[_ Old Earth _] Bill Nye v AIG Creation Museum

[duari91]

There is no problem with etching other theories. The problem is that creation science does not have a solid scientific base. It way to speculative and dependent on explaining how other theories don't stand up. If creationism had a testable model with backed research there would be no problem in teaching it.

Many would disagree with you here. The point Ham was making was that a lot of the scientific work done in the name of creationism is discounted. While my teacher in Highschool was a heavy spokesman for Evolution, he still taught us the other side of the spectrum. He made sure we understood that Evolution is still a theory, and that Creationism is the other option. The problem is that there are people involved in censorship, who don't want the other side to be told. Not because of scientific reasons. Those who suppress that are in serious denial. I have more respect for the intellectually honest than I do for people who indoctrinate and commit the Argumentum ab auctoritate.

There shouldn't be a problem with presenting both sides of the coin, and combining the data for both as well.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Many would disagree with you here. The point Ham was making was that a lot of the scientific work done in the name of creationism is discounted.

The research is not thrown out just because the person is a creationist. Most of the work is thrown out because the claims are usually unsubstancial.

While my teacher in Highschool was a heavy spokesman for Evolution, he still taught us the other side of the spectrum. He made sure we understood that Evolution is still a theory

Yiu have had thoery explained to you several times.

, and that Creationism is the other option. The problem is that there are people involved in censorship, who don't want the other side to be told. Not because of scientific reasons. Those who suppress that are in serious denial.

This is false. tje main reason why creationism is not suposed to be taught in science classes is because it soes not have a solid mosel. It cant be the other option if it doesnt even provide any form of model.

I have more respect for the intellectually honest than I do for people who indoctrinate and commit the Argumentum ab auctoritate.

There is no fallacy.

There shouldn't be a problem with presenting both sides of the coin, and combining the data for both as well.

There is no consensus on a creation model to teach. There is no other side of the coin.

 

[Barbarian]

Kent Ham mentioned something important in the debate (which I did watch the entire debate). He said that it is important to present both sides of the coin, especially when tax dollars are involved.

It's unconstitutional for public schools to promote religion. The "equal time" ploy died a long time ago. So long as freedom of religion is in the Constitution, that's not going to happen.

If someone wants to teach that the moon is made of cheese, I am okay with it as long as they are teaching it on a private basis. On their own dime. I am not okay with that if tax dollars are involved.

Science is what scientists do. You might like it or not like it, but pretending that a revised version of Genesis can be taught along with real science, that's just not going to work.

Kent Ham also mentioned Indoctrination.

Practices it, too. One of his objections to public school is the idea that people should think for themselves.

While the word seems extremely negative, it fits perfectly with the current teaching system in schools.

It certainly is true of civics classes, which teach the principles upon which our country was founded. It wouldn't work so well in science, though.

in·doc·tri·nate : to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

So we should then teach racism and Marxism? I don't think so. Ironically, these fail for the same reason creationism fails. They are contrary to reason and evidence. If we teach people not to steal, it's still not reasonable to let a thief "teach the controversy."

We shouldn't teach flat Earth or geocentrism, either. Some things are just wrong.

 

[duari91]

The research is not thrown out just because the person is a creationist. Most of the work is thrown out because the claims are usually unsubstancial.

Dr. John Hauptman and his efforts to remove Dr. Gonzalez due to his ID views..

In private e-mails, Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues repeatedly expressed their intolerance towards
Gonzalez’s ID views by asserting that ID is “intellectually vacuous,”1 “more than just
vacuous,”2 that “[e]mbalming is more of a science”3 than ID, and that Gonzalez should be
lumped with “idiots” and “religious nutcases.”4 They hoped that ID would experience “self
destruction”
5 and mocked Gonzalez’s ID work, saying they would study it “nder
medication.”6
http://www.evolutionnews.org/ID_was_the_Issue_Gonzalez_Tenure.pdf

Dr. Hauptman elaborated in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," saying ID'ers are idiots as well as Creationists. Saying that these views are "crazy." So tell me how one would go about providing him evidence with his heavy bias? The majority of the scientific community has this attitude. If you reject scientific evidence based on personal belief, you have then left the field of science and inserted a personal bias. Would you like me to quote more people?

