In other words since you cannot answer the questions regarding the scientific validity of either Creationism or Intelligent Design, you calling them irrelevant.
Its useless even trying to discuss the adequacies of either theory with you. You refuse to address the questions regarding the veracity of the theory or provide support for these theories. My entire point has been that if ID or creationism fit within the rubric of a scientific theory then they could be taught in a science or biology class. Going through each theory, and the permutations thereof, it is painfully obvious that neither are scientific theories. Therefore it is entirely inappropriate for these theories to be taught in science or biology classes taught in public schools. If parents do not want their kids to be taught science or biology (since evolution is the basis of biology) they are free to withdraw their children from public school -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:50 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > 1) Without addressing the logic I laid out below, whatever > questions you > posed directly to me are irrelevant, because without > addressing the logic, > you haven't gotten pass the basics. > > 2) All of your great research below, and it is very good, is, > again, a kind > of circular logic. The closed society of scientists will > eviscerate any > other scientists who dares question their dogma, so they don't get > published. Publication, or lack of it, proves nothing, > because you've first > got to get past the gatekeepers of the dogma to get > published. Furthermore, > even if granting the stipulation granted below (meaning no > evidence so far), > lack of publication again proves nothing. At one time, there > were no papers > published proving that cigarettes cause cancer; so, ergo, by > your logic, > studying cigarettes as a cancer causing agent wasn't a valid > field of study. > > All I'm saying is, stop being so closed minded. That seems to be the > scientific way these days -- if you question the dogma you > must be a cretin > (that's you're favorite word for people who question your > dogma, isn't it?) > > H. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:35 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > No I ignore dogma. I also posed a series of questions regarding the > scientific viability of either Intelligent Design and > Creationism. This was > several days ago. I am still waiting for your response. > Instead they were > ignored. It seems that all you are interested in is parroting > dogma, not in > discussion. Therefore, discussing the issue with you is useless. > > Let me restate these questions, do either the Intelligent Design or > Creationism theories fit within the definitions of a > scientific theory? > Where is the support of either. > > I'm make it easy on you. Let me answer the second one - This > is taken from > The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory by George W > Gilchrist from the National Center for Science Education website > (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_sc > ientific_basis > _o_3_16_2001.asp) > > If intelligent design theory is a viable alternative to > evolutionary theory, > then scientists must be using it to devise tests and to > interpret patterns > in the data they collect. What sense would there be in > presenting an idea as > a scientific theory if the idea were not actually used by working > scientists? The importance of a scientific theory is not > related to its > popularity with the general public, but to its utility in > directing research > and explaining observations within a particular field of > study (Kuhn 1962). > For example, millions of people read their horoscopes each day, but > astrology plays no role in directing research by astronomers or > psychologists. Astrology, therefore, is not discussed in > science textbooks > except in a historical context. Because professional > scientists must publish > their work to retain their jobs and to obtain funding, the > relative status > of intelligent design theory and evolutionary theory can be > assessed by > comparing their frequency of usage in the professional scientific > literature. > > To compare the scientific literature on evolution and > intelligent design, I > used five different computerized databases that catalog scientific > periodicals, books, and reports. I searched each database for > the keywords > "intelligent design" and "evolution". BIOSIS (1997, > Biological Abstracts, > Inc.) is the online version of Biological Abstracts and > covers approximately > 6000 journals in the life sciences. The Expanded Academic Index (1997, > Information Access Co.) indexes and abstracts 1500 scholarly > and general > interest periodicals, covering all major fields of study in > the humanities, > social sciences, and science and technology. The Life > Sciences Collection > (1997, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts) indexes 200 journals > in all fields of > biology. Medline (1997, National Library of Medicine) indexes > over 3700 > journals in the health and life sciences. Finally, the > Science Citation > Index (1996, Institute for Scientific Information) covers > over 5000 journals > in all fields of science. The expanded Academic Index covers > a broader range > of subjects and lists more general publications; the other > four indices list > primarily professional science publications and feature more technical > journals. The results of the searches are shown in Table 1. > > Table 1. Summary of literature search results for the terms > "intelligent AND > design" and "evolution" in five computerized indices. > > Index; Years; Intelligent Design; Evolution > > BIOSIS; 1991-97; 1; 68 832 > Expanded Academic Index; 1989-97; 30; 14 298 > Life Sciences Collection; 1982-97; 1; 45 963 > Medline; 1990-97; 1; 29 228 > Science Citation Index; 1992-95; 4; 10 333 > > Although Davis and Kenyon may claim that intelligent design > represents a > viable alternative to neodarwinian evolution, the scientific > literature does > not support that claim. Compared with several thousand papers > on evolution, > the combined searches produced only 37 citations containing > the keyword > "intelligent design." A closer look at those 37 references > suggests that > none reports scientific research using intelligent design as > a biological > theory. "Intelligent Design" popped up most frequently in the > index with the > broadest range of topics, the Expanded Academic Index. Of the > 30 articles, > 12 were articles on computer software or hardware, eight were on > architectural or engineering design, two were on advertising > art, and one > was on literature. The remaining seven were about biology; five were > discussions of the debate over using Pandas by various school > boards, and > two were comments on Michael Behe's (1996) book in a > Christian magazine. > > The four papers in the Science Citation Index were all about > engineering or > welding technology. The single paper in the Life Science's > Collection was > about computer methods used to analyze particulate air > pollution. The single > paper in Medline was about bioengineering drugs with high > thermal stability. > The single paper in BIOSIS