The Evolution Of A Theory

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I've only seen a few of your posts, so I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

No. I'm not being sarcastic.

That's unfortunate. As pointed out (albeit not literally typed out), evolution is not metaphysical. It deals with physical/ material phenomena. As I stated earlier, the whole area covered by evolution is exceptionally large. It's beyond current human capacity to deal with all of it in totality. But the principles and mechanisms which form and support the theory are more manageable, readily observed, and at times even useful in predictive or practical scenarios. Medicine, for instance, involves applied evolutionary biology.

I'd wager many people on this forum are already familiar with the Hovinds (plural since Eric took up the torch some time ago) and their arguments. Would you like to wager how fruitful it would be to present them to us yet again?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I haven't read Christopher Booker but if he has any idea what he is talking about

From his wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Booker

Intelligent design
Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions"

 

[skepticalbip]

From his wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Booker

Intelligent design
Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions"

Thanks. I should have checked Wiki earlier.

So he is just a journalist who believes in intelligent design. That pretty much makes anything he writes about evolution or biology a waste of time reading. I find it hard to believe that even DLH would cite him as a source.

 

[KeepTalking]

I thought this was the 21st century,

Well, the article was, what, 1982? So, 1 1/2 generations ago...

The article was also printed in a newspaper from Apartheid era South Africa. Where in the world does DLH come up with this stuff? I'm certain he doesn't just have a 33 old year newspaper from Johannesburg lying around.

 

[DLH]

Well, the article was, what, 1982? So, 1 1/2 generations ago...

The article was also printed in a newspaper from Apartheid era South Africa. Where in the world does DLH come up with this stuff? I'm certain he doesn't just have a 33 old year newspaper from Johannesburg lying around.

Cher was playing Sin City . . . ah . . . those were the days . . .

 

[atrib]

Well, the article was, what, 1982? So, 1 1/2 generations ago...

I know, right? Science couldn't have changed so much in such a little time, eh? It was true then and its true now. Though completely different. I think back on all the bullshit propaganda my arrogant ass wipe science teachers taught me in school back then and think - I was right. They were idiots. You know what they say. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Metric system! Ha!

Science hasn't changed that much in the past 2 or 3 decades. By which I mean the process and methodology that we use to understand the natural world has not changed much in the past 2 or 3 decades. However, our knowledge of the natural universe has advanced considerably in the past 2 or 3 decades. Do you understand the distinction? Because I don't think you do.

 

[atrib]

If by worse you mean you're going to dazzle us with more of your ignorance, then sure; saw that coming.

If by worse you mean pretty much anything else, then; no, it's not.

Yeah. I'm pretty ignorant on the failed metaphysical experiment called the theory of evolution. Maybe I should present an argument based upon Kent Hovind's 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. That is always a blast.

That biological evolution happens is not in dispute, and has not been in dispute for a long time now. Our understanding of the specific mechanisms that drive biological evolution of populations of living organisms is still a matter of study, and every year we add to our understanding of the process through the work of scientists working in multiple disciplines. Ignorance is bliss, especially if all you do is try to find holes to fit your favorite supernatural friend into.

 

[James Brown]

Yeah. I'm pretty ignorant on the failed metaphysical experiment called the theory of evolution. Maybe I should present an argument based upon Kent Hovind's 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. That is always a blast.

That biological evolution happens is not in dispute, and has not been in dispute for a long time now. Our understanding of the specific mechanisms that drive biological evolution of populations of living organisms is still a matter of study, and every year we add to our understanding of the process through the work of scientists working in multiple disciplines. Ignorance is bliss, especially if all you do is try to find holes to fit your favorite supernatural friend into.

My go-to quote:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

THAT it happens is a fact.
HOW it happens is a theory.

Just like gravity.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know, right? Science couldn't have changed so much in such a little time, eh? It was true then and its true now. Though completely different. I think back on all the bullshit propaganda my arrogant ass wipe science teachers taught me in school back then and think - I was right. They were idiots. You know what they say. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Metric system! Ha!

Science hasn't changed that much in the past 2 or 3 decades. By which I mean the process and methodology that we use to understand the natural world has not changed much in the past 2 or 3 decades. However, our knowledge of the natural universe has advanced considerably in the past 2 or 3 decades. Do you understand the distinction? Because I don't think you do.

I have long thought that was the problem in trying to argue with creationists. They seem to think that science is like religion where it was just a matter or memorizing a book of “facts” then regurgitating the right “fact” to fit the situation. It has been their staggering ignorance of what the scientific method actually is and their absolute refusal to even try to understand that I have found has made it impossible for me to have any reasonable discussion with them.

 

[skepticalbip]

"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place - and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of sect urging some new modification. . . . As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall." The Star, Johannesburg, "The Evolution of a Theory," by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.

Funny quote. The guy has demonstrated that he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject he has written on. But then it isn't that unusual to see a journalist write about something they don't understand.

OK, so you have found a quote. Now, since this is a discussion forum, you are supposed to offer your impression of what it means, why you agree or disagree with it, even explaining why you posted it would be helpful.

 

[James Chapman]

"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place - and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of sect urging some new modification. . . . As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall." The Star, Johannesburg, "The Evolution of a Theory," by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.

Christopher Booker is an ignorant twit and professional contrarian. His assertions in that quote are common creationist fantasy, not fact.

 

[Atheos]

So funny for me to watch this ongoing slow-motion train wreck that is the conflict between those who want to believe the bible is compatible with reality and the relentless onslaught of science, inexorably unmasking the wretched ignorance of the pre-technology herdsmen who invented these fairy tales. I used to be a hard-core YEC with a smug sense of superiority over those who had been deceived by the Devil and his unknowing minions in the scientific community. Thankfully I was able to come to terms with my skepticism. I honestly feel sorry for folks who can't let go but it's the life they choose to lead and if it gives 'em happiness that's fine with me.

From flat geocentric universe to evolutionary theory. Copernicus dealt with this resistance as did Galileo. Every freaking advancement of science causes this same lame reaction like a baby having his binky stolen. It's truly hilarious. Wonder if it will ever end? :laughing-smiley-014