The Michigan Messenger - Latest Comments in Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:59:43 -0000

Bravo on your consistency. I think it really comes down to this. Your philosophy of life is man centered while those who believe the Bible tend (or at least ought) to be God centered. I believe we could dialogue for all time and never come to each others' side of the issue. I reread your statement regarding the accountability to God and saw my mistake. I to the 'we' as including yourself.
I think if you are interested in fact, that you would find it interesting to do a thorough study of the origin of the Bible. You may not see the benefit of doing such a study, but from what I hear, rational people think there is always value in understanding reality and finding the truth. I hope your quest is ultimately successful. Thanks for the dialogue and for your time.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

WCanyon — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:58:13 -0000

Wow, plenty of vitriol from the religious right down here in the comments. I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the people who are offering a viewpoint that contradicts theirs. This sort of behavior makes me think of fascist propaganda (as in "How dare you question our beliefs?"). But science isn't about belief; science has nothing to do with belief, unless you count fMRI imaging of it!!

I'd encourage anyone who's posting on here to read "Letter to a Christian Nation". Maybe then you'll understand why those of use who don't hold your beliefs don't understand how you can think such rubbish is real.

Also, the teaching of all theory-like .. umm... stories that explain how we got here would take several years of high school science class. That's why we only explain the one that has a basis in science. The rest simply do not.

Mr Brayton, thanks for going to bat for the rest of us.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:50:00 -0000

Michael wrote:

You stated that you feel that you are accountable to God.

No I didn't. I said that one can believe in evolution and also believe in a God to which we are accountable, as thousands and thousands of scientists who are also Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religions believe. I said nothing about my own views. Personally, I am a deist, not a theist or an atheist. That means I suspect that something (and I do not try and define what that something is) created the universe but I see no reason to believe that whatever did so takes any interest in us whatsoever.

The Bible's trustworthiness is beyond doubt at least in the sense that we are not given the option of taking bits a pieces of it as truth and tossing what we don't like. The evidence supporting it's accuracy and authenticity is as abundant as that supporting your ideas of evolution.

This statement is entirely false. If one is to take the Genesis account literally, it simply does not square with the evidence at all (but bear in mind that most Christian denominations do not take that account literally, only the most theologically conservative ones do). The earth was not created a few thousand years ago, it is 4.55 billion years old. And life on earth was not created in a week, it evolved gradually over the course of some 3.7 billion years. Even the order of appearance is wrong (fish and birds appear on the same day in the Bible; in the real world, birds do not appear for some 300 million years or more after fish do; whales appear before land mammals when the reality is the opposite). If you want to take that all as allegorical, as St. Augustine did and as most mainline denominations still do, then it is compatible with evolution in a very broad sense. But if you want to take it as literally true, the evidence clearly contradicts it.

One question that want to ask is this: I know there must be benefits to proving life evolutionary, but I have not put thought to it. Could you please enlighten me as to why this process is so important? (This is a serious question.)

One could as easily ask that question of any scientific theory. Rational people think there is always value in understanding reality and finding the truth. We don't need any practical benefit from understanding the natural history of life on earth in order to justify an honest search for the answers. But in fact we do have practical reasons anyway. Understanding how life evolves provides powerful insight into many issues that are important to our survival. For example, understanding how bacteria become immune to antibiotics, which is evolution at work, helps us develop new drugs to fight infections. Understanding how populations respond to environmental stresses helps us develop better ways to deal with damaged ecosystems and help maintain the balance of life in those situations. Understanding how certain traits developed and were selected for to aid in survival in one type of circumstance may actually be harmful in other circumstances (tribalism, for example) may help cultures evolve and leave malevolent behaviors behind. The truth is never useless. Understanding reality always aids us in one way or another.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:15:06 -0000

"You certainly are not justified in making the ridiculous claim that scientists believe it just because it allegedly gives us a way out of being responsible to God (especially in light of the existence of vast numbers of scientists who accept evolution and still believe that we are accountable to God). "

