Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old paradigms, not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you? I don't know where you read science journals at but this is just plain wrong. Reputable scientists with new theories are often ridiculed and put down, without even a proper hearing, if their theories do not jibe with those of the people in positions of power in the scientific establishment. When a person is prevented from publishing and getting "peer review" then, in effect, their career is doomed. Ever heard of the Internet? Ever read a sci.* newsgroup? Ever seen the discussions on data and theories, the pre-publication collaboration that goes on constantly, the sharing of results? You're talking about a rigid controlled environment that no longer exists. Sure, establishments DID exist, the most flagrant example being Soviet 'science' supporting Lysen- koism - a doctrine so wrong that it's crippled Russian agriculture for decades afterwards. But in the New World Order of scattered, wired researchers, a doctrinaire establishment is rapidly eclipsed. Science is about *testable*, *workable*, *usable* theories - explanations that don't work, don't survive. It's remarkably Darwinian. This takes place regularly, and with conviction. People are routinely prevented from publishing when they have something to say which greatly contradicts the current paradigm. Give us some current examples, please. Present some evidence to support this contention. WHO is prevented from presenting their ideas? WHO is so totally censored that they can't even publish on the Net? C'mon, name some names. With that said, it is an entrenched system like most others and is not likely to change any time soon. Science is not bad, it is good and has enabled us to understand the world around us like never before, and I'm all for the further (well thought out) use of it in the future, and for every possible advance. Entrenched system? Look at ANY field where there are rapid changes, where anything published 5 years ago is obsolete, and try to say "entrenched system" with a straight face. Hint: physics, biology, astronomy, cognition, archaeology... Furthermore, I don't deny evolution I just think alternative view- points should be allowed a hearing. JUST BECAUSE SOME SCIENTIST SAYS SOMETHING IS SO, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS, EVEN IF A BUNCH OF OTHER SCIENTISTS THINK IT IS TOO. Other theories, or speculations, or notions, as you are wont to call them, should be examined and allowed a fair airing. If they are rubbish the rational will reject them, covering them up, ignoring them, refusing them a hearing, or ridiculing them just makes them seem more attractive to some members of society, most particularly the fundamentalist Christianity that is imbued in conspiracy theory today. Ever been to a scientific conference? For ever 3 scientists, there are 5 theories. Those theories supported by the most evidence make it to the next round of conferences. Alternative notions that aren't supported by the evidence, that aren't predictive, that aren't test- able, are dismissed. That's the Darwinian process - your theory's gotta work better than everyone else's, or it'll be shitcanned. By thrusting it in a corner they unwittingly give it more weight. Why do you think there has always been such interest in the Kennedy assassination? Let the record speak and present all views and let the rational man (or woman) make their decision. The rest, well they'll think what they want to anyway. Creationism and Lysenkoism and many other doctrines lost out many decades ago, and only survive now in political realms. One needn't "fairly consider" a doctrine that's already been shown to be bogus. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 99-08-23 00:21:13 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and
totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old
paradigms,not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not
abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you?
Capital B Baloney. You obviously have not studied Thomas Kuhn's "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," which describes --and cites numerous
examples of-- the very opposite. As a rule, paradigms in science change only
when the old-fart "authorities" who stubbornly, in defiance of reason, defend
them --exactly like medieval theologians emotionally over-invested in DOGMAS,
as a matter of FAITH-- finally die off -- giving way to a younger generation
not so much entrenched in fossilized, by-now dubious beliefs.
There is little "objectivity" in Science -- except in the MICRO-scale where
researchers (merely technicians) are too specialized in their areas of
inquiry to dare to "theorize"
anyway. Science labors under the iron weight of peer-pressure (facing those
same old farts who determine who's "respectable" and who isn't), academic
worship of sacred cows favored by the scientific Establishment, and of course
POLITICS -- the mercenary business of getting funded and published. Science
IN PRACTICE is just like medieval RELIGION, except for its being
materialistic --money-grubbing-- instead of "spiritual."
The only people who extol Science as some sort of bias-free paradise for
Reason are either paid propagandists for the profession ("Every profession is
a conspiracy against the public"--GB Shaw) or else cockeyed optimists who
can't distinguish between the ideal and the real. One sign of myth passing
for reality is this "pop," subjectively-based reification of Scientific
Method -- in which professional scientists have more grounding and about
which they're consequently more humble. "Scientific Method" is aimed at
DISPROVING hypotheses, NOT "proving" them -- i.e., at EXCLUDING certain
variables as "causative" (correlative, to be more precise) of observable
effects. There's a taboo about daring to state that anything is TRUE -- one
can only safely state what is NOT true, being dis-proven. Well and good if
you're looking to eliminate possible variables and narrow the field for
further research (i.e., for more tightly-focused DIS-proving), but in complex
systems like the organic, there are just TOO MANY VARIABLES to ever be
individually addressed (much less to be restricted to "laboratory
conditions," a highly ARTIFICIAL and by definition OUT OF CONTEXT situation!.
