quote:I suspect people are assuming it's really a plot to suggest many scientists support Creationism or ID, and thus misleading in that it suggests those are valid alternatives to Evolution.
That's exactly what it is. That is the Discovery Institute's stated intention, as I've said time and time again in this thread.
quote:It shows only that there exists a segment of the scientific community that doubts evolution...
As fugu and others have repeatedly stated in this thread, it shows nothing of the kind. It was assembled by the Discovery Institute in a disingenuous effort to make people think that, though, and frankly I'm very disturbed by how you're bending over backwards to support their efforts -- it shows that they're working.
quote:How many signatures does a list have to have before it convinces you that there is not agreement among virtually everyone on the issue?
To be perfectly frank, I think the list is utterly irrelevant. It is nothing more than another PR stunt in a long line of PR stunts by the Discovery Institute performed in accordance with their goal of discrediting evolutionary theory not on the basis of any actual science, but in the court of public opinion.
Evolutionary theory can -- and does -- stand on its own scientific merits. Anyone wishing to put forth a competing theory has always and will continue to be welcome to do so, provided that theory is also capable of standing on its own scientific merits. Becuase such a theory is precisely what the intelligent design movement does not have, they have elected instead to wage a PR campaign. By bending over backwards to defend them you're only helping foster the notion that scientific merit can be decided by something other than science. Not only is it wrong, I think it's dangerous, and it really bothers me that you're doing it.
-------------------
I'll answer a broader version of your question: "What would it take to convince you that there is not agreement among virtually everyone in the scientific community on the issue?"
Here is my answer: It would take nothing more or less than the publication of tests of a falsifiable alternative theory in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the type that publishes such work on evolutionary theory at present.
The intelligent design movement has never been willing to submit its "theories" to this simple "put up or shut up" test, because it has never been willing to develop a falsifiable scientific theory. Given that they would presumably jump all over the chance to do so, as it would actually spark a legitimate debate, I can only assume that they are unable to. And if you fail the "put up or shut up" test as utterly and completely as the intelligent design movement has, don't be surprised when people start asking you to shut up.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: <slaps forhead> Well that explains a lot. Unfortunately it only increases my amazement that he gets responses.
My post, since I don't expect Xap or Ron to be swayed by it, is actually for the benefit of the viewers at home.
In all seriousness, the Discovery Institute's efforts need to be exposed and countered. Since I'm not actually American, telling Americans about those efforts is all I can do. I admit that I wouldn't have made this many posts to this thread if I wasn't procrastinating, though. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Since when are ad hominem attacks okay here? And Tom is not correct - Xap does not exist to make substanceless comments. Read my landmark if you want to know why I have two screennames.
twinky, I don't believe it is okay to reject an argument on the grounds that the person giving the argument has bad intentions. It is important to judge an argument on it's own merits.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: It is important to judge an argument on it's own merits.
Quite so. If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
Usually, I'd disagree with this, but nobody is disputing the data. 500 scientists signed a peititon saying the veracity of the theory of evolution warrants further study.
The only contentious issue here is the intent of those who would knowingly twist this evidence.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if you could dig up 500 credible biologists who would agree with the statement "Evolution does not and never has happened, in any way, shape, or form. Including bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
Somehow, I doubt it. Twinky and others are right, the petition is just ID PR BS.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually what the ID group wants is 500 credible bioligists who agree that "Phenomenon some witness and call evolution is in fact changes in creation that God enacts, by his will, and for his greater purpose and glory, and has nothing to do with a naturalistic theory of nature."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
I didn't say to ignore the intentions. I just said to not use those intentions as a reason to attack or reject the argument itself.
quote:If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't? Keep in mind that I do reject ID's argument, even though I do think it should be treated fairly, and also be brought up in schools, even if very briefly.
quote:The only contentious issue here is the intent of those who would knowingly twist this evidence.
I agree that this is the only issue that should be contentious. But I don't think it's fair to attack them for twisting it even before they have done so. They have not used this list to justify any of that in the article posted, or anything I've seen yet. So far, I've just seem them use it to justify the very limited claim that there is not agreement among "virtually all" scientists on evolution.
It's not fair to them to put words into their mouths that they did not say, and then attack those words.
quote:I wonder if you could dig up 500 credible biologists who would agree with the statement "Evolution does not and never has happened, in any way, shape, or form. Including bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
I agree that you could not. That is an example of something that I'd think actually IS rejected by virtually ALL scientists who know anything about the area.
posted
My problem with the article is that, although all it is really saying is that an only an insignificantly tiny number of people with doctorates in science (some of whom are dead, many of whom are from less than stellar institutions) agree that questions should be asked about evolution, the audience for whom it is intended will have a reaction along the lines of, "Wow! 500 scientists! That's a lot! They must be right! ID should be taught in schools!"
