See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Evolutionary worldview

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Reasons for partial reversion

I have reverted several parts of Awc's edits for the following reasons:

  • "developed gradually from nothing to everything" -> "developed gradually from a very simple state to everything"
One of the quotes refers to the origin of matter. That is, evolution refers to development from nothing, not just from a simple state. I'm not completely happy with the word "nothing" as life, for example, isn't claimed to develop from nothing, but "a very simple state" doesn't help in that case.
I don't follow you. Evolution can refer to something close to mutation and natural selection (maybe the evolution of democracy), or it can more generally refer to the history of anything that changes (the evolution of a star). One can ask how complex life evolved from the the first cell, or one can ask how the first cell evolved from the primordial soup, but if that first cell just popped into existence, whether by God, or chance, or alien chemists, one would speak of the "origin" of the first cell, but not of its "evolution". Likewise, the universe has evolved from a hot dense state, and that evolution included the origin of atoms out of protons and electrons, and the origin of protons out of quarks, but each step came from some simpler state, not from nothing. Some people believe that the Big Bang singularity popped into existence from nothing, but they would never refer to that step as an evolution. I don't think you can maintain your interpretation either in the face or etymology (e-volve = to roll - out of) or common usage.
Why isn't the first cell a "very simple state" in comparison to complex life? Just as the first cell is very complex in comparison to the primordial soup. Are you bothered because a cell is not "simple" in an absolute sense? And if we're talking about "everything", then the early Big Bang was certainly a "very simple state" in comparison to the universe today.
--Awc 11:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "In contrast, Internet evolutionists sometimes claim that "evolution" refers only to living things, and especially not to the origin of life, but this is clearly not the case.[ref]" -> "In some discussions, the term "evolution" is used in a more restricted sense to refer only to the development of complex living things"
The new wording implies that those evolutionists have no issue with the term sometimes being used in a wider sense. But this is often not the case. That is, they deny that it can be used in the wider sense, as was supported by the reference.
What are "Internet evolutionists"? Do they believe something different from normal evolutionists? If someone believes that evolution does not include the origin of life, then he does not have an evolutionary worldview? If different groups use the term in different ways, shouldn't we be trying to report those various usages, rather than declaring what is or is not "the case"? --Awc 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An evolutionary worldview "is essentially a naturalistic worldview, as evolution in some form is often the only process by which things are thought to have arisen naturalistically." -> "is essentially a naturalistic worldview. If everything has developed by natural processes, then there is little need to invoke a supernatural being."
The new sentence may be true, but it replaced the reason that an evolutionary view is essentially naturalistic, which is relevant information.
I changed this mostly because I didn't understand what it was trying to say. Who thinks that evolution is "the the only process by which things ... have arisen naturalistically"? Do you mean as opposed to things having popped into existence naturalistically? Is naturalism necessarily evolutionary, or is evolution necessarily naturalistic, or is this a statement about sociology and psychology? Why is the "little need to invoke a supernatural being" not a reason that the evolutionary view is naturalistic? --Awc 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm letting the changes in the Origin of Life bit stand, because although the first bit has the same problem as my second bullet point above, it is covered in that earlier section, and although the reason for the change of thinking was removed, it was unreferenced, and I may have difficulty finding a reference for it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the phrase "a very simple state" doesn't adequately convey something coming from something else. So saying that the first cell [is] a "very simple state" in comparison to complex life is fair enough, but it doesn't seem right to call non-life a "very simple state" of life, nor quarks as a "very simple state" of the universe. In both cases, we are talking about a very different state, albeit also simpler.
...if that first cell just popped into existence, whether by God, or chance, or alien chemists, one would speak of the "origin" of the first cell, but not of its "evolution". Wouldn't we? We don't, because "we" (secular scientists) don't think that it happened that way, but if it was believed to just pop into existence naturalistically, how do you know that it wouldn't be referred to as "evolution". The quote in the article about "how matter has originated" seems to indicate that it would be referred to that way. Your wording seems to include that evolution covers everything except the appearance of something itself, as though one can speak of how long a line is beyond the first (dimensionless) point of the line. Just as excluding that point makes no difference to the length, excluding the origin of something itself seems pedantic, pointless, and of doubtful accuracy. So although people ... would never refer to [the Big Bang singularity popping into existence from nothing] as an evolution (my emphasis), neither would they necessarily exclude that as being part of the evolution of the universe, just as the origin of life is not excluded as being part of the evolution of life.
Hopefully we can come up with wording that we both agree on, but your wording is not it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That is, Philip is incapable of not convoluting things. Nothing ever changes. Sterile 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
if talking biological evolution then "change in allele frquencies over time" becomes absurd if you try talking origins. "yes Bruce , that creature that just popped into the bell jar did change allele frequencies, it grew one ! " Biological evolution occurs only after you have a living organism. The origin of life is of course abiogenesis or sundry alien life theories. Even in the more general definition of evolution as "change over time" trying to force origins into it also becomes an absurdity because its stretching "change" to include "popping into existance from nothing". Stars and planets dont do that, they have clearly defined growth from existing materials by known physical laws. But of course Philip knows all that, its been discussed before, lots
oh and Philip, do we need Ace to give you yet another lesson in Big Bang theory , it is NOT something from nothing , the nothing has a clear definition in physics Hamster 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yet another bit of unhelpful mud-slinging from Sterile.
if talking biological evolution then "change in allele frquencies over time" becomes absurd if you try talking origins. Defining evolution as a change in allele frequency, when it is commonly understood to be far more than that (i.e. the entire evolutionary family tree), and when changes in allele frequency are not in dispute, is absurd.
Biological evolution occurs only after you have a living organism. Yes, but this article is not about biological evolution. It's about evolution, a.k.a. naturalism.
The origin of life is of course abiogenesis... a.k.a. chemical evolution.
Even in the more general definition of evolution as "change over time" trying to force origins into it also becomes an absurdity... Maybe, but that's not the "more general definition" discussed here. Rather, this article is about evolution as naturalism. Why are you avoiding that with straw men?
Stars and planets dont do that, they have clearly defined growth from existing materials by known physical laws. Contrary to known physical laws, actually. Such as condensing gases when known physical laws have gases expanding.
But of course Philip knows all that, its been discussed before,... Yes, I'm quite familiar with your incorrect arguments.
...do we need Ace to give you yet another lesson in Big Bang theory , it is NOT something from nothing... The naturalistic view of the origin of the universe has everything coming from nothing. Choosing to define the Big Bang theory as starting just after that moment doesn't change that. And that's what Ace was doing; giving me a lesson in what supposedly happened just after something came from nothing.
...the nothing has a clear definition in physics Would that, perhaps, by some weird thinking, be, ummm, nothing?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I am gonna assume that you understand the physics of gasses and why they tend to expand in specific conditions. Now , have you heard of gravity ? and no to the nothing idea, thats wrong. Hamster 23:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrase "a very simple state" doesn't adequately convey something coming from something else. So saying that the first cell [is] a "very simple state" in comparison to complex life is fair enough, but it doesn't seem right to call non-life a "very simple state" of life, nor quarks as a "very simple state" of the universe. In both cases, we are talking about a very different state, albeit also simpler. So you are concerned that developing from simple to complex sounds like a quantitative change and does not capture the qualitative changes, like going from muck to life, or from beating sticks on rocks to symphonies? Why is that not captured in "developed gradually from a very simple state to everything we see today"? Would it help to mention "emergent properties" or "qualitative changes"? --Awc 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all.