 

[Barbarian]

Many would disagree with you here. The point Ham was making was that a lot of the scientific work done in the name of creationism is discounted. While my teacher in Highschool was a heavy spokesman for Evolution, he still taught us the other side of the spectrum. He made sure we understood that Evolution is still a theory, and that Creationism is the other option.

If he was a competent teacher, he would have understood what "theory" means. It's not what you seem to think it is.

The problem is that there are people involved in censorship, who don't want the other side to be told.

That's true. The Institute for Creation Science not only bans evolution from their graduate school, they require a loyalty oath to YE creationism to even apply for the school.

On the other hand, Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. As Gould said, "all that really counts is ability."

This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.

 

[duari91]

It's unconstitutional for public schools to promote religion. The "equal time" ploy died a long time ago. So long as freedom of religion is in the Constitution, that's not going to happen.

No one is saying we should preach the bible to young students. The scientific view from the creationist standpoint should be represented, though. Rather, the interpretation of the data. Under your description, Evolution wouldn't be taught either.

Science is what scientists do. You might like it or not like it, but pretending that a revised version of Genesis can be taught along with real science, that's just not going to work.

Yes, and I know scientists who are also creationists. No need to revise Genesis. Not many Evolutionary scientists will admit that there are Creationist scientists, proving my point.

Practices it, too. One of his objections to public school is the idea that people should think for themselves.

All of us practice it to some degree or another. Like I said, if Kent wants to have a private school where all they teach is creation, thats okay. As long as my tax dollars aren't go towards it. When the publics money is involved, both views need to be taught. If you want to open an Evolution only private school, I would vote for your right to do so.

It certainly is true of civics classes, which teach the principles upon which our country was founded. It wouldn't work so well in science, though.

How many other theories are presented among Evolution? According to the definition, providing one belief while demoralizing the other is indoctrination.

So we should then teach racism and Marxism? I don't think so. Ironically, these fail for the same reason creationism fails. They are contrary to reason and evidence. If we teach people not to steal, it's still not reasonable to let a thief "teach the controversy."

We do teach it. In fact, I studied it plenty in High school and in College. This is a poor parallel because they are of different subjects. In the Soviet Union, were you allowed to voice your opinion about a Republic?

We shouldn't teach flat Earth or geocentrism, either. Some things are just wrong.

[/quote]
Those don't have religious implications, but I agree with you in a sense. We were still taught that in school, along with the current model we have(and why the current model is better).

 

[duari91]

That's true. The Institute for Creation Science not only bans evolution from their graduate school, they require a loyalty oath to YE creationism to even apply for the school.

On the other hand, Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. As Gould said, "all that really counts is ability."

This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.

The same way we ban creation from our public schools?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Dr. John Hauptman and his efforts to remove Dr. Gonzalez due to his ID views..

Dr. Hauptman elaborated in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," saying ID'ers are idiots as well as Creationists. Saying that these views are "crazy." So tell me how one would go about providing him evidence with his heavy bias?

Dr Hauptman is not the entire scientific communitty. Slso Ive seen the movie. Its a documentry that plays fast and loose with their facts.

The majority of the scientific community has this attitude.

Do you have any stats to back this up?

If you reject scientific evidence based on personal belief, you have then left the field of science and inserted a personal bias. Would you like me to quote more people?

i would like you to answer the questions that you skipped and adress the fact that there is no concensus on a creation model.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The same way we ban creation from our public schools?

its not banned. creationism just cant be taught as science. Mainly because there is no creationism model.

 

[duari91]

Dr Hauptman is not the entire scientific communitty. Slso Ive seen the movie. Its a documentry that plays fast and loose with their facts

No, but he is part of the problem. I assure you he is not the only one. You know this.

Do you have any stats to back this up?

Sure do. Reports vary but I will give you an example.
According to the PEW research center.....http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

Only %33 of scientists believe in God. 20% for protestant(Who would normally support Creation).

Unlike Barb, most scientists subscribe neither to God, or a higher power. If a majority of Scientists fail to have a belief in the Christian God, wouldn't that fuel a resistance to Creation? What other option do they have if Evolution is proven to be false? This is why the censorship exists. Like Dr Hauptman, they seek to ignore the "idiots" and push us out of the academic world. If you want me to quote more influential scientists (like Dr Hauptman) I can. Bill Nye is guilty of it as well.

i would like you to answer the questions that you skipped and adress the fact that there is no concensus on a creation model.

