>Richard Wein wrote:[8/15/00]
>I think that when we use the word "propaganda", we generally mean it in a
>more pejorative sense, implying that the material so described is in some
>way misleading, even deceptive. Well, that's what I mean anyway. I think
>that the material produced by the ID movement achieves its goals to a large
>degree through deception. I make no comment, however, as to the extent to
>which this deception is practised consciously by ID proponents. I suspect
>they are often unaware of how deceptive they are being. My own experience
>suggests that ID proponents, like others who espouse crank theories, are
>blinded to facts and logic by the strength of their beliefs. Nevertheless,
>sometimes the deception is so blatant that this charitable interpretation is
>difficult to maintain.
David Bradbury:
> To which I add that the very same concerns (misleading, deceptive
>presentations; evolutionary proponents seemingly "blinded to facts and
>logic by the strength of their beliefs", etc.) are also equally
>troublesome to non-evolutionists. Such problems are invariably compounded
>by fuzzy or ambiguous definitions for terms used by both sides. Indeed, I
>again repeat that the great majority of ALL disagreement encountered
>within this newsgroup is reflective of, or at least significantly
>exacerbated by carelessly (possibly selective) imprecise semantics.
obviously I think the issues are far broader than that. Though definitions
might vary in some details, generally the evolutionists all know what is
meant by evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time
however, this is from the talk.origins faq:
>The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all
>organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called
>evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is
>often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And
>frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean
>natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.
you probably should read the whole thing. It might clear up some of the
confusion for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
it will also provide some of the hard evidence you still insist isn't there.
David:
>Evolutionists and non-evolutionists appear to have widely (and
>significantly) different meanings for any number of key terms. In many
>instances these are selective definitions adopted because they fit one's
>philosophical goals, rather than to provide clearcut, unambiguous meaning
>to key terms.
"You lie too!" isn't such a hot defense, you might want to rethink it.
"Macroevolution" means "speciation" among biologists. I'd like to know how
that furthers philosophical goals since speciation has been observed to
occur many times. "Macroevolution" among creationists usually means
theripsids turning into reptiles turning into mammals turning into
humans--a process which biologists usually refer to as "common descent."
David continues:
>More dogmatic (or trustingly misguided) evolutionists define "evolution",
>for instance, as simply being change in gene frequencies over time. But
>there are many different ways in which gene frequencies can change. Some
>are scientifically demonstrable ... as those leading to extinction, or
>those induced by artificial selection (breeding experiments) or even the
>everyday mixing and shuffling of genetic code pre-existing in a gene pool
>(more precisely termed "variation"). But the particular changes in gene
>frequencies necessary in biological macroevolution are not similarly
>verifiable... a fact invariably overlooked (deceptively ignored?) when
>evolutionists piggy-back on the above and make the grand statement that
>evolution is "scientific".
as I said above, speciation has been observed to occur. That is
macroevolution. If macroevolution has been occuring all through the history
of life then it will leave behind evidence that it has happened. That
evidence has also been collected and studied.
>Much the same problem exists in defining "science". Here however, as
>participants regularly cite the criteria of empirical "science" when
>describing what they accept by the term ... and specifically require
>non-evolutionary interpretations of the evidence to meet these standards
>if they seek to be considered "science" ... the evolutionists seldom, if
>ever, apply these criteria to their own favored evolutionary explanations.
oh really? Which explanations have no evidence supporting them? Which
explanations are mere assertions? Give me an example or two.
>Richard, just as you mention above your inability to get a specific
>example from IDers demonstrating successful fulfillment of their proposed
>confirmatory (scientific) method, I have had the identical experience with
>evolutionists. The need for such fulfillment of method is here well
>stated in a widely used biology text.
>
>"A good hypothesis must undergo testing. Only if there is a test can the
>scientist be certain his hypothesis is correct. Experimentation is a
>singular aspect of science. Make certain that students understand the
>need for and importance of this crucial part of the scientist's work."
>"To be of value or promise, a hypothesis must be subject to
>experimentation. A hypothesis which cannot be tested is of no
>significance." BIOLOGY: LIVING SYSTEMS, by Omar, Hummer & Smoot,
>Teachers Edition, Pg. 26, 1926
>
>And here I request of you, will you (can you) provide me with even a
>single example of evidence establishing biological macroevolution
>(hypothesis or theory) that has met this widely publicized and accepted
>standard? Lacking such example, by what other (non-experimental) criteria
>do evolutionists qualify macroevolution as "science"?
what sort of thing would you accept? Hypothesis: humans share a common
ancestor with chimpanzees. Our DNA should be very similar. It is, Chimp and
human DNA are 98% identical. We are also morphologically and behaviorally
very similar. If the hypothesis is true there should be fossil evidence
that exhibits features of both chimps and humans in the same individual.
There are many of them. Homo Erectus looks, to an untrained eye, like a
human and there is strong evidence that it made tools as we do. However,
closer examination finds a brain size partway between that of chimps and
humans. It also has several other mixtures of traits, some like humans and
some like apes. It lived at least a half-million years before the oldest
fossils of our own species is found. The further back in time you go the
hominid fossils look less and less like humans. This is all as would be
expected if common ancestory (what you call "macro" evolution) were true.
It is all confirming evidence.
That's a single example. There's more evidence than one individual can
examine in a lifetime. Do you need two examples?
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 15:32:11 EDT