Good point. Forgive me for generalizing. I've always had a hard time separating the origin of life and the process of life. Because I am not as qualified as you appear to be, I will not bother to argue about whether or not evolutionary processes are currently taking place. I know I change everyday in my thinking and my body adapts to different climates. So if that is what can be called evolution, count me in.
I would be curious as to what evidence could be given for the origin of life. I will have to look into that.
Now about my comment that you called word salad - nice phraseology. :) But you do seem a bit angry in all of your responses. I suppose that is a reflection of your passion about all of this. It is good to be passionate. Here was my point that was so poorly expressed that even you could not comprehend it. You stated that you feel that you are accountable to God. Who is the God you are accountable to? If it is the same God I am referring to (which I will take for granted since you did not correct the context), then it is the God of the Bible. This is where my statement fits in. The Bible's trustworthiness is beyond doubt at least in the sense that we are not given the option of taking bits a pieces of it as truth and tossing what we don't like. The evidence supporting it's accuracy and authenticity is as abundant as that supporting your ideas of evolution. So if a verifiable document gives an account of the beginning of life, why would that not be substantive. You claim that explanations are not document and yet you ask that we believe evidence documented by someone present during tests who observed the results, etc. Why do you doubt the God you claim to be held accountable to. Just think of Genesis as God's journal of the work He did and all you have to do is read His notes on how life began. And you won't find any notes on the evolutionary processes.
One question that want to ask is this: I know there must be benefits to proving life evolutionary, but I have not put thought to it. Could you please enlighten me as to why this process is so important? (This is a serious question.)

Now go ahead and tear it all apart! :)

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:13:21 -0000

Michael wrote:

I did try to qualify my statement with the word 'primary'. I'm sure there are people out there who believe leprechauns do make it rain, but I would hardly label it as a primary explanation.

So how does one distinguish between a "primary" explanation and one that isn't "primary" other than that the creation myth you believe in is primary and all others are not? Hundreds of millions of people accept the Hindu creation myth, which is entirely different from the Christian one. Whole civilizations have accepted hundreds of other creation myths that differ from yours. Science has a very effective way of distinguishing between the different types of explanations: those explanations that are testable, falsifiable and that explain a wide range of data are good theories and those that aren't are rightly ignored.

And I also said that IDC is not a scientific theory. But it is an explanation. In other words, it is a statement(s) made to clarify something and make it understandable.

It is an "explanation" only in the sense that "leprechauns make it rain" is an explanation for rain. It makes no predictions at all that can be tested and therefore is scientifically useless.

I simply believe that evolution as a theory has not really been around that long and yet (because it gives mankind a way out of being held responsible to a Creator) it has been largely accepted regardless of whatever evidence is or is not available. But like I said, I'm not a scientist or expert at really anything. But I still wonder what everyone is so scared of?

The theory of evolution has been around far longer than all sorts of scientific theories that you likely do not doubt - the term theory of disease, the theory of relativity, plate tectonics, etc. Theories are not judged by how long they've been around they are judged on how well they explain the data. And evolution explains the data very well. If you haven't taken the time to do serious research into the various lines of evidence that evolution explains quite well, you simply aren't in any position to make any credible statements on the subject at all. You certainly are not justified in making the ridiculous claim that scientists believe it just because it allegedly gives us a way out of being responsible to God (especially in light of the existence of vast numbers of scientists who accept evolution and still believe that we are accountable to God).

And what kind of evidence would you have to have to qualify Creationism?

It depends on what you mean by creationism. Some forms of creationism do make testable claims, especially young earth creationism. The claim that the bulk of the geologic record was deposited by a global flood is testable. In fact it has been tested and it fails to explain a vast range of evidence. It was thus rejected by scientists even before Darwin came along. But if you mean a vague "God did something" creationism, that is not at all testable because it makes no predictions about the nature of the evidence.

I would think if the documentation of an explanation could be reasonably verified, than the explanation could be also be accepted as a valid theory. Is this wrong?

This is,quite literally, gibberish. It's word salad. Those words do not make for anything even approaching a coherent sentence. Explanations are not document. They are verified by their ability to explain existing evidence and accurately predict the nature of new evidence. Evolution does so quite well. Creationism does not, and in most forms cannot.

The Genesis account states that God did it. Some believe aliens did it. Some believe that something just appeared out of nowhere. It seems that evolutionist claim that their explanations are testable, yet when it comes to the actual beginnings of life they are as untestable as any explanation. At least that is how it seems to me.