—Greene, Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos, paperback, p. 272, emphasis in original

Sterile 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the inclusion of origin of life and the Big Bang is a good example of inversionism:

There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one's own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings to the widest possible public’.9

[1]

The reason why creationists want so badly (desperately) to have origins and Big Bang in there is because it's part of their creation myth. Anyway, it doesn't matter because the Big Bang has more than decent support (string theory aside) and evolution has wonderful support. Sterile 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What are "Internet evolutionists"? Do they believe something different from normal evolutionists? They are often amateurs who don't really understand things.
As opposed to professional evolutionists, who do understand things? --Awc 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If someone believes that evolution does not include the origin of life, then he does not have an evolutionary worldview? He would deny that he has one, because he likes to dispute that evolution is anything except the latest incarnation of Darwin's ideas.
I don't know if you're being evasive, or what, but no matter. According to your definition in the first line, an evolutionary worldview believes that "most things" have evolved. If someone believes that life did not evolve from non-life, he would consequently not have an evolutionary worldview. Then why is this group being singled out? --Awc 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If different groups use the term in different ways, shouldn't we be trying to report those various usages, rather than declaring what is or is not "the case"? What's wrong with telling the truth? There's too much "he said, she said" and not enough "it is".
Words don't have meaning, people have meaning. You might say that one group is using a word in a non-standard way, but you can't say they are using it in the wrong way.
It hard to tell whether your version is right or wrong because it is not clear. My version is at least clear. I'll add a bit about some people insisting that their use of the term is the only one, and restore something close to my version. --Awc 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Who thinks that evolution is "the the only process by which things ... have arisen naturalistically"? Those who have an evolutionary worldview.
Then make that clear grammatically.
Do you mean as opposed to things having popped into existence naturalistically? No, as opposed to things being created. But those who dispute that things have been created often try and claim that there are other options than creation and evolution.
Evolution, and not creation, is the only process by which things have arisen naturally? That doesn't make any sense. There are in principle other options than YEC and consensus science. (Of course, none that fit the observations as well as consensus science.)
Is naturalism necessarily evolutionary, or is evolution necessarily naturalistic...? Naturalism is all be essentially evolutionary. That is, there are other hypothetical options, such as aliens seeding life here, but not many hold that view, and those who did would still believe that those aliens evolved (or the aliens that created those aliens, etc.).
Could you please proofread what you write?
Why is the "little need to invoke a supernatural being" not a reason that the evolutionary view is naturalistic? One problem was that the wording didn't have it phrased as a reason, and another problem is that people sometimes claim that you can believe in evolution and God.
There are plenty of people who believe in evolution and God.
Either find a way to say what you're trying to say so people can understand it, or I will strike the clause again. --Awc 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I am gonna assume that you understand the physics of gasses and why they tend to expand in specific conditions. Good. And yet you seem to think I'm ignorant: Now , have you heard of gravity ? Gravity? Umm, what's gravity? Oh, you mean that attractive force between bodies with mass? Yes, of course I've heard of it. Now, have you heard of making an argument instead of asking obvious questions?
and no to the nothing idea, thats wrong. And yet the nothingness of it was stressed. This is the same argument (one of them) I was having with Ace: declaring "nothing" to not be "nothing" but failing to adequately address why they stress the nothingness of it, or to acknowledge that the "nothing"-that-was-actually-something didn't really amount to much.
So you are concerned that developing from simple to complex sounds like a quantitative change and does not capture the qualitative changes, like going from muck to life, or from beating sticks on rocks to symphonies? Yes, I guess that's it.
Why is that not captured in "developed gradually from a very simple state to everything we see today"? Because, as I indicated, it implies a simpler version of what it now is, rather than something quite different.
Would it help to mention "emergent properties" or "qualitative changes"? I don't think that fits well with Regulation 2.
Well, "nothing" is certainly wrong. I'll change it to "a different and much simpler state". --Awc 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. When I said Choosing to define the Big Bang theory as starting just after that moment doesn't change that, I wasn't meaning that it's just you/Ace/etc. who choose that. I was referring to Big Bang scientists as much as anyone. Your quote is entirely consistent with my comment.
Oh, and the inclusion of origin of life and the Big Bang is a good example of inversionism: So you're accusing Scientific American of inversionism now? Then why did you write it here instead of writing to them?
The reason why creationists want so badly (desperately) to have origins and Big Bang in there is because it's part of their creation myth. Huh? Creation does not include the Big Bang, and it's not just creationists who include origins and the Big Bang as the article demonstrates. Why do you critics ignore the evidence?
Anyway, it doesn't matter because the Big Bang has more than decent support (string theory aside)... Hah! That's why even many secular scientists are opposed to it, I suppose.
...and evolution has wonderful support. More Hah! That's why more than 100,000 scientists doubt it. Typical smug argument: simply assert that your side is scientific/has the evidence/etc. rather than argue the case. That's one of the main reasons I've become a AGW sceptic: the arguments style of debate is the same.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you think that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, too? Because the arguments style of debate is the same. Of course, that you believe or disbelieve in something because of style and not substance is utterly disturbing. You certainly continue to be a denialist, in that you claim to understand that the Big Bang doesn't extrapolate to time < 1 Plank-time and still insist that the Big Bang theory says that everything came from nothing. Your lack of critical thinking is appalling. Sterile 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and no, the style of debate is not the same. Specifically, those who argue that it causes lung cancer do not continually mock their critics with the argument that only their side has evidence.
I didn't say that I didn't believe in AGW; I said that I'm an AGW sceptic. Isn't it good to be sceptical of poorly-supported claims?
...you ... still insist that the Big Bang theory says that everything came from nothing. No, I do not. I say that the Big Bang cosmology (i.e. the cosmology that includes the Big Bang), not the Big Bang theory (which is a particular model of what supposedly happened) includes everything coming from nothing.
Your lack of critical thinking is appalling. Huh? I'm very critical in my thinking of the claims of evolutionists! And your ad hominem arguments are obvious.
Evolution is a theory in biology to explain the diversity of life. It does not include Big Bang and does not concern abiogensis. You conflate them because the biblical account includes creation and the creation of life.
The style of denialists is all the same. In fact, the same scientists who denied smoking are the same ones who deny global warming and the ozone hole and acid rain. Utterly the same.And critical thinking doesn't mean looking only critically at your opponent's arguments. It means looking critically at all arguments, especially your own. I see no critical thought on creationism here. There especially is no article on the evidence for creationism. Sterile 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sterile, your links utterly fail to support the statements you "piped" (I know there is no actual pipe for external links). In particular; regarding "Merchants of Doubt", what about everyone else on the wp:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (which is linked in the Merchants of Doubt article)? Regarding your RW article link, a) that is about "how" rather than "who", b) the "who" is different for each and c) out of 7 sections, 3 have a complete blank for one the topic areas. Your "utterly the same [scientists]" is at best unsupported but looks to be objectively baseless and in fact shown to be false by your own links. LowKey 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You do realize the subtitle of the book is, "How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming." I could lend you my copy. You are free to contribute the the RW article; it's a work in progress. Sterile 12:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that.

