Well, duh... This is old news when it comes ot health-related issues. But for those of us interested in the so-called 'creation-evolution debate', it is not only old news, this folksy 'common sense' approach to technical issues it is one of the biggest pains in the neck we see.
I was perusing some old posts at the ISCID Brainstorms forum, a place where pro-ID creationists get together to pat each other on the back for no real reason. It was supposedly established, as the name implies, as a place where 'ID theorists' could come together to, well, brainstorm about 'Intelligent Design' and such. It quickly turned into the usual place where non-scientist creationists gathered to badmouth evolution. It died on the vine, more or less, as did the entire site (see this list of forums there, and look at the dates of last activity).
Anyway, I was perusing some old threads there, and the arguments of a creationist asthma researcher, Peter Borger, impressed at least one of the non-science types there:
Emphasis mine.“Can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?”
Zachriel [a biologist] wrote:
Nothing has been persuasive that evolution doesn't occur, or that it does
not continue to act as the unifying theory of biology.
From a perspective outside the field of biology PB's argument is persuasive...
Funny how that works... A biologist says that none of the biolgy-related arguments he's seen are convincing, a non-biologist says that from outside of biology, they do.
PB's [Peter Borger's] argument is essentially that redundant genes falsify evolution, among other silly things.
No wonder so many people find the yammerings of creationists with biology-related degrees persuasive - they don't know any better because they are not biologists!
Well, duh...
7 comments:
Wow. It surprising that you'd support your position with this type of theory structure. Darwinism is neither biology nor an empirical test. It is a model wrapped around biology. Models are not falsified in the same manner as an empirical test.
Zachriel is wrong in his assumption and is asking the disproof of a negative. I don't know that either scientist or philosopher will tolerate that approach.
Enjoy.
Collin
It would seem that my main point stands, as supported by the evidence of the silly comment above from a non-scientist creationist.
Apparently, not being convinced that evolution is falsified by Borger's assertions and demonstrably false claims is considered to be a request for a 'disproof of a negative.'
If I have questions about cameras, I'll give you a holler. If I have questions about science, I surely will not.
I understand.
The comment must have been confusing.
Should I use smaller words?
No, you should at least try not to come across as an underinformed, irrelevantly educated rube with a prideful streak and a silly, Dark Ages ideology to prop up.
So, until you can actually address the questions I've repeatedly asked you to regarding your "questions", such as How many mutations do beneficial trait changes require (and several other basic issues that you comically avoid), please just go away, little fella.
I'm going to make a suitable post a little later (in a week or two) and it will collect some good detail because, after all, you do not have any idea the scope of my studies over the past couple of years. (But I won't let you in on any secrets.) Enjoy.
Ah, 'studies'....
The creationist always engages in some 'study' on any topic they want and declare themselves experts.
I encounted a creationist on a discussion board and when his competence was questioned, he mentioned that he had "studied evolution" for 23 years.
He then went on the claim that DNA is made of amino acids.
So forgive me for not giving a crap about your self-study of creationist pamphlets and websites.
Your 'questions' and claims on science that I have seen here, at your own blog, and at other blogs indicate that you have at best a cursory understanding of the issues.
Trust me - you have no secrets.
Post a Comment