No, evolution does not depend on how life got started; evolution only explains how life, once started, leads to biodiversity. But even theories about the origin of life (abiogenesis) are entirely testable, whereas "god did it" is not testable.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:49:37 -0000

I did try to qualify my statement with the word 'primary'. I'm sure there are people out there who believe leprechauns do make it rain, but I would hardly label it as a primary explanation. And I also said that IDC is not a scientific theory. But it is an explanation. In other words, it is a statement(s) made to clarify something and make it understandable.
With that said, I'm not qualified to discuss in great detail the nuances of the thousands of different theories, explanations, myths (whatever label you would choose). In my limited view it just seems that you would have to believe (faith) that we were either created or we simply appeared somehow. I am somewhat familiar with the veracity of the documentation of the creation account and tend to believe (faith) that it is a much more reliable source than what seems to be a hodge-podge of missteps and trial and errors that make up the evolution theory. I know it is easy to say that you cannot disprove Creation and I would not suggest that as a defense. I simply believe that evolution as a theory has not really been around that long and yet (because it gives mankind a way out of being held responsible to a Creator) it has been largely accepted regardless of whatever evidence is or is not available. But like I said, I'm not a scientist or expert at really anything. But I still wonder what everyone is so scared of?
And what kind of evidence would you have to have to qualify Creationism? I would think if the documentation of an explanation could be reasonably verified, than the explanation could be also be accepted as a valid theory. Is this wrong? Ultimately is comes down to how everything got started, right? The Genesis account states that God did it. Some believe aliens did it. Some believe that something just appeared out of nowhere. It seems that evolutionist claim that their explanations are testable, yet when it comes to the actual beginnings of life they are as untestable as any explanation. At least that is how it seems to me.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael Rake — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:36:49 -0000

In the field of epistemology and philosophy all viable and possible concepts need some form of articulation - whether you can hold it in your hand or not.

Methodological naturalism may be necessary to your field of investigation, but it seems to me that it arbitrarily lays claims to limits it cannot demonstrate to be final.

I have read enough of a synopsis of the general positions taken in works of philosophy and popular presentations of science (such as Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World - one book among others which I read carefully with underlining), to understand what is being claimed and why. I am not a PhD in Biology, but have read a great deal of history, theology, philosophy and treatments of debates among scientists (mainly physicists) about the nature of the cosmos, as well as discussions of development among biologists and debates about theistic evolution.

It is difficult to know what you mean by what evolution says, since I think that the theological implications of evolutionary theory have been frequently discussed in the 20th century and popularized by some prominent authors - leaving me with the distinct impression that, while evolution may just describe a process (one accepted by ID advocate Michael Behe - correct?) - it has been used to shut off discussion of the need to look into where the limits of natural investigation intersect with questions of purpose. I cannot even begin to understand how one can discuss the emergence of a teleological anything to anyone (as some accident or mere animal adaptation) using a system that repudiates teleology as a prior or post quality. To me that seems incoherent and a contradiction.

How can the sciences not intersect? If cosmology is concerned with the origin of the earth - then the processes at work in evolution would have some relationship to cosmology of importance.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:32:42 -0000

Michael wrote:

But it is also one of two primary explanations of our existence held by humankind.

Two? You think there's only two? There are literally thousands of creation myths. And even if there were only two "explanations" they aren't the same kind of explanation. A scientific theory is an explanation that can be tested and that explains the data; a religious belief is an ad hoc "explanation." Your argument is akin to claiming that "leprechauns make it rain" is the only alternative "explanation" to modern meteorology; it isn't an explanation at all.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:08:31 -0000

I am a Creationist and I agree with your basic premise. IDC is not a scientific theory. Though faith plays a part in science, Creation as established in the Scriptures is accepted by faith. I'm sure there are some evidences supporting Creation, but it is faith based. But it is also one of two primary explanations of our existence held by humankind. So what's the big deal? I went to a private school and I was taught the theory of evolution. What are you really scared of?

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:36:36 -0000

Michael Rake wrote:

I did not say that there are phenomenae that are actually "beyond nature" or "above nature" - which is indeed an appeal to supernaturalism, but that I think we need to acknowlege a category of phenomenae which are above nature or beyond nature "to our perception"... this meaning that they are things that are not "supernatural" in the commonly understood sense - such as the suspension of time, the reversal of natural processes, the working of some miracle - but things that are actually working in accordance with the processes which govern the natural world, but are not understood by us due to the limitations of either our information or understanding.

