The tip of the ice berg

[BPPLEE]

So no dire consequence. Just an unrelated factoid.

I used to wear blue jeans.
And the dire consequence of this is that I now eat a lot of curry.
Thats the logic you are following.
Connecting the utterly unconnected, to try to create a story from nothing.

The fact that I accepted observable reality when I was a christian, did not cause me to become an atheist.

What did?

 

[Astrid]

What did?

Nothing caused me to become, I just never caught the religion thing.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What did?

Exposure to other religions.
And time spent actively learning about them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If their pet theory is so rock solid, why the angst when someone challenges it?

Evolutionary biology has become a foundational underpinning for the biological sciences in general, including medical science. Control of funding for these areas is mainly controlled by political bodies where a detailed understanding of their nature and potential is often lacking. The popularisation of anti-evolution, and anti-science views in general, is therefore seen as a potential threat to scientific progress.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is the opposite of what the uncertainty of the various quantum theories predict.

To be fair, QM has nothing to say about free will. Compatibilist free will is typically seen as a higher-level emergent phenomenon, and dualist free will has no support from either classical or QM physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

QV please:

Life is essentially a complex form of persistent oxidation/reduction (redox) chemistry, similar in principle to fire (combustion), but at much lower temperatures.

That wasn't a definition, but a distilled description of how life on Earth works.

That same post quoted an even more distilled description:

According to Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Albert Szent-Györgyi: “Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest.” (American Society for Microbiology)

 

[Astrid]

Evolutionary biology has become a foundational underpinning for the biological sciences in general, including medical science. Control of funding for these areas is mainly controlled by political bodies where a detailed understanding of their nature and potential is often lacking. The popularisation of anti-evolution, and anti-science views in general, is therefore seen as a potential threat to scientific progress.

The e attempted zinger about "why the angst if ToE is challenged"
has layers that are worth more analysis.

First, there never has been an actual challenge to it's validity.
Nothing faintly resembling disproof has ever been discovered.

" How come still monkeys" or quoting genesis hs zero data.

The question is better turned back on the creationists. Why, if
their version of things i so true, can they provide zero evidence.
that it is, if ToE is so wrong, why is there no evidence?

Where the actual dread nd anxiety (angst )about challenge is is of course
with the creos who are terribly upset that their chosen interpretation
of genesis is directly refuted by all known relevant evidence on earth.

Look how many think evolution is Satan inspitred! That science
is a to religion! Doom!

There's no reason a real challenge to anything in science should
cause anxiety and dread- at least not to anyone in science.
New discoveries are what they live for.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The e attempted zinger about "why the angst if ToE is challenged"
has layers that are worth more analysis.

First, there never has been an actual challenge to it's validity.
Nothing faintly resembling disproof has ever been discovered.

" How come still monkeys" or quoting genesis hs zero data.

The question is better turned back on the creationists. Why, if
their version of things i so true, can they provide zero evidence.
that it is, if ToE is so wrong, why is there no evidence?

Where the actual dread nd anxiety (angst )about challenge is is of course
with the creos who are terribly upset that their chosen interpretation
of genesis is directly refuted by all known relevant evidence on earth.

Look how many think evolution is Satan inspitred! That science
is a to religion! Doom!

There's no reason a real challenge to anything in science should
cause anxiety and dread- at least not to anyone in science.
New discoveries are what they live for.

Yes, it's the effect on non-scientists that's potentially a concern.

 

[AV1611VET]

That wasn't a definition,

What's your definition then?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's your definition then?

I don't have one. There are many definitions, so I'm inclined to pick whichever seems most appropriate in any particular context.

A simple everyday definition is NASA's: “... a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”. But it's still fairly ambiguous.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution says a tornado tore through a junkyard and built the car's driver.

Wrong.
First, it's not evolution, but the theory of evolution.
Second, no the ToE doesn't says that.
You know better. Or you should know after debating for so many years. It seems, that 160 years after Darwin, creationists are still only capable of knocking down a strawman, but can't touch the real thing.

 

[driewerf]

And it seems there are some who are determined to make everyone believe it whether you want to or not

No.
you believe whatever nonsense you want. But the moment you come out in the open, you will deserve the fiercest backlash. If you want to influence educational programs, cut good science out of the school textbooks etc, then yes, the fights is on.
And that is the corrosive effect of creationism, that is the big iceberg that is below the tip: that in order to maintain the creationism all other sciences are denied too. Worse, creationists deny that science is about the search for knowledge (about the physical world).
Creationists use arguments from authority - god and the bible - and project that attitude upon science. While in a scientific debate it is the empirical evidence that is the key argument.

 

[BPPLEE]

No.
you believe whatever nonsense you want. But the moment you come out in the open, you will deserve the fiercest backlash. If you want to influence educational programs, cut good science out of the school textbooks etc, then yes, the fights is on.
And that is the corrosive effect of creationism, that is the big iceberg that is below the tip: that in order to maintain the creationism all other sciences are denied too. Worse, creationists deny that science is about the search for knowledge (about the physical world).
Creationists use arguments from authority - god and the bible - and project that attitude upon science. While in a scientific debate it is the empirical evidence that is the key argument.

You don't know what all creationists believe. There are many who embrace science.

 

[driewerf]

No.
you believe whatever nonsense you want. But the moment you come out in the open, you will deserve the fiercest backlash. If you want to influence educational programs, cut good science out of the school textbooks etc, then yes, the fights is on.
And that is the corrosive effect of creationism, that is the big iceberg that is below the tip: that in order to maintain the creationism all other sciences are denied too. Worse, creationists deny that science is about the search for knowledge (about the physical world).
Creationists use arguments from authority - god and the bible - and project that attitude upon science. While in a scientific debate it is the empirical evidence that is the key argument.

They pretend so. But they
1) have reached a conclusion - creationism - and are shoehorning reality into their conclusion
2) aren't able to follow the evidence to where it leads.
3) will smear science and scientists
4) will fall back on an argument from authority when nothing else works.

 

[Astrid]

You don't know what all creationists believe. There are many who embrace science.

You would need to explain with examples.

 

[BPPLEE]

You would need to explain with examples.

Home

 

[Astrid]

Home

You do understand that the model they speak of is
to start with a conclusion and then set forth to
show it is true?

 

[driewerf]

The majority of Germans thought that Hitler was leading them to the promised land. The majority of Russians believe that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine. The majority of North Koreans believe that Kim is the greatest leader ever and some kind of demi-god. The majority is often wrong. And evolution is taught in schools as if it was fact, at least in the education systems that I know of. Teachers in the US have been fired even for pointing out possible objections to evolution. If the theory is so sound, why the fear of examining possible flaws?

So, because the majority of Germans, Russians and North Koreans are wrong, the ToE is wrong. We can stop with digging up fossils, the sequencing of genomes, we don't have to compare anatomies or biochemical pathways. Three examples where the majority is/was wrong for showing 160 years of research flawed.
@BPPLEE, I assume this counts as another example of creationists loving science, hmmmm?

Teachers in the US have been fired even for pointing out possible objections to evolution. If the theory is so sound, why the fear of examining possible flaws?

For pointing out possible objections or for pushing a religious agenda?

 

[BPPLEE]

This has nothing to do with me

 

[BPPLEE]

This has nothing to do with me