Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[ikester7579]

Science has ALWAYS dealt with fact and some facts cannot be challenged. For instance, you cannot challenge that the earth is NOT flat, can you?

The earth is flat? LOL!

The problem is that freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech does not cover lies. We have laws against perjury, slander, and libel -- all are different forms of lying. Christians don't have the freedom to lie, either. Remember the 9th Commandment.

Note to all christians: Lucaspa just called us all liars. I think this post is worth reporting.

Saying that ID is a VALID scientific theory is a lie. Just like saying flat earth is a valid scientific theory is a lie. Both are falsified theories. Therefore you don't have the freedom to commit perjury (or false witness if you believe in the Bible).

Here we lie even more, commit perjury, falsify theories etc...

There is also the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. There is no secular reason to teach a falsified scientific theory as tho it is valid. The ONLY reason to do so is to promote a particular form of religion. Therefore the Michigan bill is designed to promote a particular religion, and that is forbidden by the Constitution.

Like I said before: Where's your missing link!

It is easy to disprove ID. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

However, we don't have the luxury of time to teach every falsified theory as valid and then teach how it has been falsified. Simply isn't enough classroom time.

As for science welcoming it, just how many times do we have to re-purchase the same real estate? Time is also precious to us, and we have better ways of spending our time than re-falsifying a theory that has been falsified thousands of times before.



Theories don't work this way. Theories have to accord with the physical universe. They cannot simply be out there as valid without the support of data.



You are right, science emphatically does NOT say God does not exist. Science is agnostic toward all forms of deity.

Science is not "afraid", but rather does not want to see untruth marketed as truth. Why would we want that? Why would YOU want that?

Yep we are all liars. You have made that clear here. And I will be reporting this post.

 

[troodon]

Note to all christians: Lucaspa just called us all liars. I think this post is worth reporting

Ha! I was wondering why AngelAmidala was looking at this.

In any case he did not call Christians liars. He said that to claim ID to be a valid scientific theory is to lie and that Christians do not have the unrestricted right to lie. Pointing this out is not against the forum rules.

 

[Siliconaut]

Ikester, did the bed bugs bite you that night? You're getting a little paranoid, and I'll explain why:

A) Lucaspa is a christian. Not one of the redneck persuasion, but I don't feel that this somehow devalues him in any way. In fact, I think he's one of the most logical and sane persons I've met online...

B) Lucaspa did not call christians liars, he said explicitly that creationISTS lie to people. Huge difference, because:

C) Christian != (does not equal) Creationist. Not at all. Just like Christian != Flat Earth Believer. The overwhelming majority of christians I know are convinced by the evidence for evolution and have no problem with a deity of such foresight that it can simply set the wheels in motion and let the laws of the universe do their job.

D)

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

Science has ALWAYS dealt with fact and some facts cannot be challenged. For instance, you cannot challenge that the earth is NOT flat, can you?
YOU: The earth is flat? LOL!

I'll let that stand for itself, since it demonstrates how you fail to understand simple grammatical structures, if you don't want to. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty I find pretty revolting...

E)

Like I said before: Where's your missing link!

To which was asked "What missing link?". Please tell us what link exactly you think is missing, and we'll answer your call.


Could it be that your wild flailing has one reason: You're increasingly desparate because the rug of creationISM has been pulled out from under you, and you just don't understand that this means *nothing* to christianity, but just the false, creationIST interpretation of scripture?

 

[ikester7579]

Anytime you call one part of the body of Christ liars, you call it all liars including Christ himself. Whether someone is lying, is up to God to decide. Not you, not me.
Example: If I said this about evolution:The problem is that freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech does not cover lies. We have laws against perjury, slander, and libel -- all are different forms of lying. Evolutionists don't have the freedom to lie, either.
Now I changed some of the wording to direct what was said about christians to sound like evolutionists. Now since I did that, does it sound like I'm calling you all these things?

 

[Cantuar]

Facts that science says is facts(theories).

Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. You can pretend otherwise all you like, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Cantuar]

And have you found the missing link yet?

What are you talking about?

Because is not smart enough to explain a creator.

Because the scientific method is based on testable explanations, and the statement that everything was created by a supernatural creator that isn't restricted to the laws of nature is not a testable statement.

So what is real science? It's everything that falls into their rules and definitions of what things should be in their opinions which are worth more than anything in the universe(according to them).

Real science is a method for explaining observed phenomena on the basis of the laws of nature.

Threatened? Challenged! Science should be able to stand any challenge. If it's built on a firm foundation.

No. It can't withstand political challenges, at least in the short term, however strong the foundation. If the government wants to deny funds for certain types of research or make that research illegal or support propaganda against that research or shut down independent research institutes, there's not much than can be done except wait it out and hope the work gets done in some other country. And the intelligent-design movement is basically a political movement.