Don't you recognize how pointless what you just said it? You think there might be something you can't define or explain coherently that might exist but we can't detect it or understand. Okay, I grant you that this is possible, but until it can at least be defined and detected to exist, there's little point in giving it any thought whatsoever.

As to my first comment "evolutionary premise" means essentially a strictly naturalistic premise.

And that is why I object to your use of the term, because evolution is no more naturalistic than any other theory in science. Every single theory in science is naturalistic to exactly the same degree. Every single scientist operates on the basis of methodological naturalism in their work, whether they are metaphysical naturalists or not. Francis Collins believes in God but in his work as a geneticist he can and must presume that nothing outside of the bounds of nature is messing with the results, altering the laws of nature or otherwise mucking up the system. This is not an a priori position it is an a posteriori one; it is that way because that way works and it always has, while doing the opposite renders the results of any experiment meaningless.

I think that the idea that our consciousness of God can be attributed to a survival adaptation is woefully lacking, since the concepts of theology which have been produced by our God talk are so much more profound than any mere instinct to live on.

Since you haven't read any of the work done by the many scholars I offered to you, I'm not surprised that you find the idea lacking. Perhaps you might actually look at the arguments first before dismissing them, however; that is what an intellectually honest person would do.

I still think that if the naturalistic premise of evolution concerning the origin of the earth was accurate, we would never have conceived of god or a God at any time, nor would you and I be posting as we have.

*sigh* do you really have any idea what the theory of evolution actually says? It says nothing - absolutely nothing - about the origin of the earth. The origin of the earth is a matter for cosmology and geology, not evolutionary biology. You keep using these terms in highly anachronistic ways. It leaves me thinking you really have no idea what you're talking about and you just think that evolution = atheism and therefore MUST be wrong.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael Rake — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:21:15 -0000

I did not say that there are phenomenae that are actually "beyond nature" or "above nature" - which is indeed an appeal to supernaturalism, but that I think we need to acknowlege a category of phenomenae which are above nature or beyond nature "to our perception"... this meaning that they are things that are not "supernatural" in the commonly understood sense - such as the suspension of time, the reversal of natural processes, the working of some miracle - but things that are actually working in accordance with the processes which govern the natural world, but are not understood by us due to the limitations of either our information or understanding.

As to my first comment "evolutionary premise" means essentially a strictly naturalistic premise. Such a premise seems to me to be bound to its own limits as to conclusions. That means that my contention is more about epistemology than atheism. I think the epistemology of naturalism comes up short. That is why I mention the actual nature of human knowing and perceiving and relating, and questing for meaning. I think that the idea that our consciousness of God can be attributed to a survival adaptation is woefully lacking, since the concepts of theology which have been produced by our God talk are so much more profound than any mere instinct to live on.
I still think that if the naturalistic premise of evolution concerning the origin of the earth was accurate, we would never have conceived of god or a God at any time, nor would you and I be posting as we have.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:29 -0000

Michael Rake wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but it seems that as long as science seeks to resolve questions of human consciousness and the nature of the cosmos within the constraints of a strictly evolutionary premise, that it will be forced to tolerate only a specific range of possible explanations which inevitably prove to be self-supporting.

You're using the word "evolutionary" wrongly here. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the "nature of the cosmos" or anything other than the origins of biodiversity on earth. That's why I said I think your problem is with atheism, not evolution - and those terms absolutely are not synonymous. Evolution is no more atheistic or naturalistic than any other theory in science. Every theory in science is naturalistic in precisely the same way; no theory allows for supernatural causation because we have no way of testing such causes. If you can't make any meaningful statements about a supernatural cause, you can't make any predictions based on it and you can't possibly discern whether it actually exists or not. It's the equivalent of talking about nothing.

I think that room should be made in our vocabulary for phenomenae which can be "beyond" nature or above nature to our present understanding and are not contrary to the laws or properties of nature, and so I would not choose to use the word supernatural of things still outside or beyond the capacities of our investigation.

