Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[The Barbarian]

If a teacher states there are no missing transitionals, students should have the academic freedom to challenge that faith based belief system.

In a public school, preaching that religious doctrine is not even legal. In a private school, it's legal, but of course it's despicable to lie to students. I notice you're still dodging my question about which two major groups have a missing transitional. Creationists always duck that one.

They should have the freedom to look at statements from evolutionists who say fossils show 'evolution' happened slow and gradual...

I've done that in 8th grade Pre-AP classes, showing them the different ideas about pacing in evolution. That's one that they can pretty easily understand and it's a valuable way to introduce them to such issues. But you wouldn't like the way it would turn out, given the evidence.

And they should have the freedom to examine claims from scientists who claim 'evolution' did not happen at all.

And from scientists who claim HIV doesn't cause AIDs, and from creationists who claim that blacks are genetically inferior to other people? How about the creationists who claim that the Sun orbits the Earth? Or the claims that Earthquakes are caused by Neptune getting annoyed with us?

Barbarian observes:
Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation, of course. We don't become fish, then lizards and so on, in our development, but the same tissues that form gill arches in fish become jaws and other structures in tetrapods.

They aren't the same thing any longer....

They are. Same genes involved, same embryonic structures, same developmental pathways. You've got a lot of learning to do. Genetics has really opened this up for examination.

Those and other false beliefs have Haeckels should be discussed. For example Haeckel called the Austrailian aboriginees an animal.

Since all humans are animals, that's not surprising. But the notion that no society treated other societies as subhuman before Darwin is a conscious dishonesty. As you learned earlier, creationists should be very quiet when the subject turns to racism.

Do you want me to review that, again? No, I don't think you do.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, everyone knows that this is just another attempt to force your new religion into public schools. Who hates academic freedom?

Here's a way to check that:
Stephen Gould himself willingly took on a PhD candidate he knew to be a YE creationist. Consider that and then apply to the Institute for Creation Research graduate school without making a pledge of loyalty to creationism. They won't even accept your application without it.

Who hates academic freedom? Creationists. When they had the power, they banned teaching of evolution. It's what the Scopes trial was about. It's why the ICR message board banned anyone who wasn't a YE creationist. Censorship is their goal.

Now that they don't have the power to censor public schools any more, they try to censor ideas by stealth. It's their religion.

 

[6days]

They aren't the same thing any longer....

They are.....

hahaha.. You are pathetically dishonest.


So So FUNNY


You showed a statement as is I made it ("They aren't the same thing any longer")... But that was YOUR words, (Post 57) which you now proceded to argue with.

 

[Dialogos]

Every scientific theory is called a theory because it is a theory. Do you understand this?

Yes, do you?

Scientists posit theories.

ID is a theory, why should we arbitrarily classify that as a non-scientific theory? Why is the unsubstantiated conjecture that all life on earth originated from a primitive, single cell organism considered more scientific?

:idunno:

According to your analysis, both are theories.

So why is one a "scientific" theory and the other not.

Can you substantiate what appears to be an arbitrary classification?

Scientists observe facts and then hypothesize theories that may or may not account for those facts, so that the theories can be tested by themselves and other scientists observing other related facts. They are not proclaiming truths. Just facts and working theories.

Truths don't equal facts in your mind?

:idunno:

I agree that scientists posit theories from observable facts/truths.
I also agree that those theories are, and should be, subject to testing.
I disagree that most of evolutionary theory is backed up by a greater degree of tested observation that Intelligent design. In fact, ID is more testable than macro-evolution which must maintain a commitment to naturalistic means despite lack of testable verification.

Point in fact. Any and all attempts to observe abiogenesis have failed to produce even a single living cell.

By your own criterion, ID is more scientific because we see organized cells pass along genetic information all the time.

So if you don't like their facts, or their theories, then you can ignore them. Or you can invent your own facts, to go with your own theories. Whatever. It's your "reality", do whatever you want with it.

I hope this is sarcasm because if it isn't its betrays your complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of science.

But grade and high school kids learning basic science in a science class need to learn the scientific method of collecting observable facts, positing a theory explaining those observed facts, and then testing the theory to see if it produces the expected results. They also need to learn the more prominent working theories that real scientists are currently using and testing in various fields of inquiry.

Good, and as such they should be familiar with the fundamental claims and methods of ID. No one is arguing that evolution be ejected from science curricula, only that there are other theories that can, and should, be understood by well educated students.

Why is less education better?

That's it.