—John Robbins

Teh Terrible Asp 19:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont intend to start over yet again on science issues, I will simply state some point that I understand to be true.

  • Evolution when used in a scientific context and unqualified means the biology Theory of Evolution as it exists in 2011, not Darwinism, Lysenkoism or anything else. If qualified its poor terminolgy better suited to public interest book or articles. The terms abiogenesis, nucleosynthesis, stellar formation, stellar life cycles are all preffered terms.
  • gasses under sufficient gravity compress, and by that compression heat up. Note that the Earth has an atmosphere. (by gravity overcoming the tendancy to expand)
  • if this article is really about naturalism then change the title , and we can discuss which variety of naturalism you mean. Hamster 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


I have avoided this discussion so far (mostly because I have [generally] found [on-wiki] "discussion" with [most] Rats to be beyond frustrating - And critical thinking doesn't mean looking only critically at your opponent's arguments. It means looking critically at all arguments, especially your own seems apropos) but I do think that changing the title to "Naturalistic Worldview" or somesuch has arguable merit. LowKey 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC) [qualifying, because it has been rightly pointed out to me that I have had "marvelous discourse" with at least one Rat LowKey 06:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)]
As opposed to professional evolutionists, who do understand things? Yes. They understand such things as "evolution" referring to more than just the latest version of Darwin's idea, and they often understand that the evidence they are familiar with doesn't support evolution, hence Gish often found in his debates with evolutionists that they would argue from some field other than their own.
If someone believes that life did not evolve from non-life, he would consequently not have an evolutionary worldview. That doesn't follow.
Then why is this group being singled out? It's not, but it does deserve a mention given that it's a common tactic to deny that the origin of life has anything to do with evolution. See Question Evolution!.
Words don't have meaning, people have meaning. Huh? Of course words have meaning. That's what allows us to communicate. Do you mean that they don't have inherent meaning? That is true; they have the meanings that people give them.
You might say that one group is using a word in a non-standard way, but you can't say they are using it in the wrong way. Yes you can. If a person using a word is using it in a particular way, and someone else says that it has a different (e.g. non-standard) meaning than claimed, then insofar as the author is concerned, the second party is using it in a wrong way. To be a bit more concrete, if people commonly use "evolution" to include the origin of life, then it is wrong for others to say that it doesn't include the origin of life. They might use it differently, but they can't change the fact (given that it is one) that it is commonly used in a particular way.
Evolution, and not creation, is the only process by which things have arisen naturally? Effectively, and depending on how they are defined, yes. But that should also be read in light of my next comment in that post, about aliens seeding life.
There are in principle other options than YEC and consensus science. Like what? Yes, there may be a few, as already indicated, but usually none that are real options.
Of course, none that fit the observations as well as consensus science. As well as creation, rather.
Could you please proofread what you write? I do, but occasionally something slips through. I've corrected that comment.
There are plenty of people who believe in evolution and God. When I said that people sometimes claim that you can believe in evolution and God, I was meaning that they imply that this can be done coherently, and that they are usually talking about the God of the Bible. You can't coherently believe in the God of the Bible and evolution. See Evolution and the Bible#Evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account.
Either find a way to say what you're trying to say so people can understand it, or I will strike the clause again. I think it's understandable. If I'm to change it, I need to understand why people have trouble understanding it.
Well, "nothing" is certainly wrong. I'll change it to "a different and much simpler state". That doesn't cater for the universe coming from nothing.
Evolution is a theory in biology to explain the diversity of life. It does not include Big Bang and does not concern abiogensis. Typical anti-creationist argument: simply deny that something is the case despite evidence being produced that it is the case.
The style of denialists is all the same. That biased article is clearly factually wrong. Creationists, for example, don't claim conspiracy. I'm not sure that AGW sceptics did either, prior to evidence of conspiracy surfacing.
In fact, the same scientists who denied smoking are the same ones who deny global warming and the ozone hole and acid rain. Your link makes this claim about a few particular scientists. Can I mention Ian Plimer, an anti-creationist who is also an AGW "denialist"? Where does he fit in?
Utterly the same. Don't you have any reliable sources?
And critical thinking doesn't mean looking only critically at your opponent's arguments. It means looking critically at all arguments, especially your own. Then why don't you practice it?
I see no critical thought on creationism here. I'm not sure that you would recognise it if you did. It doesn't mean being critical, by the way.
There especially is no article on the evidence for creationism. Perhaps not particularly on that topic, but evidence for creation is mentioned in places.
Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that. This quote seems to have been added to this page for no apparent reason, and also appears to have been taken out of context.
...I will simply state some point that I understand to be true. Regardless of evidence provided.
Evolution when used in a scientific context and unqualified means the biology Theory of Evolution... Yet it is clearly often used in other contexts without explicit qualification. I'm not denying that there may be implicit qualification, however, but then I would argue that these are the very situations where anti-creationists attempt to say that the creationists are wrong: when there is implicit qualification that not just biological evolution is being discussed.
If qualified its poor terminolgy better suited to public interest book or articles. Your point? It is the public sphere as much as anything that we are talking about. It's a common tactic of anti-creationists to take a comment of creationists used in a public arena and dispute it's accuracy on the grounds that it's not used that way in a scientific arena.
gasses under sufficient gravity compress... Yes, but before there were large bodies such as stars to provide the required gravity, how would it compress to form stars?
if this article is really about naturalism then change the title , and we can discuss which variety of naturalism you mean. and I do think that changing the title to "Naturalistic Worldview" or somesuch has arguable merit. The problem is that this article was intended to demonstrate the falseness of the claim that "evolution" only refers to biological evolution. Changing the name is therefore counterproductive.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't have to be so ideological. The facts are:
  1. In some contexts "evolution" refers to any process by which something changes gradually, especially if the change is from simple to complex and is the result of natural processes.
  2. In other contexts "evolution" refers only to—in the words of one well-known evolutionist—The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
  3. It is sometimes argued that The theory of evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis or the origin of life. There are a number of problems with this argument, including that it ignores Fact 1. I have no objection to discussing the existence and fallacies of this argument, but it should not be done by ignoring Fact 2.
--Awc 08:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the small qualification that I think Nos. 1 and 2 are perhaps a little vague or ambiguous, I completely agree with those three points. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationists, for example, don't claim conspiracy. Creationists can't get grants and publish in the peer review literature for what reason, again? I'm not sure that AGW sceptics did either, prior to evidence of conspiracy surfacing. There is no conspiracy for AGW. Do you refer to "Climategate"? It's been thoroughly debunked. The problem is that this article was intended to demonstrate the falseness of the claim that "evolution" only refers to biological evolution. Changing the name is therefore counterproductive. I thought it was about the worldview; I doubt encyclopedia users would say, "Hmmmm. I want to know what counters evolution. I'll go to the evolutionary worldview article." It would seem that it would be more appropriate in evolution; even better would be positive evidence for creationism. Sterile 12:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationists can't get grants and publish in the peer review literature for what reason, again? Because of a widespread view that it's bunk; not because of a conspiracy. This has been explained numerous times before.
There is no conspiracy for AGW. Do you refer to "Climategate"? It's been thoroughly debunked. Arguments are debunked, not scandals. The Climategate emails clearly showed AGW alarmists conspiring together to undermine the peer-review process.
The reason I didn't include this in the evolution article is that that article is particularly about the biological hypothesis, and you can't have two articles with the same name, so I called this one Evolutionary worldview for the sake of having a different title.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)