It would be illogical to presume that natural phenomena we currently do not understand are therefore "beyond nature" or "above nature." The god of the gaps argument has never, ever been useful or true. There's no reason to believe it will suddenly be valid now.

Perhaps there will be ways to test things outside of our field of time and space, but we don't have the ability to do that yet. From what I know as a layman reading about the field of physics, such concepts are under consideration.

I have no idea what this means, so I can't very well respond to it.

And, isn't Daniel Dennett an atheist?

Yes he is. He's also one of the world's most respected philosophers. You said you weren't getting good answers on the evolution of religious belief from Dawkins; Dennett is a much better source on that issue. The others I mentioned are even better as that is pretty much all they do in their academic lives.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Intrepid_dude — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:24 -0000

"That site claims that the earth is at the center of the universe, for crying out loud."

And it is. Just like any other place.

One of the assumptions of modern cosmology is that the cosmological expansion occurs about every point in the same way.

So i guess saying the Earth is at the center is not completely wrong, just incomplete. Every point is :)..

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael Rake — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:08:34 -0000

I understand what you're saying, but it seems that as long as science seeks to resolve questions of human consciousness and the nature of the cosmos within the constraints of a strictly evolutionary premise, that it will be forced to tolerate only a specific range of possible explanations which inevitably prove to be self-supporting. I think that room should be made in our vocabulary for phenomenae which can be "beyond" nature or above nature to our present understanding and are not contrary to the laws or properties of nature, and so I would not choose to use the word supernatural of things still outside or beyond the capacities of our investigation. Perhaps there will be ways to test things outside of our field of time and space, but we don't have the ability to do that yet. From what I know as a layman reading about the field of physics, such concepts are under consideration. Biology and physics can find common ground on this, I would think. And, isn't Daniel Dennett an atheist?

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:49:58 -0000

Michael Rake wrote:

I said you were materialist (strict naturalist) in your "assumptions" - not as a label, but with reference to your answers - that is what appeared to be your position.

Well then you're wrong. I am not a metaphysical naturalist. I'm not even an atheist.

I have a hard time seeing how such methodological naturalism, being self-limiting, cannot explain the nature of human existence since it inevitably cannot account for nor allow for any properties, entities, or forces outside of itself. If one allows for the existence of non-natural entities then one must consider what relationship may exist between these and what exists in the material/natural world.

Can you propose any means of testing such ideas? I can't. Nor has anyone else ever done so. That's why science presumes naturalism, because there is no means of testing supernatural explanations.

Discussion of the "concept" of ID does not seem to me to be wholly inconsistent with the recognition of evolutionary processes. Some prominent advocates of ID seem to hold to both, and there are differences of opinion about the nature of evolutionary processes as well.

I think you're conflating "ID advocate" with "Christian" and confusing "evolution" with "atheism." ID does not merely mean one who believes in God; ID is a laundry list of arguments against evolution and lots of people who believe in God reject those arguments - Francis Collins is one of them. The only thing that ID advocates have in common is the belief that evolution could not have produced the biodiversity we have on the planet and therefore God must have done....well, something. They never tell us what exactly, or when, or how. And that, again, is precisely the problem with supernatural explanations: once you invoke causes outside of the laws of nature you can no longer predict or evaluate their actions the way you can a natural cause.

Just as ID is not synonymous with theism, evolution is also not synonymous with atheism. One can be a Christian and accept evolution; Francis Collins is a good example of that, but there are millions more. Every mainline Christian denomination accepts evolution. I think your problem is not with evolution it is with atheism.

What I meant about the "intangibles" of human experiece where the sorts of things you presumed - perceptions, love, faith, hope, varieties of human experience involving the mind and affections.

But as I explained, and you ignored, all of these things are artifacts of the brain. You cannot dispute the fact that by altering the physio-chemical brain you can alter all of those things in dramatic ways. The old notion of a mind/body dualism is nonsense; the mind is the brain.

The point had to do with the nature of such experiences in the cosmos as it is, and the fact that human beings are questioning and meaning-hungry entities - since, as you say "evolution says nothing at all about the existence of God" - evolution cannot be the cause of human God-consciousness, and if it is, how and why? The answer to this question I have received from the "Richard Dawkins" school of thought has been dismissive and disappointing.