Do you know what a model is? Is this a serious question? If I showed you what you are looking for, would you even consider it?

 

[Milk-Drops]

No, but he is part of the problem. I assure you he is not the only one. You know this.

I don't buy into conspiracy theories or shadowy boogie men. I deal with evidence, not hunches.

Only %33 of scientists believe in God. 20% for protestant(Who would normally support Creation).

There are several that are agnostic on the issue.The poll even supports this.

Unlike Barb, most scientists subscribe neither to God, or a higher power. If a majority of Scientists fail to have a belief in the Christian God, wouldn't that fuel a resistance to Creation?

As I mentioned I dont care about hunches, I care about evidence. IIve qork in labs in college. Ive been taught by scientists. There isnt a huge tiraid against religion. Its just not an issue.

What other option do they have if Evolution is proven to be false?

Evolution has nothing to do with whether a god exists. Also if something is better supported than evolution, that would become tje standard.

This is why the censorship exists. Like Dr Hauptman, they seek to ignore the "idiots" and push us out of the academic world.

Christians are not bwing pushed out and there is no censorship. The problem is there is no model for creationism to test.

If you want me to quote more influential scientists (like Dr Hauptman) I can. Bill Nye is guilty of it as well.

I dont care. I want you to adress tje actual problem. There needs to ne a specific testable creation model.

Do you know what a model is? Is this a serious question? If I showed you what you are looking for, would you even consider it?

Yes. Stop dancimg and pressent it.

 

[duari91]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories or shadowy boogie men. I deal with evidence, not hunches.


There are several that are agnostic on the issue.The poll even supports this.

As I mentioned I dont care about hunches, I care about evidence. IIve qork in labs in college. Ive been taught by scientists. There isnt a huge tiraid against religion. Its just not an issue. Evolution has nothing to do with whether a god exists. Also if something is better supported than evolution, that would become tje standard. Christians are not bwing pushed out and there is no censorship. The problem is there is no model for creationism to test. I dont care. I want you to adress tje actual problem. There needs to ne a specific testable creation model.


Yes. Stop dancimg and pressent it.

Are you serious? Its not a hunch. I provided evidence and have had you cornered multiple times. What evidence have you presented? Its all fine and dandy to believe there isn't anything going on, but it isnt reality. I showed you that it is a reality, and quite frankly have done nothing but provide what you asked for.

My point still stands unaddressed by you. Arguing that somehow the agnostics solve the issue is pointless. The reality is that there is a divide, and one side is not getting a fair shake. Macro Evolution isnt testable in a lab, so that renders your experience officially moot. You have made it quite clear you don't care if someone presents actual data, because I already have on multiple occasions. You have officially thrown away my time.

Hoping next time the discussion will be more meaningful. In the mean time I wish to speak to those who are interested in exchanging information and data. You know, because that's how this works.

I made the original claim of indoctrination, and proved it to be factual via the definition and the public school system. I also proved that there is a movement to censor by quoting one of many evolutionary scientists. While at the same time supporting that thought with factual statistics you requested.

You have presented nothing in return to convince me otherwise, so I simply will not reply to you if you are going to be playing games.

If you really want to learn, shoot me a PM and ill talk to you from there. As it is right now the thread has gone off topic

Good day.

 

[Infinity]

Looks like you really don't want to accept the fact that science is based on facts and evidence duari. If the facts would work in creationist favor (don't let me get started how unscientific creationism even is) then we would study creationism, but that is not the case, because evolution has been proven to be a fact. There is zero bias going on. The only reason why evolutionists say some things about creationism and creationists is because creationists are trying to hammer in their theory as science, when it isn't science.

 

[duari91]

Looks like you really don't want to accept the fact that science is based on facts and evidence duari. If the facts would work in creationist favor (don't let me get started how unscientific creationism even is) then we would study creationism, but that is not the case, because evolution has been proven to be a fact. There is zero bias going on. The only reason why evolutionists say some things about creationism and creationists is because creationists are trying to hammer in their theory as science, when it isn't science.

I never said the facts work in the creationists favor, but proposed that it should be explored and taught as the other option in the public school system.