More must be EXCLUDED from the equation than could ever be subjected to
"testing," and any real "causes" of a phenomenon will consequently be among
those variables that ELUDE confinement under "laboratory conditions." Hence
Scientific Method ceases to be accurate, or even MEANINGFUL, beyond a certain
narrow scale and range of propositions where there exists an unrepresentative
lack of complexity and synergistic function. It's the method itself which
predisposes toward MECHANISTIC explanations, because "Science" is by
definition technically incapable of addressing any phenomena that are more
complex -- e.g., phenomena such as Life. Everything must fit too neatly into
a Procrustean bed.
Not that I'm knocking "science," defined as an IDEAL, just CRITIQUING it, in
terms of its methodological limitations -- limitations which are glossed over
by laymen lacking laboratory experience and by the general public that's
encouraged to have FAITH in it rather than fully understand how it works ...
In earning my degree in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, I had the good
fortune to have as my curriculum advisor Dr Stanley Bailis, editor of a
"holistic" interdisciplinary journal for scientific theoreticians, who
required us to take a semester of courses which analyzed the NATURE of
so-called "Science," from fundamental propositions to methodological
problems, and beyond.
This was NOT an effort to "debunk" such things as Evolution (which, alas, has
been turned into some "pop science" oversimplification, presumably by design,
for "the masses") but a truly SCIENTIFIC examination of the field, holding it
to high standards -- higher than those which many "experts" have, they being
often irrational in vainglory
and capable of unscrupulous behavior such as plagiarism and falsification of
results.
(Besides, being an authority in one discrete field of practice --name any--
in no wise qualifies one to speak as an authority on SCIENCE -- or even to
UNDERSTAND it!)
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Das GOAT [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 99-08-23 00:21:13 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old paradigms,not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you? Capital B Baloney. You obviously have not studied Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," which describes -- and cites numerous examples of -- the very opposite. As a rule, paradigms in science change only when the old-fart "authorities" who stubbornly, in defiance of reason, defend them --exactly like medieval theologians emotionally over-invested in DOGMAS, as a matter of FAITH-- finally die off -- giving way to a younger generation not so much entrenched in fossilized, by-now dubious beliefs. Kuhn was entertaining, but is irrelevant in a world of instantaneous communications. Anyone paying the slightest attention to the physical, biological and cognitive sciences would note scads of paradigm shifts in the last decade. Virtually EVERY technical book more than a couple years old is OBSOLETE - THAT shows how fast paradigms shift in science. Read some of the sci.* newsgroups to get a taste of reality. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- This is an excellent observation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- In a message dated 8/23/99 12:21:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old paradigms,not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you? I don't know where you read science journals at but this is just plain wrong. Reputable scientists with new theories are often ridiculed and put down, without even a proper hearing, if their theories do not jibe with those of the people in positions of power in the scientific establishment. When a person is prevented from publishing and getting "peer review" then, in effect, their career is doomed. This takes place regularly, and with conviction. People are routinely prevented from publishing when they have something to say which greatly contradicts the current paradigm. With that said, it is an entrenched system like most others and is not likely to change any time soon. Science is not bad, it is good and has enabled us to understand the world around us like never before, and I'm all for the further (well thought out) use of it in the future, and for every possible advance. Furthermore, I don't deny evolution I just think alternative viewpoints should be allowed a hearing. JUST BECAUSE SOME SCIENTIST SAYS SOMETHING IS SO, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS, EVEN IF A BUNCH OF OTHER SCIENTISTS THINK IT IS TOO. Other theories, or speculations, or notions, as you are wont to call them, should be examined and allowed a fair airing. If they are rubbish the rational will reject them, covering them up, ignoring them, refusing them a hearing, or ridiculing them just makes them seem more attractive to some members of society, most particularly the fundamentalist Christianity that is imbued in conspiracy theory today. By thrusting it in a corner they unwittingly give it more weight. Why do you think there has always been such interest in the Kennedy assassination? Let the record speak and present all views and let the rational man (or woman) make their decision. The rest, well they'll think what they want to anyway. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 8/23/99 12:21:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old paradigms,not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you? I don't know where you read science journals at but this is just plain wrong. Reputable scientists with new theories are often ridiculed and put down, without even a proper hearing, if their theories do not jibe with those of the people in positions of power in the scientific establishment. When a person is prevented from publishing and getting "peer review" then, in effect, their career is doomed. This takes place regularly, and with conviction. People are routinely prevented from publishing when they have something to say which greatly contradicts the current paradigm. With that said, it is an entrenched system like most others and is not likely to change any time soon. Science is not bad, it is good and has enabled us to understand the world around us like never before, and I'm all for the further (well thought out) use of it in the future, and for every possible advance. Furthermore, I don't deny evolution I just think alternative viewpoints should be allowed a hearing. JUST BECAUSE SOME SCIENTIST SAYS SOMETHING IS SO, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS, EVEN IF A BUNCH OF OTHER SCIENTISTS THINK IT IS TOO. Other theories, or speculations, or notions, as you are wont to call them, should be examined and allowed a fair airing. If they are rubbish the rational will reject them, covering them up, ignoring them, refusing them a hearing, or ridiculing them just makes them seem more attractive to some members of society, most particularly the fundamentalist Christianity that is imbued in conspiracy theory today. By thrusting it in a corner they unwittingly give it more weight. Why do you think there has always been such interest in the Kennedy assassination? Let the record speak and present all views and let the rational man (or woman) make their decision. The rest, well they'll think what they want to anyway. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-08-16 01:32:11 EDT, Ric Carter writes: Dogs, wolves and foxes can all interbreed. Their DNA is nearly identical. Their common ancestry is obvious. Humans and other great apes (bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans) all share similar DNA, to within 95-98%. Our common ancestry is undeniable. All known primates share similar behavior patterns too, showing the similarity of our DNA reflected in our mental structures. You may believe what you wish, but evoluionary biology is supported by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most usable model we have thus far. If you have a better explanation, one that's testable and more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out. I do not believe I have ever heard of Darwin's theory being put to the test. I have not read of anyone putting nonorganic chemicals in a bell jar and creating organic life . That would be a true test of the theory. The mathematical probability of this happening is astronomical to say the least: Dr. Thomas Kindell, a noted-biostatistician, explains that "the double helix shape of a DNA molecule consists of two strands of sugars and phosphates. These are connected together by nucleotides arranged like the steps of a spiral ladder". Dr. Kindell goes on to explain, that a single molecule of DNA has over 1000 nucleotides. The chemical bonds that join each rung to the DNA "ladder" have a 1 in 2 chance of having the proper orientation. Thus to calculate the probability of DNA accidentally forming one must multiply the independent probability for each rung. The statistical probability that a single molecule of DNA could form by chance works out to be 2 to the 1000th power or 10 to the power of 300. This number is larger than the quantity of all the protons, electrons and neutrons around every atom in the universe. "This is just one DNA molecule, much more is needed to get cellular metabolism and autonomous replication," advises Kindell. Proponents of the theory that inorganic materials accidentally organized themselves into living organisms draw upon Sir James Jeans' (monkeys producing all the books in the British museum) argument that given enough time, anything can happen. Has there been enough time? Accepting Carl Sagan's estimate that the universe is 20 billion years old, Dr. Kindell demonstrates that if we allowed 100 trillion events to take place in every electron around every atom in the universe once every second for 20 billion years we would still only reach 10 to the 114th power events. The number 10 to the 300th power more than exceeds the quantity of events that could possibly have taken place in space and time. We can be absolutely certain that life is not the product of chance. nok nok Is this thing on? Hey, look at the common DNA, the behavioral and structural similarities, and come up with a better explanation than common ancestry, eh? Did an infinitely complex deity create humans and other primates so they just LOOK like they have common ancestry, common genetics? Dogma of evolutionists? Gimmee a BREAK!! Those arguing for magickal creationism wrap themselves in dogma; evolution is a testable theory, hotly debeate and and undergoing continuous revision, in flux l\ike no explanation of life has ever been, challenged and tested and verified as no dogma has ever been. That's how science works: test every idea, see if it works. If it works, it survives. If not, it's shitcanned. Dogmatic ideas survive despite being worthy of shitcanning. That's why we still have religions and conspiratorialists. What you believe is irrelevant to observable reality. We can observe evolution too. Evolution is [among other things] the survival of change over time. Go to a microbiology lab, look in a microscope, watch bacteria cross-fertilize and change and evolve before your very eyes. New strains of influenza evolve constantly, with tremendous effects on human communities - some live, some die. "Think of it as evolution in action." --D.Niven Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say: The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. Derek V. Ager writes in "The Nature of the Fossil Record": It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Tureman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruther's Zaphrentis delanovei, have now been 'debunked'. Nope, a stone cold fact. Have you ever taken and passed a biology course? Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you attack evolution? Obviously biology is taught from an