This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.

This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."

But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!

And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it's entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.

Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them.[2]

Sterile 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
So you offer as argument that the anti-AGW side is corrupt, by quoting from a clearly-factually-incorrect opinion piece from the pro-AGW side. I'll admit that the anti-AGW side probably has more of a hearing in the U.S. than here in Oz, but certainly from my perspective. The claim that "But whatever the cause, the referee [i.e. the mainstream media] appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse." is a gross misrepresentation of reality, where the media are mostly toeing the pro-AGW line. Our national broadcaster a few years ago had to be directed by its board to show a rebuttal to Gore's Inconvenient Truth, because they were so biased they didn't want to show it. But of course the journalists and opinion-makers have so much power—and abuse it—that they immediately followed this broadcast that they didn't want with a panel discussing it, stacked with pro-AGW people, of course. They had no such panel following the broadcast of any pro-AGW propaganda.
The bias of your opinion pieced is evident from the line "In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues." The author has already made up his mind who's right and who's wrong.
"But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum..." As opposed to all the name-calling, vilification, etc. that the pro-AGW side makes use of?

Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact."

As pointed out here, this claim has a very dubious history, and does not appear to be, as implied, any sort of industry directive.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost all the anti-AGW is a public relations campaign by oil/gas/coal companies and their advocacy groups like the American Petroleum Insitute. The insistence for "balance" and the "other side of the story" is a underhanded way of generating doubt while making the other side look bad for being so "one-sided." It's exactly what the tobacco companies have done for over 50 years. Sterile 10:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard that mantra before. And I can say with at least as much truth that almost all the pro-AGW propaganda is a public relations campaign by environmentalists/close totalitarians/lefties and their advocacy groups like Greenpeace. The insistence on "science" and "peer review" (when their models have failed and their evidence is selective) is an underhanded way of avoiding debate while making the other side look bad for being "unscientific" and in the pay of big energy. It's exactly the what the same groups have done for many decades, including with claiming that the world was getting cooler. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, National Geographic, BP, Shell or Exxon do not do peer reviewed science, and nor do they fund it. Where's the data that says the world is getting cooler? Sterile 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a complete lie

[Posts from a blocked user falsely accusing me (Philip J. Rayment) of lying deleted. Note that the person could have assumed that I was mistaken rather than deliberately trying to deceive (i.e. lying) and could have e-mailed a correction, but chose to do the wrong thing instead. I will concede that my statement that ...Ace was ... giving me a lesson in what supposedly happened just after something came from nothing. probably oversimplifies the situation.]