I seem to remember a very vital piece missing. The missing link! But I guess that vital thing just keeps getting over looked. You may not like it being brought up. But it's very important, don't you think? Or is this no longer needed?

Again, what are you talking about? The original "missing link" is a red herring (not a literal one) based on a misunderstanding of the theory. If that's what you're after, you'll just have to do without it. Humans didn't descend from modern apes, so the ape-man "missing link" is irrelevant. As far as transitional fossils are concerned, they exist for all major groups.

why should it? until missing link is found, it's not fact, period!

Whatever this missing link of yours is, it won't make any difference if it IS found. Creationists are heavily invested in the notion that Christianity depends on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, which means rejecting evolution. With that much at stake, there's no scientific evidence will ever make a difference, because for creationists, this isn't a scientific issue in the first place.

Science and their old earth theories, has had the Bible thrown out of school. Name me another reason it was removed that did not have anything to do with science?

The Constitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court rulings about prayer and Bible study in public schools had nothing whatever to do with science, they had to do with groups of atheists (and I think Jehovah's Witnesses) objecting to one religion being sanctioned by the school authorities and forced on the entire school.

This is also the reason that those in the christian faith do not get along with science.

You left out a couple of words. "..the reason that A FEW of those in the Christian faith do not get along with science." Because most people in the Christian faith, including a lot of scientists, get along with science just fine.

Science did not want anything in their way while they taught their theories. God and those who follow him were in the way. So we were gotten out of the way.

Don't be absurd.

Believe what you want.

No, see, it isn't a matter of what I want or even what I believe. The majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, and the creationist groups are hand in glove with Christian Reconstructionist groups. That's a matter of verifiable fact.

 

[Siliconaut]

@Ikester:

Anytime you call one part of the body of Christ liars, you call it all liars including Christ himself.

Utter bollocks. Calling Joe a liar != calling Joe's complete family a liar. Don't try to hide creationIST lies and those who fed them to you behind the body of Christianity.

Whether someone is lying, is up to God to decide. Not you, not me.

Not at all - in our daily lives, we have to decide who deserves to be trusted. If Joe lies repeatedly, I will make that observation and be wary of his promises in the future. Since his family shakes their heads at his lies, too, it would be daft to assume they condone his behaviour...

Example: If I said this about evolution:The problem is that freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech does not cover lies. We have laws against perjury, slander, and libel -- all are different forms of lying. Evolutionists don't have the freedom to lie, either.

No problem - the TOE is not a lie, but creationISM is. We've covered that ground for a zillion times, do we have to repeat it ad infinitum?

Now I changed some of the wording to direct what was said about christians to sound like evolutionists. Now since I did that, does it sound like I'm calling you all these things?

Nope, and you're confusing christians and creationISTS again. If you changed the word "evolutionists" to "flat-earth-believers", you'd get the point.

More wild flailing in store?

 

[DGB454]

What do you feel is a non-answer about the other candidates for First Cause? Notice that deity created is one of the candidates, so it didn't get "thrown out".



That is one of the hypotheses for First Cause, but it is not a scientific theory. It is a theological statement. As a theological statement, it is not appropriate in science class.

Remember, a God or Gods can have created the universe by the means discovered by science, right?



Nice duck of the issues!! So you think we can lie to students in science class and present intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. Remember, this isn't about a generic creator, it's about a SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC THEORY: intelligent design.

What you want is for school to promote theism. And you want kids lied to by saying that there is a valid scientific theory of intelligent design. All under the false guise of "let the state decide".



NO! Intelligent design isn't just saying "there is a Creator." Darwin said that about evolution:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Intelligent design says that organisms or parts of organisms were manufactured deliberately by an intelligent entity and then placed on the planet. IOW, organisms or parts of organisms are manufactured artifacts, like pottery or cars or watches. The evidence falsifies that.



It's not teaching them more than one thing. After all, within evolution you get phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium being discussed at the same time. You get allopatric and sympatric speciation being discussed.

The problem is that you are trying to teach a falsified theory as tho it were valid. Tell me, how do you honestly teach that the earth is the center of the solar system? You can't, because that theory has been shown to be wrong. ID has also been shown to be wrong.

Your premise is that ID is a valid theory. It's a false premise.



Ad hominem. Why did you use it?



It appears that you have run out of rational argument and have to use ad hominem. Please change that.

You keep telling me I am talking ID but I am talking a creator which is different unless I am misunderstanding what you guys have been telling me all along.

Why did I use ad hominem? Because I can. Plus it's funny.

 

[DGB454]

I edited this because I don't want to stop you from trying to be funny too.

 

[DGB454]

OK, let's see if I can say this so no one misunderstands what I am saying.