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ric Carter writes: You may believe what you wish, but evolutionary biology is supported by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most usable model we have thus far. If you have a better explanation, one that's testable and more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out. I do not believe I have ever heard of Darwin's theory being put to the test. I have not read of anyone putting nonorganic chemicals in a bell jar and creating organic life . That would be a true test of the theory. You are confusing evolution [the survival of change over time, driven by mechanisms such as (but not limited to) natural selection], with abiogenesis [the origin of life from non-living components]. The deliberate muddying of these two separate subjects is a favorite tactic of creationists and other sophists. Evolution has been observed, can be observed in any microbiology lab, is indisputable; the mechanisms of evolution are still debatable, and our understanding of the processes of biological evolution continues to evolve; but evolution happens. Similarly, gravity exists; there is a lively debate over the mechanisms of gravity - curved space? graviton particles and anti-particles? - but as with biological evolution, there's no doubt that gravity happens. Arguing against biological evolution is about as useful as arguing against gravity. Abiogenesis also exists, as been replicated in labs, in work going back 45 years and continuing today. Urey and Miller showed in 1954 that the chemicals necessary for life can arise in nonbiological environments - no deities or aliens need be invoked. Priogene showed in 1976 that prebiological chemicals self-organize into more complex systems; and other chaos/complexity researchers since then have shown that systems tend to self-organize into greater complexity, given an input of energy - no deities or aliens are necessary. And a German team reported a few weeks ago of non- living organic structures organizing into reproducing entities - artificial life. Abiogenesis happens. Your argument is bogus. The mathematical probability of this happening is astronomical to say the least: "Everything is unlikely, yet things happen anyway." (me) Arguing against the unliklihood of abiogenesis is a favorite tactic of cretinists and other sophists, to instill confusion about the laws of large numbers. The probability that the sum-over-time of ALL events in history have occurred so as to give rise to ANY current event is vanishingly small. But somehow, events manage to occur. MIRACLE!! MIRACLE!! Nope - given enough events, things happen. And things tend to happen in more and more complex ways, simply because there's a lower bound on simplicity but no upper bound on complexity. That complex systems arise from semi-random processes is surprising only to those who don't pay attention. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- The real problem with this whole issue is not whether Evolution is true or Creationism is true. The real problem is the recalcitrance of the scientific community and their inability to give fair hearing to alternative viewpoints, particularly when those viewpoints differ greatly from paradigms that they hold sacred. This is true of all scientists and is especially so among the soft sciences, which Anthropology is one. It is true for everyone, to one degree or another. However, where these scientists are concerned their objectivity and willingness to apply new theories and test new hypotheses should be a given, and expected, but it sadly is not. The system of science is the root of the thing, meaning that those who are in control of the establishment control all those who are members, and demand conformity of those who would become one of them. Thus when a radical new idea is presented it is rejected without consideration, in most cases, and usually ridiculed as well. This is a sorry state of affairs, and anyone who would deny it should just get there fat head out of their ass, and take a real look around. Personally I believe that evolution does take place in some manner and in some ways, the extent of which is unknown to me. There is certainly change within species. I do find it hard to believe that species evolve into other species. I don't feel any better or worse about creationism, but clearly evolution cannot explain how life originated, except to beg the question and say that it occurred by chance and "anything" can happen if given enough time. What a load of bull! There must be an attempt made in order to achieve a result or action, in other words for nucleotides and complex proteins to even join together they must be attempting to do so and trying various combinations repeatedly, over and over again for Millions or Billions of years. Sounds like purpose, or there may be an intelligence behind it. BUT, attacking the faults in Evolution is not PROOF of creation. Creation CANNOT be proved any more than evolution can. The system and the establishment are what need to be attacked in order to beget change, not the theories of that system. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [CTRL] [SC] Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution The real problem with this whole issue is not whether Evolution is true or Creationism is true. The real problem is the recalcitrance of the scientific community and their inability to give fair hearing to alter- native viewpoints, particularly when those viewpoints differ greatly from paradigms that they hold sacred. Science deals with workable explanations, testable explanations that are supported by the preponderance of data. Creationism is not testable and is of no use as an explanation. Evolution was accepted by the vast majority of workers in biological research, after decades of debates with creationists, because evolutionary theory offers models that map better onto observable reality than do creationist notions. And your characterizations about scientific paradigms are absurd and totally inaccurate. Scientists make their reputations by squashing old paradigms,not worshipping them - by establishing new paradigms, not abjuring them. You've never read a scientific journal, have you? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