Micro-Evolution is a fact. We can observe it. Creationists don't (and shouldn't) have any problem or dispute about this. Macro-Evolution is not a fact. It cannot be observed, and it will probably never be observed. Don't package Macro-Evolution in the same general bundle of the term "Evolution" and call it a fact.

You say there is "zero" bias going on, yet I quoted an evolutionary scientist who had a bias. What does that do to your statement? I also offered to quote more people with the same "bias." Yet that seemed to go unchallenged.

I'll include the invitation to you as well. If you would like to learn, shoot me a PM and I will show you the science you are looking for. Maybe you will be the first person in the world to give empirical evidence of an animal changing kinds. I doubt it, though. PM me, and I will see what you've got.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Are you serious?

Duari, you are accusing me of playing games, but every time I ask you to consolidate a creation theory, you ask me if I'm serious. Yes I'm serious. However I doubt you really are considering you can't answer the question that would settle this entire affair.

Its not a hunch. I provided evidence and have had you cornered multiple times.

No. The reason why I'm calling your assertions a hunch is because you named me one person and then presented a rough statistic sheet that said around roughly half of scientists polled are agnostic or are non religious. That does not support your assertion that there is a conspiracy to censor Creationism. All the evidence shows is there was a dispute between colleagues and a large group of scientists are non religious. The evidence you presented does not state that the majority of scientists are hostile towards religion.

What evidence have you presented?

Well considering I'm responding and i
nquiring your statements, its not my position to apply evidnece for a negative. If I assert a claim, then I would need to provide evidence.

Its all fine and dandy to believe there isn't anything going on, but it isnt reality. I showed you that it is a reality, and quite frankly have done nothing but provide what you asked for.

You haven't provided evidence that the scientific community is trying to censor creationism. I am also looking into the Hautpman case. I've also mentioned that I've seen the movie expelled and done some verifying on some of the cases presented in the movie. I also worked in labs while in college and was taught by scientists in relevant fields.

My point still stands unaddressed by you. Arguing that somehow the agnostics solve the issue is pointless.

Actually pointing out that there is a large number of agnostics disrupts your statement that the majority of scientist are atheists and would have a bias against creationism. When you remove the agnostics from the pool the hard atheists are then in a minority.

The reality is that there is a divide, and one side is not getting a fair shake.

No, creation science has gotten a fair shake. The problem is that creation science doesn't have a solid theory for Intelligent design. There are several ideas and hypothesizes, but no encompassing theory. A theory that doesn't exist can't be taught. The Creation institute has repeatedly tried to subvert peer review and use politics to force ID into schools. There is a hard stance against it from a legal standpoint because the Creation institute and several other creation scientists have done some pretty shady practices. Not to mention the movie Expelled you mentioned was paid for by the creation institute and left out tons of information on some very revered scientist that have creation leanings that are well respected members of the scientific community. Also not to mention the documentary left out key parts of some of their "victims" stories. I do remember that one of the people "expelled" was done so because he forced his paper into a peer reviewed journal and skipped the actual peer review process. Of course the man got fired, he risked the integrity of the journal and willingly cheated the system to get his paper published.

Macro Evolution isnt testable in a lab, so that renders your experience officially moot. You have made it quite clear you don't care if someone presents actual data, because I already have on multiple occasions. You have officially thrown away my time.

I didn't throw away your time and Macro Evolution is no different from Micro evolution. The only difference is time scale and tracing back genetics into clades.

Hoping next time the discussion will be more meaningful. In the mean time I wish to speak to those who are interested in exchanging information and data. You know, because that's how this works.

How about you provide that Creation theory I asked you for 4 times already. You know, the actual problem.

I made the original claim of indoctrination, and proved it to be factual via the definition and the public school system.

The truth about indoctrination and the school system is this. High school is not a research center. The point of high school is lay down an educational foundation for students to learn the basics so if they choose to go into secondary education, the students will have the basic knowledge to take up advanced classes and do research work. The reason why Intelligent design is not taught in high school biology, geology, chemistry, and physics, is because there is no ID theory. Schools don't have time to spend weeks covering every single argument and every single idea the movement has. The theory of evolution has mechanisms, models, and a cohesive theory that can be demonstrated. This information is useful for students wanting to continue on with education in biology. In order for students to challenge a theory, they have to at least understand the basics. ID does not have a solid basis to stand on and spends way to much time just stating that evolution doesn't have all the information. That is fine and dandy, but unless it has a cohesive and demonstrable replacement, its not going to be taught.

