How to keep the ToE alive - 101

[LuisDantas]

Science says that it isn't a fact.

It turns out that no, it does indeed say that it is a fact.

Of course, this being science as opposed to dogma, it might conceivably be revised in the future. The odds are rather slim, though. Once again, a comparison with gravity will be useful: one might imagine a possible future scenario where one finds out that celestial bodies do not exert attraction towards each other... but given how consistently the current understanding of grativy has been demonstrated in actual observations, that is very much only a theoretical possibility.

One could find out that common descent only "seems " to be a fact. But only in that same sense that one can doubt that, say, the sun does exist as a physical entity as opposed to some sort of clever illusion.

 

[Autodidact]

Well class what you do is you disqualify any Christian scientists from advancing up the ranks.

There is only one word for this. It is a lie, pure and simple. An out and out lie. I think outhouse is right, all creationists lie. At least, I haven't encountered one who doesn't.

Man of Faith: One of the most prominent, leading evolutionary biologists in the world today is a Christian, Francis Collins. There are probably more Christian scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution than reject it.

I mean, if you want to argue, o.k., that's one thing. But if you can't defend your position without lying, well, it tells us all we need to know about your position, doesn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

Well class what you do is you disqualify any Christian scientists from advancing up the ranks. Any qualified scientist that doesn't accept the ToE you make sure they don't get promoted too far. You only want those that accept Darwinian evolution to be a fact to get promoted. Those that point out the significant scientific problems and atheistic assumptions of evolution are to be labeled religulous and demoted.

That’s all for today class. Just remember this question will be on the test. “Which scientists are most qualified for new positions?” And the answer is, those that accept the ToE and are non-religious.

“An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.” "There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/?test=latestnews

Can you explain how a hiring decision to run a student astronomical observatory has the remotest impact on the Theory of Evolution? You can't really be that ignorant, can you?

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe you missed this part of the article where it cites the debate is at more than one college. This is more than just one astronomy dept., I suspect that this debate and the ToE life support actions are in a lot of colleges and growing as people realize the hoax that is being perpetuated and start asking the hard questions.

"Gaskell's lawsuit is indicative of an increasingly tense debate between religion and science on college campuses and elsewhere, said Steven K. Green, a law professor and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore."

Also from your story:
Gaskell says he is not a creationist,
Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists.
Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."

 

[Autodidact]

The ToE contradicts the Bible.

Well, the Bible's wrong then! So sorry.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution shouldn't be protected period, we should follow the evidence. If evolution was true, it wouldn't need to be protected.

It's not. Any Biologist, anywhere in the world, is free to pursue research that would disprove it, and if she managed to do so, would be hailed as a great scientist.

That's not what creationism is or does. Creationism is religion, which is something else completely. Creationism teaches that evolution is wrong because it contradicts the Bible, as you demonstrated so well in this thread. That's not science, Man of Faith, it's anti-science.

The reason evolution is taught, accepted and used is that it is correct.

Do you think we should hire a flat-earther to teach astronomy?

There's as much controversy about evolution--within Biology--as there is about heliocentrism in astronomy. Do you think an astronomy department would hire someone to teach that the sun revolves around the earth? Do you think that means heliocentrism is being unfairly protected?

 

[Autodidact]

You don't think that there should be any distinction made between a frog that evolves into a different species of frog and a frog that evolves into a Prince?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Autodidact]

This analogy doesn't help. I could walk up one or twenty flights of stairs but I would still be a human. From direct observation, nobody has every seen a frog mutate into anything other than another frog. A frog to a Prince over millions of years is just imagination and presupposition.

Well that one flew right over your head.

I'm seriously going to try to explain this to you, so I'd appreciate it if you paid attention. It's like this.
ToE says that one species gradually emerges from another species, which gradually emerged from another species, and so forth, in a continuous process in which there is no clear break, or jump. (That's called "saltation.") ToE says there is never saltation. The difference between one species and another is like gradually walking a distance, say 100 yards. After you walk 100 yards, you've gone far enough we would call that a new species. What do we call it if you keep walking until you've walked a mile? A genus. Ten miles? A family. And so forth. It's all a single, gradual, smooth progression. Get it?

You're saying, in effect, "Oh, I completely accept that you can walk 100 yards, but how can you walk a mile? That's impossible!"

Unless you want to explain the scientifically supported barrier to evolution continuing in this way on and on forever?

