the scientific knowledge or competence of its graduates. No one can show that graduates of creationist schools do more poorly in scientific disciplines than students from evolutionary backgrounds. In fact, an old study by Dr. Bliss indicated that creationist students tended to have better analytical skills than students from evolutionary programs.
Second, it is sheer folly for the state to dictate what is science and what is not. We have the horrific example of Nazi science in WWII. Sure they produced rockets and advanced technology but they also did experiments on living human beings who were considered inferior to prove their race theories. Dr. Josef Mengle, an educated man, and his experiments are the prime examples of science controlled by the state. This is politically correct science that is comparable to the current rant by evolutionists.
Science is traditionally thought of as free and open inquiry. It is passingly strange that evolutionists, who claim scientific respectability, want to cut off debate, inquiry and alternative explanations. BTW, can anyone tell which evolutionary theory is the correct one to teach in school for certifible and creditable science training? Who can authoritatively say which theory is correct? Suppose we teach Lamarkian Evolution? Is this acceptable for the UC system? ;) -
Where shall we start? How about the end...
"Suppose we teach Lamarkian Evolution? Is this acceptable for the UC system?"
I thought you would be in favor of this since Jacob used just this in Genesis.
Just what is verified in science? Any science? Hypothesis and theories are made and tested and imporved. But are they ever considered to be proven?
If you look at my point, you will see that it was this. In modern biology, evolution is considered to be the lynchpin that holds it all together. A class that teaches that this lynchpin is false is therefore not teaching biology. It is impossible. Yet these kids think they should recieve credit for having taken biology. Whatever it is that they may have taken, it most certainly is not biology.
While you may not be able to prove evolution, there certainly is an abundance of evidence for it while there is no evidence at all to support a young earth. A few of these line of evidence include the twin nested heirarchy, the convergence of independent phylogenies, the know transistional series, ontogeny, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, past biogeography, present biogeography, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges, shared pseudogenes, and shared retroviral inserts.
" You have a very simplistic view of science."
Ad hominem.
"Your view, as expressed in this post, is highly unscientific."
Ad hominem.
"Science is the continual testing, inquiring and questioning of even the generally accepted theories."
Yes, a process which ToE has withstood and prospered from for well over a century.
"In science, we hold all theories as tentative and subject to refutation in light of later evidence."
Absolutely. There are many ways in which a new discovery could falsify evolution. Such possibilities have yet to be presented. Take one example from my list above: anatomical vestiges. If you were to find lactal nipples on a reptile, this would tend to falsify evolution. If you were to find a feathered mammal, this would be a great difficulty for evolution. But so far, vestiges have only been found in a manner consistent with evolution.
Perhaps you would share with us some ways in which you think YE could be falsified by the data.
"What you are saying is that this is the way it is because the majority of scientists accept it."
Not exactly. What I am saying is that if schools wish to teach something else than the current science, then they should not try and pretend that they have taught the current science.
On a broader note, theories are subject to change. The theories of how the observed fact of evolution works continue to be improved. But, if you are a gambling man, you are more likely to be closer to the truth if you take the opinion of hte majority of the experts of a given subject than if you go against them. This does not always hold, but it will hold much more often than if you offer opinions in subjects with which you are unfamiliar that go against the opinions of those who are experts.
"And do you have a corner on science?"
Nope. When did I claim to do so?
"Is evolution science?"
Yes. And so is geology and astronomy, two other sciences which disagree with your position.
"The evidence has alternative explanations, you know. Or, do you? "
I know only too well. I was once young earth myself. Then I started reading YE material. I was not YE for long after that.
But please, there are many active threads on this forum dealing with the evidence. Please offer for us those alternative explanations that do a better job of explaining the data. No one else has yet been able to do so. But maybe you will be the first.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/89.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/2.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/94.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/10.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/60.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/43.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/17.html
"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."
That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.
After you have refuted all the threads linked above, and more that will be flying out if you were to actually join in such debate, then you will need to actually support this assertion. What are your very best pieces of evidence for a young earth. (Please note that for this question, to merely post critiques of evolution is a fallacy of the false dilemma. YOu need actual evidence that supports a young earth.)
"Even the most rabid evolutionary enthusiastic must agree that it is not verifiable if he is honest."
Just because things in science cannot be considered to be absolutely proven does not mean that we cannot weight competing theories and choose the one that best explais the observations. In the case of biology and paleontology and related fields, evolution is the only theory that can handle the observations.
"If so, there goes his claim to scientific validity. So, what more do you have than the creationists?"
Data.
"There’s another side to this coin too. Are you afraid that someone might be persuaded to abandon evolution for creationism? A number of competent scientists have."
I am not afraid of any such thing. I only insist that those who claim to have taken a particular class to have actually taken that class.
This is strange. You criticize me above for appealling to the great majority of scientists who accept biology, especially those in related fields. Yet here you appeal to a tiny minority, most from fields unrelated to biology. This tactic defies logic.
"Straw man! Your analogy is incorrect and proves nothing. You are begging the question by assuming a priori that creationism is a blatant falsehood and evolution is truth."
Nope, my analogy stands.
If you were to be taught math that was not what others to be considered correct, you would not be accpeted. By the same token, what these students learned was s omething that it not accepted as biology.
"I do know that creationist graduate students have been discriminated against because they were creationists ... It was a large graduate class and I was at the top of the exam scores."
You make my point. You got good grades. You were not dioscriminated against. You may have been insulted or ridiculed, but she passed you with high marks.
And that is the question I was asking the other poster. If you were to have given the answers for which the instructor was looking and were failed anyway, that would be discrimination. If you gave the wrong answers, then you did it to yourself. That is what I was trying to get fro mthe other poster.
"Engineering is more of an applied science. There is quick and real verification..."
You seem to have missed the point again.
The poster was claiming a degree in engineering and claiming first hand knowledge that "a significant amount of the 'science' taught today is not a subset of Science." I was asking him to back up this claim. Again, you made my point by pointing out that engineering is largely an applied science. This implies that he was unlikely to have been personally exposed to material in his studies which allows him to make such a claim.
"You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate."
Ad hominem.
I am not claiming these ideas as my own. They are what others, professionals, experts, have to say. If you doubt them, then respond to some of the other threads where the data is discussed.
"Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis."
This is quie an interesting statement.
I said before that it was because of YE writings themselves that I abandoned YE. Thermodynamics is what got the ball rolling.
When I first came across the whole assertions about entropy and evolution, it was the first YE material that I knew right away was false because of my own knowledge and education. Thermodynamics and YE's claims about it were the catalysts which set in motion my abandonment of YE. -
-
Page 6 of 14