I also proved that there is a movement to censor by quoting one of many evolutionary scientists. While at the same time supporting that thought with factual statistics you requested.

You have presented nothing in return to convince me otherwise, so I simply will not reply to you if you are going to be playing games.

No you didn't, all you did was present a stat sheet that said around 60 percent of scientists are agnostic or non religious, and only around 20 percent are actually hard atheists. That is far from proving there is an active movement. Also, when I actually googled the Gonzalez case, turns out the school had other ID proponents that were not denied tenure, and that the Creation institute took multiple emails and strung them together to make it look like Gonzalez was being targeted. The reality is that Hauptman ( a physist, not a evolutionary biologist as you are asserting) didn't target Gonzalez. Also Hauptman is correct. Intelligent design does not have a theory behind it. I'm not going to comment on Hautman's personal statements because according to the articles I'm reading about the case, Hauptman never specifically adressed Gonzalez.

If you really want to learn, shoot me a PM and ill talk to you from there. As it is right now the thread has gone off topic

Good day.[/quote]

 

[Milk-Drops]

I never said the facts work in the creationists favor, but proposed that it should be explored and taught as the other option in the public school system.

If a religous studies class did so, it would not be a problem. However until there is a cohesive ID theory, it will not be taught in public school science courses.

Micro-Evolution is a fact. We can observe it. Creationists don't (and shouldn't) have any problem or dispute about this. Macro-Evolution is not a fact. It cannot be observed, and it will probably never be observed. Don't package Macro-Evolution in the same general bundle of the term "Evolution" and call it a fact.

There is no mechanical difference between Micro and Macro evolution. also, the genetic lines caniforms, feliforms, whales, equines, hominids, avians, etc have been documented and studied. There is also an entire field of Biology called Phylogeny dedicated to studying the genetic histories and genealogies of organisms. If you claim that there is no observable evidence for Macroevolution, then you quite simply haven't looked.

You say there is "zero" bias going on, yet I quoted an evolutionary scientist who had a bias

Actually you quoted a Physicist, not an evolutionary biologist and I've also dug up information that states that Hauptman didn't directly say any of this to Gonzalez. In short, So you provided a quote mine.

. What does that do to your statement? I also offered to quote more people with the same "bias." Yet that seemed to go unchallenged.

Because randomly quoting people doesn't fix the fact that there is no cohesive ID theory. I also guarantee that your quotes are just more quote mines.

If you would like to learn, shoot me a PM and I will show you the science you are looking for.

I doubt it, considering I asked you several times and you dodged the question every time. Also what are your credentials?

Maybe you will be the first person in the world to give empirical evidence of an animal changing kinds. I doubt it, though. PM me, and I will see what you've got.

Maybe you will be the first creationist to actually define what a kind actually is. Also there is an entire field called phylogeny, that is exactly the evidence you are requesting when you ask about Macro evolution.

 

[duari91]

Duari, you are accusing me of playing games, but every time I ask you to consolidate a creation theory, you ask me if I'm serious. Yes I'm serious. However I doubt you really are considering you can't answer the question that would settle this entire affair.

duari checks what he said: If you really want to learn, shoot me a PM and ill talk to you from there. As it is right now the thread has gone off topic.

Everything else has been addressed and is settled.

No. The reason why I'm calling your assertions a hunch is because you named me one person and then presented a rough statistic sheet that said around roughly half of scientists polled are agnostic or are non religious. That does not support your assertion that there is a conspiracy to censor Creationism. All the evidence shows is there was a dispute between colleagues and a large group of scientists are non religious. The evidence you presented does not state that the majority of scientists are hostile towards religion. Well considering I'm responding and i
nquiring your statements, its not my position to apply evidnece for a negative. If I assert a claim, then I would need to provide evidence.

Oh, but I have provided evidence. Which is what you aren't looking for.
YOU said: "I dont care." -- When I asked if you wanted me to cite more evidence of censorship

Granville Sewell was censored as well via his works on the 2nd law: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
Censorship: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html
http://evolution.idscience.ca/2012/05/02/a-consensus-of-censorship/

Would you like more examples of censorship from the scientific community? I have provided sufficient evidence for my claims. The onus doesn't rest on my shoulder to continue to prove and already proven positive.