I am amazed, saddened and shocked Are you really, ACYO? Sterile 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It reminds me of when Philip admitted he couldn't think of an observation that would falsify supernatural intevention. Of course, that was lost to the data loss. Sigh. Sterile 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
[3] except replace "Why do you trust carbon dating exclusively?" with "Evolution claims that the universe comes from nothing!" Sterile 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So now you're quoting a video that misrepresents and mocks? Great argument! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, do you or do you not continue to repeat over and over that evolutionists/Guth say that the universe comes from nothing, despite Ace demonstrating otherwise? It's not my fault if art parallels real life. If you are offended, it is your own fault. Sterile 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you're hiding things again! What fun!!!!! Sterile 15:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be developing a habit of deleting posts and then responding to them in your piecemeal style, as above. This kind of craven behavior is better suited to creatures like RuyLopez than a man like you who at least pretends to live in a world of ideas. Ace is a truth speaker who people respect a lot more than you in this cosmology discussion. Block him all you want but don't throw unnecessary fuel on the fire of people calling you on your ignorance and/or misrepresentations.
You also seem to be unable to distinguish between "argument" and "assertion" so I'll just give you the answer you were struggling with: Sterile's not making an argument; he's mocking you for the lack of merit of your frequent claims along the lines of "Evolution claims that the universe comes from nothing!" - this is something you've been schooled on vigorously for more than a year since Ace started trying to fix your stubborn and pervasive misapprehension (or misrepresentation is also a fair cop at this point). Yet the most you're prepared to say is nonsense like "probably oversimplifies the situation" and Ace "chose to do the wrong thing." (a) You cagily admit you're wrong about the science despite your equivocation. (b) Ace didn't necessarily do the wrong thing and there's no objective way to determine he did. Your bruised ego isn't a measure of right. Presumptions like you urge are justifiable only as long as they haven't been rebutted. At this point you are likely the only person who's going to look at your extremely long dialog with Ace and think there's any reason in the world for him to assume you were mistaken. Teh Terrible Asp 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Asp, Ace had earned a long block which is still in effect, and created a transparent sockpuppet account specifically to post on a wiki where he is currently barred. Is this doing "the wrong thing"? Absolutely, regardless of what motivation he would claim for doing so. Did he create - and use - the sock account by choice? Absolutely, unless you are claiming that such things happen by accident. So yes, we can and do in fact objectively determine that Ace "chose to do the wrong thing". LowKey 02:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
does anyone believe that Philip is so completely stupid that he gets stuff wrong as an honest mistake, especially when the subject he is discussing is with a banned user. ?
would you really have posted Aces email and an honest reply ?
Ace earned a block because of a unilateral decision of Philip, lets not play those games here. Hamster 03:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you really believe that only the completely stupid make honest mistakes? I doubt it. Else you are accusing an awful lot of people of being completely stupid.
Yes, any email I received from Ace that he wished posted would have been (subject to our normal posting standards). Alternatively he could use the "leave a message" facility. Either way there is no need to sock up.
Ace earned a block by his own actions, including extremely offensive language - repeatedly. The "unilateral decision" was merely the initial decision to be a family friendly and civil site. So who is it really that is playing games? LowKey 04:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I don't agree that it's okay for a blocked user to post on the "leave a message" page, but given that LowKey, a Bureaucrat, has okayed it, I'll not make any objection in the present case. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I would not have suggested it if I did not think it was already accepted. I was pretty sure that you had suggested just this some time ago. I even think it may have been about Ace socking (or it may have been Jeeves). LowKey 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall that, but it has been suggested that a blocked user should still be able to post on his talk page, something that I have indicated I would agree to if I could find a way to do that. I think, however, I was referring to posting an appeal against a block, not continuing unrelated discussions. Perhaps I did suggest that in the absence of being able to post on their own talk page, an alternative would be that page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, do you or do you not continue to repeat over and over that evolutionists/Guth say that the universe comes from nothing, despite Ace demonstrating otherwise? I repeat it as necessary, and Ace did not demonstrate otherwise. Rather, he tried to argue that "nothing" doesn't mean absolutely nothing, and I accepted that it didn't mean absolutely nothing, but it was still effectively nothing.
You seem to be developing a habit of deleting posts and then responding to them in your piecemeal style, as above. Actually, in this case, I deleted posts from a blocked user (quite legitimate), but to avoid the charge of trying to hide an accusation of me lying, I made a very brief response.
You also seem to be unable to distinguish between "argument" and "assertion"... How so?
...so I'll just give you the answer you were struggling with: Sterile's not making an argument; he's mocking you... Why do you think I don't understand that? That was my very point: that he should have been making an argument, not resorting to mockery.
...this is something you've been schooled on vigorously for more than a year... And I've responded to that "schooling", showing where it doesn't hold up. Or are you implicitly claiming that I am wrong simply because others think I am?
You cagily admit you're wrong about the science despite your equivocation. I admitted no such thing. If you are talking about my comment that I probably oversimplified the situation, here's an expanded version, now that I'm responding to you rather than to comments that I appropriately deleted.
  • Ace's essay did include mention of what happened before inflation.
  • However, the Big Bang is supposed to be what happens just after the beginning.
  • Ace was explaining the Big Bang model, specifically the inflation model of the Big Bang.
So was Ace explaining what happened before the Big Bang or not?
I should also point out that Ace confused the issue by repeatedly avoiding responding to things that I said, in particular my understanding of what Guth was saying in the Discovery article, and repeatedly accused me of quoting only Guth when I had in fact quoted others. Ace was hardly the one to claim the high moral ground here.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