They don't need to critique or debate the value of the scientific method, nor do they need to critique or debate the various major and minor working scientific theories currently being used and investigated by real scientists.

I could not disagree with you more here.

If all they learn to do is regurgitate so called "facts" so they can vomit them back out at the science facuty on test bubble sheets, then the educational system has failed them.

Critical thought, debate and the ability to provide thoughtful critique is the heart of the scientific method. What you are advocating here is dogma.

Not only would this be beyond their capabilities,

This is an ignorant statement. As someone who has worked with Junior High and High School age children as a debate coach I take exception to your under-estimation of their ability to provide thoughtful critique. Furthermore, if we don't teach them to be critical thinkers then they will just be a generation of automatons, parroting the party line.

...but it would only serve to confuse them about what science is and how it works.

Wrong, because real science doesn't work via censorship and real scientific questions aren't decided in courts of law.

What you don't seem to understand is that this is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Your inability to see the linkages between philosophy and science betray a shallow understanding of the nature of science.

Science already assumes the physical inter-connectedness of existence,

This is a nonsense statement. What is the "inter-connectedness of existence." Can you test this "inter-connectedness?"

Modern scientists have certainly embraced a philosophical naturalism but that is largely a modern phenomenon. Many of those scientist's predecessors did not embrace that philosophical naturalism and the scientific method was itself born out of a theistic culture and worldview which assumed the created world to be understandable and orderly because of the character of God.

...and based on that assumption it then seeks to identify and understand that inter-connectedness. If you want to investigate the idea that this inter-connectedness is an intentional "design", then you have to leave science and move on to philosophy, because science cannot investigate beyond the physical inter-connectedness, itself.

What science can do is to demonstrate that the best inference - given the facts - points to a supernatural cause. And that is what ID theory does. What you have done here is erroneously equate science with philosophical naturalism.


Now on to my favorite part of your post:

:chuckle:

But the truth is that you aren't interested in any of this, which is why you will continue to ignore whatever I post. Because all you're really interested in is proselytizing your religious beliefs to other people's children, against their parent's, and most of society's, will.

I think it is highly amusing when you start making outlandish statements about my motives in order to vilify me and paint me in the worst possible light. It is amusing because you demonstrate just how low you are willing to sink in order to argue your points.

If you want to know my genuine interests, I'd be happy to explain them. Otherwise, you are free to act like a horses posterior.

The courts...

This is how we decide questions of science now? By suing to suppress inquiry and discussion in the classroom?

...and public consensus...

Appeal to popularity, this is a logical fallacy.

...have told that you can't do that, but you don't care what they say, or about what they want; not even for their own children. All you care about is proselytizing your creationist religious dogma at them, by whatever dishonest and underhanded means you have to use to do it.

Isn't that right?

:chuckle:

Does it make you feel better to vilify me and make dishonest statements about my motives and methods?

Because all it does is show you to be a dishonest, underhanded hypocrite.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hey, I've been quote mined.

6Days writes:
hahaha.. You are pathetically dishonest.
So So FUNNY

You showed a statement as is I made it ("They aren't the same thing any longer")... But that was YOUR words, (Post 57) which you now proceded to argue with.

Gill arches and jaws aren't the same thing. But the tissues, genes, and embryonic structures are. You see, same cranial nerves that ennervate the mandible also ennervate specific gill arches in primitive chordates. The same developmental genes do both of these things, modified by other genes. A little bait-and-switch won't do what you want it to.

By now you should realize that there is no magic bullet against science. Repackaging words just makes you look....

um...

pathetically dishonest

Yep. Instead of looking for clever deceptions, try to put some facts together to support your new beliefs. That would serve you better in the long run.

 

[The Barbarian]

ID is a theory

According to the people who invented it, it's a religious crusade.

From the accidentally-leaked "Wedge Document" written at the Discovery Institute, a "governing goal" of ID is:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Which is why, at the Dover trial, it was found to be a religion, and therefore not science. Discovery Institute leader Philip Johnson described it as a "train wreck" for his cause. Among other things, it featured Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitting that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Yep. Train wreck.

why should we arbitrarily classify that as a non-scientific theory?

Because it's a self-admitted religious crusade. Basically, creationism with a shave and clean clothes.

Why is the unsubstantiated conjecture that all life on earth originated from a primitive, single cell organism considered more scientific?

If you want to fight evolution, wouldn't it be a good idea to first learn what it is?

 

[6days]

Hey, I've been quote mined.

If anybody... By yourself.

You could apologize for pretending I said something I didn't...
But, dishonest people usually try cover their lies with further lies.