You haven't provided evidence that the scientific community is trying to censor creationism. I am also looking into the Hautpman case. I've also mentioned that I've seen the movie expelled and done some verifying on some of the cases presented in the movie. I also worked in labs while in college and was taught by scientists in relevant fields.

duari remembers: Dr Hauptman is a part of the scientific community.

Don't make those bold statements if you aren't prepared to admit you are wrong.

Actually pointing out that there is a large number of agnostics disrupts your statement that the majority of scientist are atheists and would have a bias against creationism. When you remove the agnostics from the pool the hard atheists are then in a minority.

duari checks to see if he made the statement "majority of scientists are atheists": Nope I didn't even use the term "atheist"

Agnostics are included, because the implications would have an effect on them as well.

No, creation science has gotten a fair shake. The problem is that creation science doesn't have a solid theory for Intelligent design. There are several ideas and hypothesizes, but no encompassing theory. A theory that doesn't exist can't be taught. The Creation institute has repeatedly tried to subvert peer review and use politics to force ID into schools. There is a hard stance against it from a legal standpoint because the Creation institute and several other creation scientists have done some pretty shady practices. Not to mention the movie Expelled you mentioned was paid for by the creation institute and left out tons of information on some very revered scientist that have creation leanings that are well respected members of the scientific community. Also not to mention the documentary left out key parts of some of their "victims" stories. I do remember that one of the people "expelled" was done so because he forced his paper into a peer reviewed journal and skipped the actual peer review process. Of course the man got fired, he risked the integrity of the journal and willingly cheated the system to get his paper published.

You are arguing with yourself here.

I didn't throw away your time and Macro Evolution is no different from Micro evolution. The only difference is time scale and tracing back genetics into clades.

You are throwing away my time. You are clearly upset over things I have already addressed. If you want a calm discussion, I invite you to PM me. I would be more than happy to talk to you there.

duari observes your statement: "Macro Evolution is no different from Micro Evolution" (Next sentence) "The only difference...."

Hmm interesting. You make no logical sense.

How about you provide that Creation theory I asked you for 4 times already. You know, the actual problem.

Already addressed above, but I will repeat to be relevant. If you would like me to present certain things to you, I would be more than happy if you sent me a PM. This is not relevant to this discussion in this topic.

The truth about indoctrination and the school system is this. High school is not a research center. The point of high school is lay down an educational foundation for students to learn the basics so if they choose to go into secondary education, the students will have the basic knowledge to take up advanced classes and do research work. The reason why Intelligent design is not taught in high school biology, geology, chemistry, and physics, is because there is no ID theory. Schools don't have time to spend weeks covering every single argument and every single idea the movement has. The theory of evolution has mechanisms, models, and a cohesive theory that can be demonstrated. This information is useful for students wanting to continue on with education in biology. In order for students to challenge a theory, they have to at least understand the basics. ID does not have a solid basis to stand on and spends way to much time just stating that evolution doesn't have all the information. That is fine and dandy, but unless it has a cohesive and demonstrable replacement, its not going to be taught.

I never said they have to provide every argument and every idea. Only the counter idea or argument. Seems to me like Creation is the counter argument to Evolution. I don't have some angry diatribe against Evolution. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting quite upset. Evolution is the interpretation of the fact, and so is Creation. I see more coherent data from Creation.

No you didn't, all you did was present a stat sheet that said around 60 percent of scientists are agnostic or non religious, and only around 20 percent are actually hard atheists. That is far from proving there is an active movement. Also, when I actually googled the Gonzalez case, turns out the school had other ID proponents that were not denied tenure, and that the Creation institute took multiple emails and strung them together to make it look like Gonzalez was being targeted. The reality is that Hauptman ( a physist, not a evolutionary biologist as you are asserting) didn't target Gonzalez. Also Hauptman is correct. Intelligent design does not have a theory behind it. I'm not going to comment on Hautman's personal statements because according to the articles I'm reading about the case, Hauptman never specifically adressed Gonzalez.

Looking at Hauptmans comments via "Expelled," when he was confronted he didn't deny the target. He enforced it by confirming and agreeing with what he said. That's not a normal response for someone who is innocent.