was about a computer-controlled system for > manufacturing fertilizer. This search of several hundred > thousand scientific > reports published over several years failed to discover a > single instance of > biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's > diversity. It is worth noting that although Davis and Kenyon are both > professional scientists, neither has apparently published > anything in the > professional literature about their theory. > > In all fairness, the number of references found using > "evolution" surely > overestimates the number of papers about biological evolution > since the word > "evolution" is widely used among academics to describe > directional change. > This is especially a problem in a diverse database, such as > the Expanded > Academic Index, which lists popular periodicals as well as research > publications. For this index, I narrowed the search by > specifying "evolution > AND research" as subjects. This eliminated most of the non-scientific > entries and brought the number of citations down from over 14 > 000 to 6935. > This index, however, lists far fewer primary research > publications than the > other, more specialized professional indices referenced here. > > Indices such as BIOSIS limit their citations to those in the science > literature and so should provide a better estimate of the frequency of > studies on evolution. BIOSIS applies a code to each reference > indicating its > intellectual scope. The code "CC01500" is applied to articles on > "...philosophical, theoretical, and experimental studies on > the origins of > life, natural selection, phylogeny, speciation, and divergence." Thus, > articles categorized by this code deal in someway with > biological evolution. > Of the 68 832 articles found in BIOSIS (1991-1996) using the keyword > "evolution", 46 749 of them were assigned "CC01500" as their > major code. > Most of these papers were written by professional scientists > to communicate > their research efforts. Although popular authors such as > Michael Denton > (1986) and Phillip Johnson (1991) have published books > declaring Darwinism > to be dead, the data above suggest that the message apparently has not > reached professionals doing the actual science. > > End of story. There is no scientific support for Intelligent Design. > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:25 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > > > > Very convenient, Larry. > > > > Nothing you've said (I've read all your other posts this > > morning) pokes any > > of the logic I presented last night. > > > > Since you can't contradict the logic, you'll ignore it, I guess. > > > > H. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:24 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > > > > Its not even worth responding at this stage. > > > > -- > > Larry C. Lyons > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > EBStor.com > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > http://www.pacel.com > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > -- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:37 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Evolution and Education -- for Larry > > > > > > > > > While your missive for scientific rigor is admirable, it is > > > not without its > > > flaws. > > > > > > Let's stipulate (just for the purpose of discussion), that no > > > scientist who > > > even softly supports any manner of intelligent design theory > > > has been able > > > to prove a single thesis in support of intelligent design > > > (not a point I'm > > > conceding at this juncture). > > > > > > With that stipulation, we can still safely say that such a > > > lack of evidence > > > does not prove that God has not dipped his finger into the soup. > > > > > > Example: At one time, scientists had not yet proven that > > > cigarettes cause > > > cancer. > > > > > > At that time, would it have been logical to say, "It is not > > > proven that > > > cigarettes do not cause cancer; therefore, cigarettes do not > > > cause cancer." > > > > > > Of course that not a logical argument. It's an argument > supported by > > > ignorance, not by fact. > > > > > > So what you're saying is, "It has not been proven that a > > > creator mucked > > > about with evolution; therefore, a creator did not muck about with > > > evolution." > > > > > > Lack of evidence does not prove a theory in either direction. > > > > > > Well, you may object, the cancer causing nature of cigarettes is a > > > verifiable outcome; however, the touch of God is not > > > verifiable, therefore > > > it is not a valid field of study. > > > > > > Again, this violates basic logic. > > > > > > At best, you can say, "So far no scientific method has been > > found that > > > proves or disproves a supernatural phenomena; therefore, > > > scientists should > > > not try and find a way to study supernatural phenomena." > > > > > > You should be able to see that such reasoning is facially > illogical. > > > > > > In other words, the scientific method you are arguing for is > > > simply grand > > > circular logic. If ABC can't be proven, ABC shouldn't be > > > studied. It is a > > > system of reasoning designed to keep science a closed shop > > > impregnable by > > > any who dare question its orthodoxy. > > > > > > And by foisting this circular logic on our education system, > > > a cadre of > > > like-minded scientists are able to breed a form propaganda > > that imbues > > > impressionable young minds with a possibly false > > understanding of the > > > natural world. > > > > > > A final complaint: You seem to like to support a lot of your > > > claims by > > > referring to "creationist" or "creationism," which really > > > confuses the issue > > > since nobody here is in any manner advocating "creationism" > > > as the term is > > > commonly understood. I find this a disingenuous method to > > > avoid dealing > > > with the hard questions of the debate. > > > > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > > >If creationism, or Intelligent Design can fit within the > > > criteria of a > > > >scientific theory, then its appropriate to teach it in a > > > science class. > > > >Since both depend on religion, as far as I can see its just > > > another attempt > > > >by fundies to break the church state barrier. > > > > > > > >Remember a theory in science has to be able to be disproven by > > > contradictory > > > >evidence. Such as not happened. Where is the contradictory > > > evidence? simply > > > >put there is none. > > > > > > > >A competing theory must also provide a better explanation of > > > the existent > > > >data. Neither cretinism (pardon creationism) nor intelligent > > > design meet > > > >that criteria. Moreover there is no valid data that > support either > > > >creationism or intelligent design. > > > > > > > >Therefore creationism and are quite rightly dismissed. They > > > do not explain > > > >the findings of over a century of research. They do not > > > provide a better > > > >explanatory model, nor are they predictive as is the current > > > models of > > > >evolution. Given their inadequacies they are quite rightly > > > dismissed by the > > > >scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
