Charles Robert Darwin

[tas8831]

Your mention of a "tusk" also suggests to me which claim your acquaintance related to you. Non-scientist Mark Armitage claims to have found a triceratops horn with soft tissue on it which "debunks Darwinism". This claim has numerous problems.
1. He hasn't allowed any non-Creationist to examine the supposed horn.
2. We know that there are ways of preserving soft tissue fragments for very long times.
3. The Cretaceous 'triceratops horn' is actually a Pleistocene bison horn.

That would make sense - as is the norm, creationists are embellishing the 'bias' part of all this. The case was settled (which, despite the appearance, is often done to avoid lengthy court cases - a family friend (ortho surgeon) used to settle malpractice suits all the time just to avoid having to drag things out in court - to include one time when a guy sued because he was not able to play tennis after his operation... even though he had never played tennis before...), yet creationist groups tout it as a "victory" and "proof" of the bias against poor honest, er, I mean, sleazy tricky creationists.
the facts of the case show something other than his evolution-disproving claims.

Plus he was not an actual professor, but a technician...

I found one article about it, and I liked this:

The professor allegedly entered Armitage's office and said, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department.”​

Sounds like it was written by the guy that wrote those stupid "God's Not Dead" movies...

Plus he wasn't "fired", his contract was not renewed.

For another view, there is this:
Mark Armitage
"A lawsuit was filed and the Judge threw out 3 out of 5 allegations before the trial was scheduled, including the one where Armitage says he was fired for writing the paper. The Judge also ruled he would not be eligible for punitive damages on the remaining charges, so Armitage took an offer to settle out of court instead of going forward with his case. It is often more cost effective for a defendant to settle in this way instead of going to trial, and it is not an admission of guilt."

There is also the case of Jerry Bergman, who was denied tenure at Ball State (I think). He claimed religious discrimination - to his creationist pals. But he said it was 'anti-white discrimination' in an interview with David Duke.

 

[tas8831]

More on Armitage.

 

[Tone]

What did he mean "Darwinism", I wonder? And all this nonsense about funding - righty religious types sure have strange and fantasy-driven ideas about how research funding works.

Interestingly enough, I'm watching a video right now on Kuhn and he says there are "Nonscientific factors" involved in choosing a scientific paradigm: social atmosphere, politics, personal disposition, economics, etc....

 

[Ophiolite]

Interestingly enough, I'm watching a video right now on Kuhn and he says there are "Nonscientific factors" involved in choosing a scientific paradigm: social atmosphere, politics, personal disposition, economics, etc....

Instead of watching videos why not read Kuhn actual work, consider it carefully and then come back with a succinct statement of how and to what extent it supports your thesis? That way some of us might take your posts seriously.

 

[sfs]

Instead of watching videos why not read Kuhn actual work, consider it carefully and then come back with a succinct statement of how and to what extent it supports your thesis?

You could also deal with some of the extensive criticism of Kuhn's views.

 

[Ophiolite]

You could also deal with some of the extensive criticism of Kuhn's views.

Good point. I didn't go there, because I kind of like Kuhn's thesis, to a degree. Not flawless certainly, but with a flavour of truth, whatever that is.

 

[Tone]

You could also deal with some of the extensive criticism of Kuhn's views.

I've been watching these too.

 

[Tone]

Good point. I didn't go there, because I kind of like Kuhn's thesis, to a degree. Not flawless certainly, but with a flavour of truth, whatever that is.

Another scientific poster said this:

And any accepted paradigm that is overturned would make a scientist famous. The problem is that once a paradigm is well established it is usually correct.

I also heard that, in science, it is a welcome thing to receive criticism and attempts to falsify theories. So, scientists are actively seeking to disprove each other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another scientific poster said this:



I also heard that, in science, it is a welcome thing to receive criticism and attempts to falsify theories. So, scientists are actively seeking to disprove each other?

Yes, scientists are always trying to disprove one another. Often it is in the details. Right now I do not know of anyone that is seriously trying to disprove evolution. That would be akin to disproving gravity. But they do argue about what path was followed.

If you believe the creation myth there really is no hope for you. The few creation "scientists" that exist tend to work for sites that require them to swear not to use the scientific method. The pretty much rules out their making any meaningful contribution to the sciences.

 

[Tone]

If you believe the creation myth there really is no hope for you. The few creation "scientists" that exist tend to work for sites that require them to swear not to use the scientific method. The pretty much rules out their making any meaningful contribution to the sciences.

So, creation scientists don't try to disprove creationism?

 

[Tone]

So,economically speaking, it is more profitable for secular scientists to attempt to disprove theories (except for Darwinism), but less profitable for creation scientists to attempt to disprove creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, creation scientists don't try to disprove creationism?

They can't. They are incompetent. Once again, they handicap themselves by not following the scientific method. The work of such sites as Answers in Genesis and others that require their workers to swear to not to use the scientific method is so poor that high school students can often refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So,economically speaking, it is more profitable for secular scientists to attempt to disprove theories (except for Darwinism), but less profitable for creation scientists to attempt to disprove creationism?

"Darwinism" does not exist. You should try to avoid bogus terms. If a scientist could refute the theory of evolution he would almost certainly be an almost instant millionaire. Numerous scientific prizes would go his way to say the least. The problem is that you cannot refute reality.

 

[Tone]

"Darwinism" does not exist. You should try to avoid bogus terms. If a scientist could refute the theory of evolution he would almost certainly be an almost instant millionaire. Numerous scientific prizes would go his way to say the least. The problem is that you cannot refute reality.

So, is reality a theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, is reality a theory?

No, theories describe reality.

 

[Tone]

You have to read the slide at 14:30 of the video I posted at my post #147. What do you think about Feyerabend?

 

[Tone]

No, theories describe reality.

So, if the theory of evolution were refuted, it would cease to describe reality...but, reality would remain...right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with most creationists is that they know that they are wrong and they are afraid. Real scientists try to disprove their own ideas. The first step in developing a theory is forming a testable hypothesis. That means a scientist observes nature for a while, thinks, and come up with an idea that explains what we see. The most important part of his hypothesis is that it must be testable. That means that there is a reasonable test that could show it to be wrong, if it is wrong. Creationists seem to know that they are wrong since I never see them putting their ideas into the form of a testable hypothesis.

Can anyone here think of one? And it must be independent of other ideas. "Confirming evolution" in your head is not a proper test. There are many ways that the theory of evolution could be conceivably be falsified, and yet it has never failed a major test, and that is with creationists attacking it 24/7. That is a strong indicator that it is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to read the slide at 14:30 of the video I posted at my post #147. What do you think about Feyerabend?

I will have to check it out. I may come back laughing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, if the theory of evolution were refuted, it would cease to describe reality...but, reality would remain...right?

Of course. But if the theory of evolution were refuted that would still not prove creationism.