 

[duari91]

There is no mechanical difference between Micro and Macro evolution. also, the genetic lines caniforms, feliforms, whales, equines, hominids, avians, etc have been documented and studied. There is also an entire field of Biology called Phylogeny dedicated to studying the genetic histories and genealogies of organisms. If you claim that there is no observable evidence for Macroevolution, then you quite simply haven't looked.

One is a fact, and one isn't. One can be observed, and the other cant. That is the difference.
duari remembers Phylogeny: No observable evidence of any kind.

Actually you quoted a Physicist, not an evolutionary biologist and I've also dug up information that states that Hauptman didn't directly say any of this to Gonzalez. In short, So you provided a quote mine.

I am willing to take your word for it on the bold portion.

Because randomly quoting people doesn't fix the fact that there is no cohesive ID theory. I also guarantee that your quotes are just more quote mines.

duari looks: I didn't randomly quote anyone. I quoted a scientist who is relevant to the claim I made.

I doubt it, considering I asked you several times and you dodged the question every time. Also what are your credentials?

Enough to corner you.

Maybe you will be the first creationist to actually define what a kind actually is. Also there is an entire field called phylogeny, that is exactly the evidence you are requesting when you ask about Macro evolution.

There are debates on the specifics of a species as well.

A dog and a whale are different kinds. An Owl and a Cow are different kinds. Some will argue that organisms of the same Kind share the same common ancestry.

If a disagreement in vocabulary is your problem, then I am sure we can come to a mutual agreement at some point.

If you would like to have a calm discussion on that as well, I would be more than happy to field a PM from you.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's unconstitutional for public schools to promote religion. The "equal time" ploy died a long time ago. So long as freedom of religion is in the Constitution, that's not going to happen.

No one is saying we should preach the bible to young students.

Yes, a lot of people are saying that. But of course teaching creationism to students is not teaching the Bible. YE creationism is not consistent with the Bible. It is a religion, however, and therefore not permitted to be taught in public school.

The scientific view from the creationist standpoint should be represented, though.

The creationist standpoint is a religion, not science, since it depends on faith in their new doctrine.

Rather, the interpretation of the data.

Sorry, I'm not a postmodernist, so the "reality is whatever we think it is" story doesn't work with me.

Under your description, Evolution wouldn't be taught either.

That ploy was tried and failed. Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science.

Barbarian observes:
Science is what scientists do. You might like it or not like it, but pretending that a revised version of Genesis can be taught along with real science, that's just not going to work.

Yes, and I know scientists who are also creationists.

I knew of several. Some of them did good work, so long as it didn't impact on their religious beliefs.

No need to revise Genesis.

But creationists do. And that's a big part of the problem.

Not many Evolutionary scientists will admit that there are Creationist scientists, proving my point.

If you think so, you don't know many scientists. Someone's abused your trust on that one.

Barbarian on Hamm's method of indoctrination:
Practices it, too. One of his objections to public school is the idea that people should think for themselves.

All of us practice it to some degree or another.

Probably so. Hamm is different in objecting to the idea of students being taught to think for themselves.

Like I said, if Kent wants to have a private school where all they teach is creation, thats okay. As long as my tax dollars aren't go towards it.

Private schools are not required to observe the Bill of Rights with regard to religion. So they can teach creation or alternately teach creationism, or whatever other religion they like. Public schools can't teach religion.

When the publics money is involved, both views need to be taught.

Nope. So long as we retain our freedom of religion, it won't be taught in public schools.

If you want to open an Evolution only private school, I would vote for your right to do so.

It's quite legal to teach science in public schools. Your argument has been tried, and it failed the constitutional test. No point in denying it.

It certainly is true of civics classes, which teach the principles upon which our country was founded. It wouldn't work so well in science, though.

How many other theories are presented among Evolution?

Neutralist theories, punctuated equilibrium, and so on. The modern synthesis is not the same theory as Darwin's. So there's a variety. But remember, all of them are sciences, with evidence to support them. No religions.

According to the definition, providing one belief while demoralizing the other is indoctrination.

By that definition we should be teaching the alternative theory that the Earth is flat.

