Charles Robert Darwin

[tas8831]

I believe he was referring to Darwinism...as being all that science has going for it right now, economically speaking, at least, in the minds of evolutionists. His comments seem to suggest that he believes evolutionary scientists are afraid that they will lose funding (their jobs) if Darwinism is too well, and too furiously shown to be obsolete. This is just how I interpreted the conversation of the video...I am not up on any of this stuff...so.

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.

 

[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.

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist. I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired. So, I would suspect that it goes both ways...the evolutionists may fear losing their positions if the creationists gain dominance. I don't know how it all works economically though...so. I just found the economic perspective of the whole thing interesting.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist. I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired. So, I would suspect that it goes both ways...the evolutionists may fear losing their positions if the creationists gain dominance. I don't know how it all works economically though...so. I just found the economic perspective of the whole thing interesting.

The trouble with anecdotes like that is that they tend to dissolve when examined in detail. You'll have to provide specifics.

 

[tas8831]

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist.

Why do you suppose that is?

I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired.

I call that Case #621 in the file "Crap that never happened."

Names? Of course not. Titles of these 'publications'? Not forthcoming, I am sure...

So, I would suspect that it goes both ways...the evolutionists may fear losing their positions if the creationists gain dominance. I don't know how it all works economically though...so. I just found the economic perspective of the whole thing interesting.

Creationists could only gain 'dominance' in the sciences in Academia via political action, which would usher in an era of American Lysenkoism.
Scientifically, they have nothing to offer (in terms of 'origins' or phylogenetic history). This is why all 'professional' creation scientists ONLY perform research that seeks to attack evolution, never anything that seeks to actually support creation tales.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist. I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired. So, I would suspect that it goes both ways...the evolutionists may fear losing their positions if the creationists gain dominance. I don't know how it all works economically though...so. I just found the economic perspective of the whole thing interesting.

Haha, no.

If someone managed to disprove the ToE (s)he would be world famous. Its every scientists wet dream to falsify an scientific theory.

 

[Tone]

The trouble with anecdotes like that is that they tend to dissolve when examined in detail. You'll have to provide specifics.

Well, I just met the man yesterday at an assembly of Natsarim, so I don't have specifics on that. I will have to do more research on this whole subject, as I am not familiar with it much. I even thought I may eventually do a thread on the Economics of Darwinism...I think those Freakonomics - The hidden side of everything guys should put something together on it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, I just met the man yesterday at an assembly of Natsarim, so I don't have specifics on that. I will have to do more research on this whole subject, as I am not familiar with it much. I even though I may eventually do a thread on the Economics of Darwinism...I think those Freakonomics - The hidden side of everything guys should put something together on it.

Economics of darwinism? That sounds really silly and tin foil hat territory.

 

[Tone]

If someone managed to disprove the ToE (s)he would be world famous. Its every scientists wet dream to falsify an scientific theory.

Well,he wasn't referring to the theory as a whole, but some aspect of it...something about tusks...or something. Like I've said, it's not my forte, but the economic aspect...is interesting...no?

 

[VirOptimus]

Well,he wasn't referring to the theory as a whole, but some aspect of it...something about tusks...or something. Like I've said, it's not my forte, but the economic aspect...is interesting...no?

Nope, it really isnt.

 

[Tone]

Nope, it really isnt.

To each his own...

*I've been using a lot of those things lately...

 

[VirOptimus]

To each his own...

*I've been using a lot of those things lately...

Learn the science instead.

 

[Tone]

Darwinomics(c)

*I hereby Copyright it...is that allowed?

 

[Tone]

Learn the science instead.

Well, I've stated early on in this thread that I am open to learning more on this subject...so...ready...set...go!

*I'm addicted to the old school smilies...

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist.

I think you'll find the dominant culture in most scientific fields is also anti-phrenology, anti-sticking pins into little dolls, and anti-throwing virgins into volcanoes to appease the fire spirit.

I think you'll also find some pretty darn good reasons for that.