As I said, if it wasn't designed to manipulate and mislead, there would not have been an article.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't?
Your posts in any number of intelligent design discussions on this forum. You have repeatedly stated -- and I verified this by searching for the term "intelligent design" in posts by Tresopax -- that intelligent design has validity and deserves to be treated with the respect afforded a scientific theory.
quote:Keep in mind that I do reject ID's argument, even though I do think it should be treated fairly, and also be brought up in schools, even if very briefly.
Your edit to add this doesn't change the validity of my response to your first sentence, though here you are backing away, at least in tone, from your previous statements.
In reality, intelligent design "theory" has been treated fairly. Until such time as my stated criterion is met, I will continue to accord the appropriate amount of respect -- zero -- to the intelligent design movement. If there was an actual theory there, worthy of study and debate, the members of the intelligent design movement would presumably be saying so. Instead, they are conducting a highly disingenuous PR campaign.
I'd have no particular problem with intelligent design being brough up in a science class as an example of how not to put forward a scientific theory, but based on your previous posts that isn't what you advocate.
quote:It's not fair to them to put words into their mouths that they did not say, and then attack those words.
As I have already noted on this thread more than once, they did say it. Discrediting evolutionary theory via a public relations campaign is the stated goal of the Discovery Institute.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I checked, most of us in this thread were arguing with Ron and making some side comments about the creationist community in general. Ron has made a wide assortment of statements that the petition he started this conversation with does not support by a literal reading. For that matter, so have you, Tres, in this thread.
Amusingly enough, when I pointed out that this literal reading meant the statement was nearly meaningless and certainly acceptable to scientists, you told me it had to be considered in its context, and in that context it really meant something else. Are you now reversing that position?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't?
Your posts in any number of intelligent design discussions on this forum. You have repeatedly stated -- and I verified this by searching for the term "intelligent design" in posts by Tresopax -- that intelligent design has validity and deserves to be treated with the respect afforded a scientific theory.
I have said it should be treated with respect, and that it is a valid (valid does not equal true) theory related to science which merits discussion in science class, but have also said it is not strictly testable and is thus not strictly a scientific theory. I have also said I don't ultimately agree with the argument for it. I think this is fairly judging it by its merits.
The difference is that I think a theory that I believe has little merit should nevertheless be discussed (even in school) and treated with respect if many other people think it does have merit. I don't see the benefit in disrespecting a theory, no matter how true or false I judge it to be.
quote:As I have already noted on this thread more than once, they did say it. Discrediting evolutionary theory via a public relations campaign is the stated goal of the Discovery Institute.
Point taken. They probably do intend to misuse this data. But they haven't specifically done so in anything posted in this thread, and the data itself isn't misleading by nature, as some seem to be claiming.
quote:Amusingly enough, when I pointed out that this literal reading meant the statement was nearly meaningless and certainly acceptable to scientists, you told me it had to be considered in its context, and in that context it really meant something else. Are you now reversing that position?
When scientists say they are "skeptical" of evolution, they are implying not just that they doubt it like they are supposed to always question all scientific theories, but rather that they consider it to have specific problems. So, yes, I still think that statement should be taken in that context.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, it still remains that no scientist [edit: on the list] said he was skeptical of evolution, merely of two particular mechanisms being sufficient on their own to account for the complexity of life -- a statement exactly consistent with modern evolutionary theory, as modern evolutionary theory does not rely on just those two mechanisms. Other important mechanisms include symbiotism leading to the formation of more complex cells, for instance. Not to mention that those two don't explain the diversity of life alone even in Darwin's theory -- the initial presence of life, through some other mechanism, is required as well. Furthermore, again note my side point that it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to be skeptical for religious reasons.
Not to mention that many scientists have a penchant for being overly literally minded -- you're the one now insisting on a homogenous approach to the question by scientists, when its already been pointed out how tiny the percentage is in comparison to PhDs as a whole. I suspect there are more than 500 PhD scientists with serious mental illnesses, for instance, and vastly more who are willing to take things extraordinarily literally and would thus be willing to sign that statement, provided they didn't mind giving fuel to the Discovery institute.
Which, as has already been noted and you finally admitted, it is also important to understand. Not to mention that plenty of misuses of the data have been posted in this thread -- by Ron, which is who most of the posts have been responding to, and are perfectly reasonable responses to. The Discovery institute, along with others, has also successfully promoted a situation where many groups are perfectly willing to take unfounded pot-shots at evolutionary theory. Reading this statement in that context, the data is intentionally misleading. As for the data not being misleading by nature, I'm perfectly willing to agree with that, for a sufficiently meaningless definition of nature that, again, nobody seems to be talking about but you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