Richard Dawkins is the last person I would look at for serious insight into the evolutionary nature of religious belief. I would suggest looking to those scholars who are actually working on that question (Dawkins is not). Like my friend Gretchen Koch, currently doing her PhD on that very question in Denmark. There are in fact many serious scholars who have developed theories on how religious belief evolved as a survival mechanism. I would recommend looking at folks like David Sloan Wilson, Armin Geertz, Stephen Sanderson, Ann Taves and many others. Or even Daniel Dennett, whose last book was on that very subject. Dawkins, for all his many talents, tends to lose perspective when the subject of religion comes up.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael Rake — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:10:19 -0000

that one sentence should be corrected to read "can explain the nature of human existence since it ...."

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Michael Rake — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:09:03 -0000

I said you were materialist (strict naturalist) in your "assumptions" - not as a label, but with reference to your answers - that is what appeared to be your position. I have a hard time seeing how such methodological naturalism, being self-limiting, cannot explain the nature of human existence since it inevitably cannot account for nor allow for any properties, entities, or forces outside of itself. If one allows for the existence of non-natural entities then one must consider what relationship may exist between these and what exists in the material/natural world. Discussion of the "concept" of ID does not seem to me to be wholly inconsistent with the recognition of evolutionary processes. Some prominent advocates of ID seem to hold to both, and there are differences of opinion about the nature of evolutionary processes as well.
What I meant about the "intangibles" of human experiece where the sorts of things you presumed - perceptions, love, faith, hope, varieties of human experience involving the mind and affections. The point had to do with the nature of such experiences in the cosmos as it is, and the fact that human beings are questioning and meaning-hungry entities - since, as you say "evolution says nothing at all about the existence of God" - evolution cannot be the cause of human God-consciousness, and if it is, how and why? The answer to this question I have received from the "Richard Dawkins" school of thought has been dismissive and disappointing.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Rayne1 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:11:48 -0000

There are many kinds of trolls. You provide proof.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Intrepid_dude — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:11:39 -0000

I've just noticed, you are the one enforcing that policy.

What a joke!

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Intrepid_dude — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:08:14 -0000

If took you 30 words to prove your lack of good faith. The guy wasn't harassing anyone. You on the contrary are.

I though there was a policy of no ad hominem attacks or content free posts here.

You just proved me wrong.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Rayne1 — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:07:26 -0000

It took you exactly 29 words to make your point, as you just proved.

I understood perfectly -- you were sucking up bandwidth in an attempt to badger the author.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Me — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:58:13 -0000

«Of course the kinetic theory of gasses is formulated differently and is verified in different ways from the theory of evolution; you seem to think that's some shocking reality when I think it's just painfully obvious. »

To you, me and many others but not to the masses I assure you. That's my main point.

« I really have no idea why that set you off on this irrelevant line of criticism.»

Well, I have no idea why you consider this to be irrelevant. Different perspectives I guess.

Good luck running this site.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

ebrayton — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:03:40 -0000

Well yes, it might be simpler if evolution could be expressed as a mathematical formula. But it can't, just like lots of theories in science can't. Evolution is really not a single theory, in fact, it is a bundle of theories and hypotheses, some of which can be expressed mathematically (many theories in population genetics, for instance). But the fact that it would be simpler if we could wrap it up in a simple formula doesn't make it false or even make it slightly more questionable. Different fields of science have to use different methods. Of course the kinetic theory of gasses is formulated differently and is verified in different ways from the theory of evolution; you seem to think that's some shocking reality when I think it's just painfully obvious. The kinetic theory of gasses is formulated differently and verified in different ways from the germ theory of disease as well, but what does that have to do with anything I've written? I never said or implied anything to the contrary, I just said that neither one is a philosophy of life. I really have no idea why that set you off on this irrelevant line of criticism.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Me — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:36:12 -0000

My point is that the comparison isn't fair because the things being compared are verified to very different degrees and are very different in the way they are formulated.

But apparently you are not able to grasp that and so insist other people just want to waste your time. Guess what, you are not that important.

Re: Palin’s dangerous views on science education

Rayne1 — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:50:39 -0000

Um, so what's your point? You don't really seem to be making any other than you're bored and you're looking to chew up other's time and space as an amusement.