I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired. So, I would suspect that it goes both ways.

I was just talking to a gentleman this morning, who said he personally knows a guy who's cousin's best friend's roommate took a girl out on a date, and there was this killer with a hook for a hand... So, I would suspect that it goes both ways.

the evolutionists may fear losing their positions if the creationists gain dominance.

Historically speaking, they might fear being burned at the stake. These fears are not entirely unfounded.

I don't know how it all works economically though...so. I just found the economic perspective of the whole thing interesting.

There's a lot of money to be made in humbug...

 

[USincognito]

I am not sure what he meant, but I would imagine that he was referring to the dominant culture in most scientific fields, which is anti-creationist.

That's a very strange thing to imagine because Darwin wrote about the biological theory of evolution. About the only sensible definition I've seen for Darwinism is the acceptance of evolution. Creationists have a bizarre definition of it which means all science supporting deep time, standard geology and evolution combined with atheism. That's why so many of us in this thread have been asking you to define "Darwinism".

As far as the dominant culture in most scientific fields, it's not anti-Creationist because most scientists don't even give Creationism a second thought. It would be accurate to say that the dominant culture in most scientific fields is a demand for evidence and since Creationism simply doesn't produce any evidence to support it, that scientists reject it for that fact.

I was just talking to a gentleman yesterday, who said he personally knows a couple of real, bonafide scientists that conducted research that debunks the theory of evolution, and when they published their work, they were fired. So, I would suspect that it goes both ways...

Having done this for a very long time I know exactly what you're talking about. Your acquaintance was told by a professional Creationist (or their surrogate like his minister) about claims made by professional Creationists. The problem is the guys who tell these stories never actually look into or investigate them. If they had they would know that all of the claims to have "debunked" evolution fall flat or never happened at all.

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.

 

[sfs]

Like I've said, it's not my forte, but the economic aspect...is interesting...no?

Well, no. The economic aspect of science is of great importance to me, since I'm a scientist and my continued employment depends on finding grant money to pay my salary -- which is why I spent last week furiously working on a grant application for my boss. But it's basically really dull.

 

[Tone]

That's why so many of us in this thread have been asking you to define "Darwinism".

I have been asking back, for you who are way more literate on this subject, to define it.

But, as far as I understand it, is that it is a naturalistic philosophy that includes the theory of evolution...it can also pertain to other branches of learning.

 

[sfs]

But, as far as I understand it, is that it is a naturalistic philosophy that includes the theory of evolution...it can also pertain to other branches of learning.

For me, "Darwinism" doesn't have any scientific meaning, or really any meaning at all. "Darwinian evolution" I take to mean evolution driven by natural selection, which is one component of modern evolutionary theory.

 

[USincognito]

I have been asking back, for you who are way more literate on this subject, to define it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even a word and I never use it myself. That is why I ask others who do use it to define it so I know what they're talking about. Do they mean simply evolution? Do they mean Darwinian evolution as sfs points out? Do they mean all deep time, evolution and standard geology? Do they use it as a synonym for atheism? Unless they tell me, the word is meaningless when I hear or read it.

But, as far as I understand it, is that it is a naturalistic philosophy that includes the theory of evolution...it can also pertain to other branches of learning.

You're using it in a manner akin to the latter used I'm talking about - basically science plus atheism. That's a little more clear, but doesn't really help foster conversation. Why not just say "atheism" instead?

 

[Tone]

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even a word and I never use it myself. That is why I ask others who do use it to define it so I know what they're talking about. Do they mean simply evolution? Do they mean Darwinian evolution as sfs points out? Do they mean all deep time, evolution and standard geology? Do they use it as a synonym for atheism? Unless they tell me, the word is meaningless when I hear or read it.



You're using it in a manner akin to the latter used I'm talking about - basically science plus atheism. That's a little more clear, but doesn't really help foster conversation. Why not just say "atheism" instead?

Atheism is a naturalistic philosophy? So, can we speak of an economy of atheism, as we were of Darwinism?