Milk-Drops
Member
- Apr 10, 2012
- 7,117
- 1,057
I turned the video off the second I heard the words Orthodox Darwinism. I went to college for biology. There is no such thing as Orthodox Darwinism.
To people who have never actually been in a college biology class, here is how it basically works. The first 2 years are spent on learning about the findings and understanding the research. Basically kids learn what the consensus is. The reason why the first 2 years are like this is because students need to have a base line understanding of the material before they challenge it. This is so the kids know what they are talking about. If you want to critique something, its a good idea to know what it is. In the 3rd and forth years kids start doing actual research and lab work, where they can test their findings.
Most don't do much unless they seek their masters where their questioning is taken more serious because they have demonstrated competence on knowing the basics. Creationism has a large problem here because a lot of creationism relies on older outdated knowledge, or misrepresenting knowledge. Once you get to the Masters and Doctorate Level this stuff becomes obvious because they are familiar with the work. Bergman ran into problems because he was outside his expertise. His focus was not on evolutionary biology, but in Human Biology. A lot of his questions could be answered by a Masters level Evolutionary Biologist or Geneticist. However Bergman has a problem that I've seen with a few PHD people, he is arrogant.
Bergman fills in his lack of knowledge in certain areas with God. This is okay on a personal level and no one generally cares, but the problem is he is using his personal opinions as fact when teaching.
Think of it this way, lets say you take a welding class. Instead of learning about dropping dimes your instructor starts talking about how the modern ideas and concepts of welding is all wrong because of a sexist fairy conspiracy to take all the Jew gold. The instructor would eventually be removed because they are teaching unfounded stuff. It doesn't end there though, the instructor joins a blog/ propaganda organization that specializes in lobbying to get their ideas of the Jew Gold stealing fairy pushed into welding classes and that the instructor was fired for his religious ideals.
You might think that analogy is flawed, but in high levels of the sciences, that is how religions and personal views are treated. The reason why isn't some conspiracy, its because religion validates itself in a completely different way than science. Religion relies on faith while science demands that you demon strait what you are claiming.
Creationism will always be considered a religious concept because it has not mechanism that can be explained. Creationism is an assertion that things were created by an intelligent being, however it does not provide a mechanism to test it. It is literally left up to faith. The closest it have came to a mechanic was Irreducible complexity, but that has its own problem. There is no unified theory of IC, its applied to things that we don't currently understand ( or its more likely used on the same examples since the 80s and most people that use these examples never look to see if any new findings have been found since the 80s, especially flagellum and the Bombardier Beetle.)
Creationism isn't thrown out of college because of denial of religious rights or persecution, its because it isn't science.
To people who have never actually been in a college biology class, here is how it basically works. The first 2 years are spent on learning about the findings and understanding the research. Basically kids learn what the consensus is. The reason why the first 2 years are like this is because students need to have a base line understanding of the material before they challenge it. This is so the kids know what they are talking about. If you want to critique something, its a good idea to know what it is. In the 3rd and forth years kids start doing actual research and lab work, where they can test their findings.
Most don't do much unless they seek their masters where their questioning is taken more serious because they have demonstrated competence on knowing the basics. Creationism has a large problem here because a lot of creationism relies on older outdated knowledge, or misrepresenting knowledge. Once you get to the Masters and Doctorate Level this stuff becomes obvious because they are familiar with the work. Bergman ran into problems because he was outside his expertise. His focus was not on evolutionary biology, but in Human Biology. A lot of his questions could be answered by a Masters level Evolutionary Biologist or Geneticist. However Bergman has a problem that I've seen with a few PHD people, he is arrogant.
Bergman fills in his lack of knowledge in certain areas with God. This is okay on a personal level and no one generally cares, but the problem is he is using his personal opinions as fact when teaching.
Think of it this way, lets say you take a welding class. Instead of learning about dropping dimes your instructor starts talking about how the modern ideas and concepts of welding is all wrong because of a sexist fairy conspiracy to take all the Jew gold. The instructor would eventually be removed because they are teaching unfounded stuff. It doesn't end there though, the instructor joins a blog/ propaganda organization that specializes in lobbying to get their ideas of the Jew Gold stealing fairy pushed into welding classes and that the instructor was fired for his religious ideals.
You might think that analogy is flawed, but in high levels of the sciences, that is how religions and personal views are treated. The reason why isn't some conspiracy, its because religion validates itself in a completely different way than science. Religion relies on faith while science demands that you demon strait what you are claiming.
Creationism will always be considered a religious concept because it has not mechanism that can be explained. Creationism is an assertion that things were created by an intelligent being, however it does not provide a mechanism to test it. It is literally left up to faith. The closest it have came to a mechanic was Irreducible complexity, but that has its own problem. There is no unified theory of IC, its applied to things that we don't currently understand ( or its more likely used on the same examples since the 80s and most people that use these examples never look to see if any new findings have been found since the 80s, especially flagellum and the Bombardier Beetle.)
Creationism isn't thrown out of college because of denial of religious rights or persecution, its because it isn't science.