does anyone believe that Philip is so completely stupid that he gets stuff wrong as an honest mistake, Does anyone with any integrity believe that I would deliberately lie about things? Wouldn't it both be more likely and more civil to assume an honest mistake? After all, I have admitted to being mistaken before, unlike some people who have accused me of not being prepared to admit to mistakes.
would you really have posted Aces email and an honest reply ? I probably wouldn't have posted his reply (I would have if it was disputing the reason for his block, but not on other topics). However, I would not have ignored it, and I would have posted a correction if I felt it was warranted. Note that in this case I did post a qualification of my previous comment, and I would have done that even from an e-mail.
Ace earned a block because of a unilateral decision of Philip, lets not play those games here. Let's not whitewash uncivil behaviour by pretending that the block wasn't warranted.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I never said Aces block was unwarrented. I said it was a decision solely of Philip, with no due process to the degree of incivility. Philip and Lowkey seem perfectly prepared to say that I as an atheist have no morals and would just as easily rape , murder etc because those actions are expected of one. I find that uncivil, but do they get blocked ? No, because they make the rules. Hamster 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You are still wrong, Hamster. The block was in accordance with blocking and civility policies, both of which have been discussed at length. As I said the only "unilateral" decision was to be a family friendly and civil site, which a) is certainly Philip's prerogative and 2) has not to date raised serious objections. Also, that's a pretty weaselly accusation there. If I (or Philip) have actually said such a thing, then point it out, but don't couch it as "seem prepared to" . For the record (and my last word on this in this thread) I do not hold that atheists have no morals; I simply hold they they do not get them from their atheism. I have proposed some rules/policies, and commented on some, but I don't think I ever made any; and I have been blocked (I actually blocked myself for incorrectly blocking someone). LowKey 04:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, you may not have stated "unwarranted" but that was the clear implication. LowKey 05:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Philip and Lowkey seem perfectly prepared to say that I as an atheist have no morals and would just as easily rape , murder etc because those actions are expected of one. I have more than once specifically denied having that view, and of course you cannot produce evidence of it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
so you reject CMI and accept that God is not required for moral conduct ? Hamster 14:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as you were wrong about Bradley and me, you are wrong about CMI. They do not claim that (belief in) God is required for moral conduct. Rather, God's revelation provides the ultimate basis for moral conduct, but you can be moral for other reasons, such as adopting the morals of the society you live in. If you disagree, then find me an actual quote from CMI. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The atheistic materialist worldview does not have room for objective morality in it. "Objective morality" is not the kind of thing which can be measured or observed by natural science, hence the atheistic materialist must conclude it does not exist. If morality is not objective, then it is nothing more than our own subjective whimsy, and we can adopt whatever standards of ethics we wish, whatever ethics we feel like. To be consistent, if you are an atheistic materialist, you must say that "Rape is wrong" and "Murder is wrong" are simply expressions of your own dislike for those things, and if someone serial rapist/murderer believes "Rape is good" and "Murder is good", then that is as true for them as your own morals are true for you. The vast majority of their atheists agree that rape and murder are wrong, but that's no thanks to their worldview. It is like the atheistic worldview is parasitic upon religious worldviews for its morals, it borrows from its opponents what it is incapable of producing by its own steam. Maratrean 04:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I see , so societies that say "dont eat your playmates" are parasitic upon judeo-christian morality, even if they predate them or have never had contact with them ? is it moral to act only in fear of the consequences ? Hamster 15:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Those societies are all descended from Noah and his family, who knew God and His standards. So one possibility is that they have carried those morals down through history. Another thing to consider is that their morals are guided by their God-given consciences (Romans 2:15). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
which brings up right back to which God ? Hamster 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Which brings us right back to willing atheistic ignorance. There is only one, by definition. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Buddhists, Shinto, and quite a few others might disagree ;) Hamster 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
They disagree on the definition of "God"? Please provide evidence. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the term god gets used in two different ways. On the one hand, we have a pagan conception of deities as limited, fighting with other deities, none of them having absolute power, but reality as a tug of war between them, none of them individually being creator of the whole universe, but just bits of it. On the other hand, we have the monotheistic conception of God as all-powerful, the source of all being, etc. Now, the first definition of god permits multiple gods. But the second definition doesn't - how can there be multiple omnipotent beings, what happens if they disagree? On the other hand, if they agree all the time, that means they have a common will, and hence aren't really multiple beings anymore, but different aspects of the one being (like the Christian Trinity).
Gods in Buddhism are that limited conception - they are beings who used to be humans, but built up very much good karma, and were reborn in some heavenly paradise, and live extremely long lives, but one day they will burn up all their good karma, and die and be reborn as humans. Or else, we have the Boddhisattvas, who used to be human, but attained enlightenment, yet hold off fading away into nirvana to help humans. Likewise, the gods (kami) of Shintoism are limited, not absolute beings, which is how there can be many of them. But the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, by definition only one such being can exist. In fact, although this limited conception of god is common in pagan religions, Western paganism also knew the grander, monotheistic conception of God (see Plato and Aristotle), which existed alongside the more limited conception. I think the same comment applies to Hinduism, where a limited polytheistic conception of god coexists with a grander monotheistic conception.
To ask which "god" we are talking about is fair enough, since the definition permits the existence of many. But to ask which "God" we are talking about makes not so much sense, because the definition only permits one. Maybe, we can reword that question into a more senisble form - whose idea of God is the most correct one? The Jewish? The Christian? The Islamic? That of Plato or Aristotle? Maratrean 06:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me but I am confused