Barbarian chuckles:

So we should then teach racism and Marxism? I don't think so. Ironically, these fail for the same reason creationism fails. They are contrary to reason and evidence. If we teach people not to steal, it's still not reasonable to let a thief "teach the controversy."​

We do teach it. In fact, I studied it plenty in High school and in College.

Maybe you teach it. Not taught in public schools.

In the Soviet Union, were you allowed to voice your opinion about a Republic?

In fact, Darwinism was banned in the Soviet Union. It was against their religion, too.

Barbarian observes:

We shouldn't teach flat Earth or geocentrism, either. Some things are just wrong.​

Those don't have religious implications,

Luther and Calvin disagreed with you, citing the Bible. So yes, people have wrongly interpreted the Bible a great deal in the past as well. Creationism is just the latest false doctrine.

 

[Milk-Drops]

duari checks what he said: If you really want to learn, shoot me a PM and ill talk to you from there. As it is right now the thread has gone off topic.

Just post a link here that explains what exactly ID theory is. Its that simple. Or heck, shoot me a PM explaining what it is.

Everything else has been addressed and is settled.

Its not settled, you haven't provided an ID theory. Therefore nothing has been settled.

Oh, but I have provided evidence. Which is what you aren't looking for.
YOU said: "I dont care." -- When I asked if you wanted me to cite more evidence of censorship

Now you are just flat out being dishonest. Members can go back and read exactly what I wrote and will see that I acknowledged your evidence and when I pointed out flaws you got flustered and changed the topic. Quote mines aren't evidence. Especially when I can do a 10 second google search and find out that the quote has been manipulated.

Granville Sewell was censored as well via his works on the 2nd law: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
Censorship: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html
http://evolution.idscience.ca/2012/05/02/a-consensus-of-censorship/

A paper being rejected is not censorship, especially when the conclusion doesn't follow the premise. This is standard ID propaganda. Sewell's paper didn't conclude what he sought out to demonstrate. That is why it was rejected.

Would you like more examples of censorship from the scientific community?

How about one bit of evidence that I can't quickly debunk by googling it? Maybe you shouldn't use Evolution news because they make it quite clear where their bias is in their mission statement.

I have provided sufficient evidence for my claims. The onus doesn't rest on my shoulder to continue to prove and already proven positive.

Nope, both cases were disproved by a quick google search.

Dr Hauptman is a part of the scientific community.

Yes, but the entire community doesn't revolve around him. He doesn't control the community. You also got big parts of your assertion wrong.

Don't make those bold statements if you aren't prepared to admit you are wrong.

Says the guy who hasn't acknowledged the Hauptman incident was a fabrication and got his title wrong twice.

duari checks to see if he made the statement "majority of scientists are atheists": Nope I didn't even use the term "atheist"

Now you are playing a semantics game.

Agnostics are included, because the implications would have an effect on them as well.

Baseless assertion.

You are arguing with yourself here.

This definitely is a waste of time now. You said ID dosen't get a fair shake. I explained how it does get a fair shake and you don't care. That tells me you have no idea what you really want or are trying to say. You claim you never lost a debate. Its easy to say that when you ignore any refutation to your points, use quote mines, and when you are directly told and explained to why your position needs work, you ignore it. The consolation prize is knowing that you aren't actually effecting the theories, because you aren't even bothering to actually challenge them.

You make no logical sense.

And you are dishonest and manipulative. [Edited by Staff] Moving on.

I never said they have to provide every argument and every idea. Only the counter idea or argument. Seems to me like Creation is the counter argument to Evolution. I don't have some angry diatribe against Evolution. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting quite upset. Evolution is the interpretation of the fact, and so is Creation. I see more coherent data from Creation.

There are hundreds of creation ideas and counter arguments. Unless there is a peer review process, it would take years to just get through the basic concepts.

Looking at Hauptmans comments via "Expelled," when he was confronted he didn't deny the target. He enforced it by confirming and agreeing with what he said. That's not a normal response for someone who is innocent.

And documentaries are edited to get the exact response needed to prove the point they want to prove. The movie expelled has come under heavy fodder and lawsuits due to their outright lies and misrepresentations of what people have said and what the theory of Evolution actually is. Documentaries are not academically solid as resources because of this practice. Especially when the doc is made and funded by an institution that says on its own website that its mission is to take down evolution and subvert the peer review process.[/quote]