If a science class teaches evolution I am fine with that. If that same science class teaches about the beginning of the universe then I am saying that a Creator (Not ID. Not Creationism. Not Pink Unicorns)
should also be taught along with the other theories of the beginning. If the beginning of the universe is not taught or brought up then I don't care. They just sit around on their thumbs and spin if they want to.

Got it skipper?

 

[lucaspa]

You keep telling me I am talking ID but I am talking a creator which is different unless I am misunderstanding what you guys have been telling me all along.

Why did I use ad hominem? Because I can. Plus it's funny.

Funny it is not. Using ad hominem instead of ad argumentum says a couple of things:

1. You don't respect the person you are talking with.
2. You don't have an argument and, instead of admitting it and changing your mind, you use insult instead to distract.

The OP specifically talked about including Intelligent Design theory in the school curriculum.

You are talking about an intelligent entity as a creator and having that be part of science. If you are doing that, then you are talking ID. If you add to that that the earth is less than 20,000 years old, then you are talking young earth creationism (YEC).

IOW, what you think you are talking about isn't what you are saying.

 

[DGB454]

Please read my reply to one of your other postings.

Is there a bit of a more superior than thou attitude here?

There is a lot of that in this forum isn't there?

 

[DGB454]

Funny it is not. Using ad hominem instead of ad argumentum says a couple of things:

1. You don't respect the person you are talking with.
2. You don't have an argument and, instead of admitting it and changing your mind, you use insult instead to distract.

The OP specifically talked about including Intelligent Design theory in the school curriculum.

You are talking about an intelligent entity as a creator and having that be part of science. If you are doing that, then you are talking ID. If you add to that that the earth is less than 20,000 years old, then you are talking young earth creationism (YEC).

IOW, what you think you are talking about isn't what you are saying.

It's funny to me.

1. I don't know you well enough to respect you.
2. You just don't understand mine.

Ok if you want to call it ID then fine.
I am not saying anything about YEC just as I didn't say anything about Creationism.

What you think I am saying is not what I am talking about.

 

[lucaspa]

The earth is flat?

Ikester, do you commonly drop words from sentences when you read?

I wrote: "For instance, you cannot challenge that the earth is NOT flat, can you?" Did you see the "NOT" in capital letters there? The earth is NOT flat. Can you challenge that?

Note to all christians: Lucaspa just called us all liars.

1. The quote is out-of-context.
2. The quote doesn't call anyone a liar. What I said was:
"The problem is that freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech does not cover lies. We have laws against perjury, slander, and libel -- all are different forms of lying. Christians don't have the freedom to lie, either. Remember the 9th Commandment."

Teaching creationISM was claimed to be protected by freedom of speech and freedom in general. I noted that under our government freedom of speech does not extend to telling lies. Within Christianity, freedom of speech does not extend to telling lies (bearing false witness). Do you disagree with those statements?

So, now we look at the STATEMENTS and determine if the STATEMENT is true or a lie. The claim that creationISM and ID are VALID scientific theories is an untruth (lie if you wish). Both have been falsified by the data. Notice I didn't say anything about people at all, much less Christians. I am talking about a STATEMENT.

So, we can determine whether a STATEMENT is true or a lie separate from any individual. But then the issue becomes for all Christians and for citizens of the US: are we justified in repeating a STATEMENT we know is untrue. Christians are forbidden from making such statements. They are commanded not to bear false witness.

I can understand why you take this personally, Ikester. You are now in a very delicate position. You advocate creationISM as a valid scientific theory. I am saying that creationISM is NOT a valid scientific theory. So, you can either accept my statement and place yourself in disobedience to the 9th Commandment, you can stop advocating creationISM as a valid theory, thus complying with the 9th Commandment, you can try to show that creationISM is a valid theory, or you can warp my words in an attempt to make this personal. It's too bad you chose the last one.

Here we lie even more, commit perjury, falsify theories etc...

I said "Saying that ID is a VALID scientific theory is a lie. Just like saying flat earth is a valid scientific theory is a lie. Both are falsified theories. Therefore you don't have the freedom to commit perjury (or false witness if you believe in the Bible)."

Notice I am talking about the limits to freedom. Ikester, are you disputing that you can't bear false witness? Do you think you CAN bear false witness? If not, then you agree that you can't advocate teaching ID using the argument "freedom of speech". There ARE limits to the freedom of speech. It appears that you agree with that.

Then your disagreement has to be with my statement that ID is a falsified theory. If that is your disagreement, then disagree with it and try to show how my statement is wrong. It appears that you are unable to do that, therefore you are trying to make it personal.

Like I said before: Where's your missing link!

We have several missing links. Which one in particular would you like? I've said several times before which fossils are "missing links" in the hominin lineage. Would you like them again? Will you read them this time? Or are you just going to keep repeating this as tho I've never shown you the missing links?