 

[Autodidact]

There is no debate? What are we doing? And what are the people in the article doing?

There is no debate--within Biology. That debate was completely resolved in evolution's favor between 50 and 100 years ago. You lost. Give it up.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not incompatible with facts, just the evolution model of common descent of all life forms.

Actually, no. It's also incompatible with astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, physics, paleontology, in fact, most of modern science.

 

[Autodidact]

Science says that it isn't a fact.

I see. So what you're asking us to believe is that you know Biology better than all the Biologists in the world? newsflash: Biology is science.

 

[RedOne77]

Well, unlike Christian's, who are obligated to acknowledge and accept the dissension among its members as reasonable,

Christians are not obligated to accept dissension as reasonable, and usually quite the opposite happens. As a Christian, I do not think many things in Christianity are reasonable and much deserves little respect. What is reasonable, as a Christian who views Genesis metaphorically and accepts science, about a sect that denies just about all of science and uses poor theology and reason to back up their claims?

Creationism is not reasonable, period. So why should invoking the same religion make it any more reasonable to me? There are so many sects and denominations because people refuse to accept other views as legitimate, adding to the ever increasing number of factions.

 

[Skwim]

Christians are not obligated to accept dissension as reasonable, and usually quite the opposite happens.

Yeah, "obligated" was a bit too strong of a word. But among the few whom I've asked, "Is it reasonable that others disagree with you when you disagree with them?" (not in those exact words of course) I've never gotten a "No." Now, perhaps there are those, maybe even many, Christians who think it's perfectly reasonable for them to disagree with (dissent from) the beliefs of other, but it's not reasonable that these other Christians should disagree with (dissent from) them, but I haven't seen it.

As a Christian, I do not think many things in Christianity are reasonable and much deserves little respect. What is reasonable, as a Christian who views Genesis metaphorically and accepts science, about a sect that denies just about all of science and uses poor theology and reason to back up their claims?

I wasn't talking about specifics when addressing the reasonableness of dissent, just the nature of it as it exists in religion versus dissent in science. Unlike science, religion is pretty much opinion based, albeit opinions voiced as fact.

There are so many sects and denominations because people refuse to accept other views as legitimate, adding to the ever increasing number of factions.

Yup,

 

[ellenjanuary]

Can you summarize this in three short paragraphs? I have a hard time reading so many words. I don't mind reading chapters but I need to first be interested in the book. Thank you.

Obviously you jest. Funny, that which you represent, arguing against evolution after being selected against...

 

[Renji]

The creation story is written as a narrative so there is no reason to take it as anything else.

So you suggest that it's 'historical' and 'literal' just because it's narrative? FYI, the Gospel of Thomas is also narrative but the scholars declared that it isn't an inspired book (nor is historical) and therefore should not be included in the Bible.

 

[McBell]

There is no debate?

Nope.
No debate thus far in this thread.

What are we doing?

Other than waiting for you actually start debating...
Trying to show you that you are just plain flat out wrong.
seems that your faith is blocking you from seeing the truth.

And what are the people in the article doing?

They are not debating evolution.
Though your skills at ratification are most excellent, they have blinded you from seeing the truth of things.

 

[McBell]

It is not a prerequisite that a narrative be fictitious.

Nor is it a prerequisite that a narrative be historical and or literal.

 

[McBell]

Science says that it isn't a fact.

That is correct.
Science says that the Bible is NOT fact.
In fact, science shows that the Bible is myth.

 

[McBell]

Guess my little discourse on how evolution works is being completely ignored.

Of course it has.
Just as his name states, he is a man of faith, truth and facts are useless to him unless it confirms with his faith.

Faith is a very powerful thing, you know.

 

[McBell]

Well class what you do is you disqualify any Christian scientists from advancing up the ranks. Any qualified scientist that doesn't accept the ToE you make sure they don't get promoted too far. You only want those that accept Darwinian evolution to be a fact to get promoted. Those that point out the significant scientific problems and atheistic assumptions of evolution are to be labeled religulous and demoted.

That’s all for today class. Just remember this question will be on the test. “Which scientists are most qualified for new positions?” And the answer is, those that accept the ToE and are non-religious.

“An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.” "There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/?test=latestnews

Seems to me that this is nothing more than transference.
You are merely claiming that those who accept evolution are as dishonest and deceitful as creationists.