The origin of life is of course abiogenesis... a.k.a. chemical evolution isn't chemical evolution nucleosynthsis ? Hamster 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that referred to as chemical evolution, but the term is definitely also used of abiogenesis. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Climategate

The Climategate emails clearly showed AGW alarmists conspiring together to undermine the peer-review process. Do tell your evidence for this. (Oh, and is it just the climate scientists who are conspiring?) Sterile 01:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See peer review#shortcomings. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Gee, it doesn't appear that Kevin and the author have redefined peer review, nor have scientists stopped submitting to or citing Climate Research stopped. Must be crummy conspirators. The Wedge Document on the other hand.... Sterile 20:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You are unable to refute the evidence that they conspired to undermine peer review, so you divert attention from that by claiming that they failed at what they attempted. Which is, of course, irrelevant.
As for the Wedge Document, what does that have to do with (a) conspiracy, (b) undermining peer review, or (c) creationism?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
perhaps the wedge document outlines a conspiricy by creationists to undermine peer review, or the entire scientific method. ? Hamster 16:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Except that (a) it doesn't outline a conspiracy, (b) it is not by or about creationists, (c) it does not mention peer review, and (d) it does not seek to undermine the scientific method. So no, that's not it, and therefore my question stands. If you or anyone wants to dispute that (i.e. support the original claim which I'm questioning), please don't just offer ungrounded speculation, but show evidence—you know, that little thing that creationists are so often accused of not having but which anti-creationists so rarely produce—such as quoting specifics from the document, as I did in support of my claim. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
are we talking the ame wedge document. ? The uber secret, known only to the inner cabal document, showing the plan to overthrow modern science by injecting supernatural causes into science, and bringing creationism into mainstream school science classes ? Hamster 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
so lets have some quotes
  • "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God"
  • "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
  • "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies."
  • "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"
  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory."
Unfortunately the Dover case ran ID off the rails since it was found to be repackaged creationism
Hamster 05:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
are we talking the ame wedge document. ? The uber secret, known only to the inner cabal document... No, must be talking about a different document. I was talking about the one that was leaked to the the public sphere years ago and is certainly no secret.
...showing the plan to overthrow modern science by injecting supernatural causes into science... No, must be talking about a different document. You can't overthrow science by injecting the supernatural, because science was based on the supernatural.
...bringing creationism into mainstream school science classes ? No, must be talking about a different document because, as I've already pointed out, it is not about bringing creationism into science classes.
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God" Why the quote mine? As the rest of the sentence makes clear, this is part of a factual background statement.
"seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." Yes, it wants to overthrow this atheistic philosophy. So what does that have to do with science, given that science was founded on a Christian philosophy?
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies." Ditto.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God" Ditto.
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory." See—intelligent design, not creationism.
Unfortunately the Dover case ran ID off the rails since it was found to be repackaged creationism Only the decision was incorrect, as ID and creationism are at least as distinct as evolution and evolutionism. Please explain why "Social Darwinism is distinct from the biological theory of evolution" (quoting RW), but creationism is not distinct from intelligent design? That is, why are evolutionists allowed to draw a distinction between the "science" of evolution and other ideas built on it, but creationists and IDers are not allowed to draw a distinction between the science of ID and creationism? Why the double standard?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll pray over my chemicals today and see if they do anything. It is interesting that the non-conspiring creationists IDers marked the Wedge document with "top secret" and "not for redistribution," along with an image of Michelangelo's Creation of Adam on the cover. Sterile 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The saga of "Of Pandas and People" says it all. A creationists tract , which got a glabal find and replace leaving cdesohn proponantcists in the text. Judge ruled , ID lost and was tainted as revamped creationism and the website which said "of course we all believe the designer is the christian god... " didnt help. Hamster 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that the non-conspiring creationists IDers marked the Wedge document with "top secret" and "not for redistribution,"... Given what critics have made of it, it's not surprising.
The saga of "Of Pandas and People" says it all. Err, no. It says one little bit of the story.
A creationists tract... A textbook actually. You really can't stick to the facts, can you?
...which got a glabal find and replace leaving cdesohn proponantcists in the text. As I have pointed out before, the book is about design in nature, a creationist concept which ID took up. That, however, does not mean that creationism and ID are the same thing.
Judge ruled , ID lost... So judges are always right, are they?
...was tainted as revamped creationism... Just as the ACLU wanted and wrote up for the compliant judge. Doesn't make it true, as even anti-creationists have admitted.
... the website which said "of course we all believe the designer is the christian god... " didnt help. Of course it "didnt(sic) help" when you've got critics with double standards. I have already asked you about this, but you have avoided answering the question. (See my last point in my previous post above.) Why is that? Can't admit when you are wrong? Trying to hide your lack of answers? Prefer to toss around claims than actually engage in proper debate?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The book "of pandas' was clearly written as a creationist text. It was then changed from creationism to intelligent design after a court case in which a judge ruled against creationism in schools.
when you have a group of people publicly argueing that ID is science and has no religious base, and then privately say "nudge wink, its of course God, Yaweh blah blah" it is fair to examine their true motivations.
several judges have ruled in cases about creationism in schools. creationism lost. Why no appeals ? Judges are right unless reversed by a higher court. And lets not forget that several of the ID promoters withdrew from the case.
Judges often use material from the winning side when writing up the ruling. Simplifies his job and thats all it means.
what question haven't I answered ? please state it clearly. I am still waiting for you to answer many of mine. Hamster 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I like how two people writing e-mails with no power to anything is a conspiracy, but when an entire organization has a "top secret" plan that suggests corrupting a peer-review across academia and media at many levels labelled is not. Oh, well. Your confirmation bias is stinking up the place. Sterile 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The book "of pandas' was clearly written as a creationist text. It was then changed from creationism to intelligent design after a court case in which a judge ruled against creationism in schools. Apart from the vague "creationist text", that is simply a statement of the facts and doesn't address my point that it's just one little bit of the story and doesn't mean that ID equals creationism.
when you have a group of people publicly argueing that ID is science and has no religious base, and then privately say "nudge wink, its of course God, Yaweh blah blah" it is fair to examine their true motivations. Then it's also fair to examine the motives of the people arguing that evolution is science and has no atheistic base, although they also say that it justifies rejecting God. Agreed? That was the point of my question that you previously avoided answering.
several judges have ruled in cases about creationism in schools. creationism lost. Actually, with the exception of the Dover trial, none of the rulings declared creationism unscientific. What they did was say that it was unconstitutional to have a law requiring particular views to be put.
Why no appeals ? Mostly because the authorities (school boards, etc.) changed personnel in the meantime. That is, not only did the anti-creationists take the matter to court, they succeeded in displacing the board members who had tried to change the rules, and the new boards were not interested in pursuing it.
Judges are right unless reversed by a higher court. They are considered right in law. That doesn't mean that they are right, and even some anti-creationists and anti-IDers were not happy with a judge declaring what was and was not science.
Judges often use material from the winning side when writing up the ruling. Simplifies his job and thats all it means. Except when you have a judge predisposed to agree with one side.
what question haven't I answered ? please state it clearly. I am still waiting for you to answer many of mine. Really? Wow! My surprise is that (a) your next post shows that I did state it clearly enough, because you have now answered it. And (b) you want me to state what you haven't answered clearly (which I did), but you then return with a very unclear claim that I've not answered many of yours. Not only that, but you also failed to answer others of mine. That's as clear as your claim. But unlike you, I'll be more specific: you haven't answered the other questions I put in my post above of 14:09, 28 June 2011, "Why the quote mine?" and "So what does that have to do with science...?"
I like how two people writing e-mails with no power to anything is a conspiracy,... So stuck for an answer that you twist the truth this much? What do you mean by "no power to [do] anything"? These were very influential people.
...but when an entire organization has a "top secret" plan... Another misleading comment. If you saw the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you would have seen that this "entire organisation" occupies a single floor of a building. Your contrast between "two people" and "an entire organisation" is grossly misleading, as the "two people" were two of many working together across multiple international organisations, compared to one very small organisation. This is a classic case of distortion of the facts.
...plan that suggests corrupting a peer-review across academia and media at many levels... It "suggests" that only in the mind of critics. In fact, it did no such thing. You are now resorting to invention.
Oh, well. Your confirmation bias is stinking up the place. Try looking in a mirror. It is your blind faith in your views that is allowing you to distort the facts so badly.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Then it's also fair to examine the motives of the people arguing that evolution is science and has no atheistic base, although they also say that it justifies rejecting God. Agreed? That was the point of my question that you previously avoided answering. Its fair to examine anyone motives. Science has no atheistic base, that is quite true. Science justifies rejecting God ? thats a very strange premise not held by any scientists I know, many of them churchgoing christians. Agreed ? to what? to most of your odd claims , definately not.
a single organisation with a multi million dollar budget is significant.
The Judge is a churchgoing christian appointed by Bush I believe. The ID/creation group could not have picked a better choice, unfortunately for them he was also committed to the rule of law, and was very careful to allow both sides to present their case.
Hamster 03:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Science justifies rejecting God ? thats a very strange premise not held by any scientists I know... Interesting qualifier, limiting to scientists that you know. What about scientists (and others) such as ones mentioned here?
Agreed ? to what? To the question about whether it's fair to question the motives of evolutionists. You did agree. As people like Dawkins, Provine, and Shermer have atheistic motives, evolution is therefore not science, on the same basis that ID is not science because of the motives of selected proponents of ID.
to most of your odd claims , definately not. My claims are not odd.
a single organisation with a multi million dollar budget is significant. More significant than multiple taxpayer-supported institutions which enjoy the patronage of Governments and the media? I don't think so.
The Judge is a churchgoing christian appointed by Bush I believe. And believer in evolution.
The ID/creation group could not have picked a better choice... Pure speculation, contrary to the evidence.
...unfortunately for them he was also committed to the rule of law, and was very careful to allow both sides to present their case. He was also committed to evolution, and ruled on the basis of motives, when the motives of evolutionists are not questioned. You can argue that he couldn't take the motives of evolutionists into account because they were not on trial, but that doesn't change that only one side had their motives considered.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that "entire organisation" occupies a single floor of a building includes all the prominent IDers, Behe, Demski, Luskin, etc. I always thought that was your criterion for importance. Oh, well. I'm sure that all us scientists will continue to "conspire" to finding evidence to support or disprove hypotheses and publishing it. Sterile 21:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