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"

Yep we are all liars. You have made that clear here. And I will be reporting this post.

You didn't answer my questions, Ikester. Let me repeat them:
"Science is not "afraid", but rather does not want to see untruth marketed as truth. Why would we want that? Why would YOU want that?"

To ask again, why would YOU want untruth marketed as truth?

Ikester, creationISM and ID are falsified scientific theories. Under deductive logic, neither can be true because both have false consequences. True statements can't have false consequences.

Since they are falsified and untrue, you can't honestly teach them as true.

 

[lucaspa]

ID makes perfect sense.

But that doesn't make it correct.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

So, even tho a theory "makes sense", our direct experience of the universe can show it to be wrong.

And that is what has happened with ID.

It sure makes more sense than the religious fairy tales evolution tells.

And what religious fairy tale is that? Do you think evolution is atheism?

 

[lucaspa]

to mechanical bliss
God's word always "jives" with reality.

God's true word, maybe. YOUR literal interpretation of God's word: NO.

Evolution never jives.
So you believe you came from a rock I see.

If evolution never jived, we wouldn't have kept it in science this long:

"The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. " Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

Since evolution never said anything about us coming from "a rock", I infer that what you call "evolution" really isnt evolution at all.

 

[lucaspa]

Who are you people.
Eugenie Scott clones, here to keep the faith alive?

This is ironic since Eugenie Scott has DEFENDED Christianity and OPPOSED teaching evolution as atheism.

It was Eugenie Scott's personal intervention that got the National Association of Biology Teachers to remove the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from their definition of evolution. The very words that Christians like Alvin Platinga had objected to.

Scott pointed out that those words had no place in a definition of evolution since they were faith based words that meant atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

It's funny to me.

Enough said about your sense of humor.

1. I don't know you well enough to respect you.

Then I suppose ordinary politeness to strangers doesn't apply?

2. You just don't understand mine.

Then explain it to me. I haven't seen you advance an argument in several posts. It would be nice of you to get back on topic.

Ok if you want to call it ID then fine.
... just as I didn't say anything about Creationism.

DGB, you say Creator. Let's get specific. HOW do you think the Creator created? Did the Creator form the first H. sapiens from dirt? Did the Creator simply poof the first H. sapiens into existence out of nothing? Did the Creator have H. sapiens evolve from a previous species?

Did the Creator simply start the Big Bang and then everything else happened without any input from the Creator?

When you answer these questions then everyone will have a much better idea of what you are talking about.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution (man from molecules) takes a lot of faith to believe since there is no evidence to back it up.

Ah, the old "there is no evidence" argument. Does that argument sound familiar, goodseedhomeschool? It should. It's the argument atheists always use against Christianity. There is no evidence for the existence of God. There is no evidence that Jesus lived. Are you comfortable using this argument?

Like Christianity, evolution never would have lasted long if there were no evidence. So, like Christianity, that evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists (99.9999%) means that there must be evidence to back it up. Just like Christianity must have evidence to back it up in order to last this long. Most people simply don't hold onto ideas there is no evidence for.

Are you at all interested in learing the evidence for evolution?

Let me start you with a simple one: the nested hierarchy of biological organisms. IF species are descended with modification from earlier species, THEN it follows that all species can be classified in a nested hierarchy reflecting that relationship.

Creationists over 100 years before Darwin came up with a nested hierarchy classification system: the Linnean system. So right there we have evidence to back up evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

*raises a tentative hand*

Last I checked Evolution wasn't a religion and had nothing to do with how the universe was created, just the diversity of species. Has this changed?

No. From On the Origin of Species (you can quote this every time it comes up, and it will come up often):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

These quotes blow away any assertion that evolution is a religion. Creationists try to portray evolution as atheism (thus the religion part). But evolution is not and never has been atheism.

Notice also that Darwin specifically said that evolution had nothing to do with getting the first life, much less getting the universe.

Arthur, what you will soon see is that most creationists and many atheists aren't really arguing creationism vs evolution. What they are arguing is theism vs atheism. This is the sublevel of the discussion. You MUST ALWAYS be aware of the sublevel and listen very carefully to posters so that you can recognize when the discussion leaves science and becomes theism vs atheism.

My strong opinion is that you want to keep the discussion from going to atheism vs theism. Since evolution is NOT atheism, it does harm to science and evolution to let evolution be portrayed this way -- by EITHER creationists or atheists.

Creationists who think evolution is atheism have made a tragic logical mistake: they have said that IF God did NOT create by their literal interpretation of Genesis, THEN God did not create and does not exist.

Yes, the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but that is the tradgedy of the mistake. Another tragedy is that some atheists are quite happy to let creationists make the mistake since it furthers their own proselytizing agenda.

For theists, both creationISM and evolution are different ways to accomplish CREATION. IOW, they are competing ways that God created.