 

[The Barbarian]

It looked like you were being dishonest. Or are you still having a problem with the concept of the same genes, structures, and tissues being modified to something new?

Maybe you did misunderstand. If so, then it wasn't dishonesty on your part. Do you understand now?

Chondrichthyans also exhibit natural variation with respect to branchial ray distribution—elasmobranchs (sharks and batoids) possess a series of ray-supported septa on their hyoid and gill arches, whereas holocephalans (chimaeras) possess a single hyoid arch ray-supported operculum. Here we show that the elongate hyoid rays of the holocephalan Callorhinchus milii grow in association with sustained Shh expression within an opercular epithelial fold, whereas Shh is only transiently expressed in the gill arches. Coincident with this transient Shh expression, branchial ray outgrowth is initiated in C. milii but is not maintained, yielding previously unrecognized vestigial gill arch branchial rays. This is in contrast to the condition seen in sharks, where sustained Shh expression corresponds to the presence of fully formed branchial rays on the hyoid and gill arches. Considered in light of current hypotheses of chondrichthyan phylogeny, our data suggest that the holocephalan operculum evolved in concert with gill arch appendage reduction by attenuation of Shh-mediated branchial ray outgrowth, and that chondrichthyan branchial rays and tetrapod limbs exhibit parallel developmental mechanisms of evolutionary reduction.
Holocephalan embryos provide evidence for gill arch appendage reduction and opercular evolution in cartilaginous fishes
Sean Carroll, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences
vol. 108 no. 4
> J. Andrew Gillis, 1507–1512

 

[everready]

In a public school, preaching that religious doctrine is not even legal. In a private school, it's legal, but of course it's despicable to lie to students. I notice you're still dodging my question about which two major groups have a missing transitional. Creationists always duck that one.



I've done that in 8th grade Pre-AP classes, showing them the different ideas about pacing in evolution. That's one that they can pretty easily understand and it's a valuable way to introduce them to such issues. But you wouldn't like the way it would turn out, given the evidence.



And from scientists who claim HIV doesn't cause AIDs, and from creationists who claim that blacks are genetically inferior to other people? How about the creationists who claim that the Sun orbits the Earth? Or the claims that Earthquakes are caused by Neptune getting annoyed with us?

Barbarian observes:
Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation, of course. We don't become fish, then lizards and so on, in our development, but the same tissues that form gill arches in fish become jaws and other structures in tetrapods.



They are. Same genes involved, same embryonic structures, same developmental pathways. You've got a lot of learning to do. Genetics has really opened this up for examination.



Since all humans are animals, that's not surprising. But the notion that no society treated other societies as subhuman before Darwin is a conscious dishonesty. As you learned earlier, creationists should be very quiet when the subject turns to racism.

Do you want me to review that, again? No, I don't think you do.

You said: "Since all humans are animals" is a bold face lie, man has nothing to do with the animal kingdom, we are made in Gods image, do all Catholics think as you do?


everready

 

[Stripe]

hahaha.. You are pathetically dishonest.So So FUNNYYou showed a statement as is I made it ("They aren't the same thing any longer")... But that was YOUR words, (Post 57) which you now proceded to argue with.

:darwinsm:

:mock: :blabla: barian.

 

[The Barbarian]

You said: "Since all humans are animals" is a bold face lie

It's just a fact. We are animals, vertebrates, mammals, primates, hominins, humans. All of that. We fit nicely into the family tree. No point in denying it. The fallacy is to suppose we are merely animals. We are that, and much more, as God says in Genesis.

man has nothing to do with the animal kingdom, we are made in Gods image,

You think God has a nose, and knees? Seriously? Jesus says that God is a spirit, and that a spirit has no body. The "image" is not in our bodies but in our minds and souls.

do all Catholics think as you do?

We think Jesus knows what the difference is. And you don't agree with Him.

 

[6days]

Or are you still having a problem with the concept .....

Nope..... I'm not the one with a problem.
You have a dishonesty problem and fabricated a quote.

 

[6days]

You said: "Since all humans are animals" is a bold face lie, man has nothing to do with the animal kingdom, we are made in Gods image..

God did create humans distinct from animals. Its interesting and sad that evolutionists want to blur the lines, devaluing people that Christ went to Calvary for.

Eugenics and genocides based on evolutionary beliefs, devaluing people, has caused untold suffering in our world. A book (A Civic Biology) championed as science at the famous Scopes trial talked about 5 different races of humans with Caucasians being the most highly evolved. Negroes / Ethiopians were a lower form of human.
The textbook used in public schools said "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."
(A Civic Biology 1914)

And...back to the topic..... its sad that evolutionists think public school students shouldn't have the freedom to challenge controversial "science".