social Darwinism vs Theory of Evolution - ID vs creationism

  • In the context of the Dover trial, ID as represented by 'Of Pandas and People' was found by a court to be rebranded creationism because the edit history of the books text showed a global find and replace of the word creation to intelligent design (or something like that)
  • The proponents of ID have stated publicly on their website that all of them regard the Designer to be the Christian God of the Bible, and that science MUST allow supernatural causes.
  • The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory in biology that explains how by mechanisms of mutation and selection organisms change over time.
  • Social Darwinism is NOT a theory in biology and does not explain the change in organisms over time.
  • Hence social darwinism != Theory of evolution
  • creationism = ID (finding of the court, no appeals filed)

Hamster 15:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...ID as represented by 'Of Pandas and People' was found by a court to be rebranded creationism... Argument by authority, and many have said that the court is not an authority on science.
The proponents of ID have stated publicly on their website that all of them regard the Designer to be the Christian God of the Bible... Misleading. The "proponents of ID" are not confined to a single organisation with a single web-site. And as I've pointed out to Sterile above, the main ID organisation is quite small. So your statement referring to "The proponents of ID" is simply not true as it stands. I'm not even sure that it's true of all ID proponents associated with the Discovery Institute. In any case, my point is to contrast this claim (which, certainly, some ID proponents have made) with similar claims by proponents of evolution about the non-existence of God, and how that is unrelated to evolution but ID proponents expressing their views on God is somehow related to ID. You haven't adequately addressed that point, which is the point of my question.
...and that science MUST allow supernatural causes. Evidence please? Because I don't believe that it's true that they have said this (as a rule; there may be exceptions, though).
on their website explaining how religion must be a part of science.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory in biology that explains how by mechanisms of mutation and selection organisms change over time. A question-begging assertion.
actually a definition.
Social Darwinism is NOT a theory in biology and does not explain the change in organisms over time. And claims that God created is NOT a part of ID, and is not used to explain change in organisms over time. So your point is...?
yes God created is part of ID, per their own websites.
Hence social darwinism != Theory of evolution I didn't claim that they were synonymous.
creationism = ID (finding of the court, no appeals filed) Back to the argument by authority, which is demonstrably wrong, being based on the motives of ID supporters, yet the motives of evolutionists is ignored. That's means that you've actually made a circular argument:
then demonstrate the court was wrong, perhaps in the US supreme court ? ID = creationism on the evidence of the Books history of edited manuscripts.
  • Creationism = ID on the basis of the motives of the supporters.
  • (The motives of evolutionists is irrelevant, as the science stands alone. However...)
  • The motives of the ID supporters are relevant because creationism is ID.
the court found the ID proponents and the school board were not credible witnessess and their motivations were not secular in intent.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
on their website explaining how religion must be a part of science. and yes God created is part of ID, per their own websites. So you can't support your contention? I asked for evidence, and you effectively told me to find it myself on their web-site. In other words, you did not provide evidence of your assertion. Just in case your first comment was actually a good guide, I did a search for science and religion. What I did find on their web-site was "While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises."[4] As you've failed to produce evidence when asked, it seems that you have no evidence.
it seems you dont research well
I have the web sites (plural) that were set up to push ID in schools and colleges. Its educational for you to do research.
actually a definition. Actually a question-begging assertion used as a definition.
actually a definition, really.
then demonstrate the court was wrong... I have.
disagree
ID = creationism on the evidence of the Books history of edited manuscripts. Already answered. Why keep repeating refuted assertions?
simple, because this is a fact of law, a finding of the court which is a precedant for all lower courts. Your claiming a refutation does not make it so.
the court found the ID proponents and the school board were not credible witnessess and their motivations were not secular in intent. I'm glad you've agreed with that point of my argument that you are using a circular argument.
there is nothing circular in mr smith asserts A, evidence B,C,D shows otherwise, and action D was perjury, which the Judge made note of in the trial. Whats circular in that ?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Terms science uses

  • Cosmology - origin of the Universe
  • nucleosynthesis - origin of elements
  • nebular hypothesis - origin of stars (galaxies etc)
  • acretion disk - origin of planets
  • abiogenesis - origin of life from organic molocules
  • ToE (bilological theory of evolution) - origin of species (except the first)

Hamster 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point? Besides, your definitions are not accurate nor complete. For example, cosmology is the study of the origin, development, and nature of the universe. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
no point really. Just putting them in place for later if needed, perhaps you could insert the evolution part so we know what refers to what. i.e chemical evolution = nucleosynthesis - or whatever. Hamster 05:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As this article already says, chemical evolution ≈ origin of life. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
visitor navigation