 

[The Barbarian]

God did create humans distinct from animals.

So the Bible says. But we are still animals, if not merely animals. You shouldn't love your body; it is not what you are.

Its interesting and sad that creationists want to blur the lines, devaluing people that Christ went to Calvary for.

Eugenics and genocides based on evolutionary beliefs

Well, let's take a look...

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Charles Darwin The Descent of Man Chapter V

Now let's look at the creationist side:
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.

Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

"It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html

devaluing people, has caused untold suffering in our world.

Indeed. Look at Darwin's thought, versus the thought of a founder of the Institute for Creation Research. Quite a contrast, isn't it?

It's no coincidence that creationism is strongest were segregation and lynchings of black people were most common. Here, in 1991, is the position of the director of the Institute for Creation Research:

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148

As you learned earlier, by the 1930s, Darwinists had demonstrated that the eugenic progam was not only morally objectionable (as Darwin noted) but also scientifically impractical; all those cruelties proposed by your creationists wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

Disgusting. And yes, racism in the late 1800s and early 1900s was a common thing in Europe and America. But here your leader is blathering the same racist foolishness into the 1990s. And none of you thought to call him out on it. That's troubling.

And...back to the topic..... its sad that evolutionists think public school students shouldn't have the freedom to challenge controversial "science".

In fact we already know that when creationists have the power to censor free discussion, they do it. Want me to show you that, again? On the other hand, all the biology teachers I know about are open to questions from students on the issue.

What the politicians in Alabama are looking for, is a way to slip creationism into classrooms. And all of us here know it. No point in you denying the fact.

 

[6days]

So the Bible says.

You still have not acknowledged that you fabricated a quote and attributed it to me. Was it an honest mistake..... or just another example of your dishonesty?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think dodging the questions is going to help you. Start by addressing some of them.

You can't save the day by parsing old messages. As you learned, from that conversation, Haeckel's drawings were easily replaced by photographs that showed the same things.

Haeckel's theory of recapitulation was wrong because we (for example) never have gills like fish. But we do have branchial arches from which gills form in fish. In us, they form jaws, ears, and so on. Different things in adults, same things in embyryos. Would you like to see that, again? We have the same genes, same structures in utero, because our development is based on earlier organisms.

Whether or not you're being dishonest by trying to change the subject, is your own concern. But I'll keep reminding you until you stop.

 

[6days]

I don't think .....

You still have not acknowledged that you fabricated a quote and attributed it to me. Was it an honest mistake..... or just another example of your dishonesty?

 

[The Barbarian]

So I guess you're going to keep dodging the questions?

We all understand why.

Meantime, why not respond to the OP, and tell us about it?

 

[6days]

So I guess ....

You fabricated a quote attributing it to me....... Was it a mistake? or another example of your dishonesty? Are you like Hackle who was so desperate for people to believe in evolution that he lied?

Deal with that..... then we can perhaps discuss how Hackels faked 'evidence' should be discussed in classrooms

 

[The Barbarian]

So 4Days withdraws from the discussion. For obvious reasons.

What is Evo-Devo?

Evo-Devo is a combination of two disciplines within the field of biology: evolutionary biology and developmental biology. The realm of evolutionary concepts should be fairly familiar to you by now, but what is developmental biology? Developmental biology is the study of how organisms develop from a single cell through all the intermediate embryological stages, all the way to birth. Evolutionary developmental biology, then, or Evo-Devo for short, is a way to look at the way that the mechanisms of development have been influenced by evolutionary forces...And this really gets to the essence of what we can retrieve from Haeckel’s theory. Clearly, Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. However, ontogeny does organize according to phylogeny. By which I mean, we can look at the developmental forms of different organisms and infer evolutionary relationships between them. So, to compare a fish embryo, a chimpanzee embryo, and a human embryo, is to show pretty clearly that there are more similarities in the way a chimpanzee and a human develop compared to either one and a fish. All three start off with the same number of pharyngeal slits, but only chimpanzees and humans form ear bones, and only the fish forms functional gills. And we don’t have to rely on Haeckel’s drawings, either- most biology textbooks use photographs of embryos, which may be a bit harder to interpret, but which are at least more accurate than Haeckel’s drawings.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-is-evo-devo.html

If anyone wants to discuss the issue, might be a good idea to read this article and learn.

Most of the keys are there to understanding evolutionary development.