Devolutionary Density
The only theory that fills in all the holes is ... Intelligent Design. ID is not a science. Neither is Darwinian Evolution. DE has no more physical evidence to support it than does ID.
Why do Darwinians spend such effort to discount the philosophy/theory of Designists? I guess I am not reading enough of the Designists themselves. Maybe they are using ID as code speak for "Gawd." Stupid if they are. ID stands on its own feet without any need for religion or superstition.
I suppose Darwinians cannot imagine an intelligent designer other than some sort of angry old white guy in the sky. So much creativity and suspension of disbelief goes into leaping across the millions of missing evolutionary links that there is no brainpower left to consider a non-corporeal force with cognitive abilities and the capacity to shape the elements.
Religionizers see a demon behind every bush.
Darwinians see Charlton Heston in robes behind every idea outside their narrow scope.
So the adventure of being the reasonably intelligent layman is that I can grasp what the experts say, but have trouble regurgitating their stuff for others.
Some IDologists might be claiming ID as a "science," and they are wrong ... as I stated, above. DEists cannot connect the dots of so-called evidence (zero transitional forms in the fossil record ... zero) but claim DE as a science, and it is not.
Science is observable, and reproducible. No scientist has observed macroevolution, and none can reproduce it. Neither can IDologists. Carbon dating does not prove the age of fossils and other evidence. Carbon is only one of many elements that can be used for dating (although humans are typically more fun), and all yield different results. Age-testing one specimen with five different elements produces five different scores, and those very widely spread. A 9 million year old jawbone can also read as less than 3,000 years old. So, why use carbon? Because it brought back the result the theory expected. Sound familiar? "Because the Bible says so" is a pathetic "proof." So is using the dating method that was chosen for fitting Darwinian theory.
When some of us who state, pretty clearly, that the ID theory better explains the variables and holes, DE people quickly point out that ID is not "science" (yup, copped to that already) and that they have "scriptures" (contradictory and unverifiable bits of "evidence") to back up their claims.
Darwinian Evolution is a theory. It is riddled with holes, but it also has some puzzle pieces for exhibition. Intelligent Design is a theory. It has geological and thermodynamic "evidence" to trot out and display, but nothing "conclusive." This is why both are THEORIES.
Comparing ID to Astrology and DE to Astronomy is "spin." DE is not "science," even if most (but not all) scientists put so much faith into it. A better comparison is to show a picture of someone lecturing on Tarot Cards and Palmistry, or Astrology and Numerology.
The swagger of Bible-thumpers is ridiculous. Arrogance from the junk-science crowd is not much (if any) less silly.
Until Darwinism is proven and is no longer a theory, it is nonsense to teach it as "fact" and deny any competing theory. If teaching theory is wrong, then take evolution out of the classroom.
Sadly, most of the ID scientists (Ph.D. types) ARE religious (but, still accomplished scientists) and they report their findings of fact in a casserole of science and religion. I have to pick out the "bones" of superstition to get to the "meat" of science ... but the science is there. If you decide to take a walk on the wild side, you will get a snootful of religion, and that is unpleasant ... but if you do not consider the other side at all, your own opinion is suspect and uninformed.
You will not research it though. You found the faith you are comfortable with and elect to tie the loose ends together with belief. People do it all the time. But to monopolize school time and funds indoctrinating students in one "side" of an undecided issue, especially when being ignorant of the (science aspects of) other side is immoral and irresponsible.
My point is not that anyone's belief is right or wrong. My point is about equal time, reasoned debate, and due diligence.
(Posted as a comment at http://justorb.com/)
Why do Darwinians spend such effort to discount the philosophy/theory of Designists? I guess I am not reading enough of the Designists themselves. Maybe they are using ID as code speak for "Gawd." Stupid if they are. ID stands on its own feet without any need for religion or superstition.
I suppose Darwinians cannot imagine an intelligent designer other than some sort of angry old white guy in the sky. So much creativity and suspension of disbelief goes into leaping across the millions of missing evolutionary links that there is no brainpower left to consider a non-corporeal force with cognitive abilities and the capacity to shape the elements.
Religionizers see a demon behind every bush.
Darwinians see Charlton Heston in robes behind every idea outside their narrow scope.
So the adventure of being the reasonably intelligent layman is that I can grasp what the experts say, but have trouble regurgitating their stuff for others.
Some IDologists might be claiming ID as a "science," and they are wrong ... as I stated, above. DEists cannot connect the dots of so-called evidence (zero transitional forms in the fossil record ... zero) but claim DE as a science, and it is not.
Science is observable, and reproducible. No scientist has observed macroevolution, and none can reproduce it. Neither can IDologists. Carbon dating does not prove the age of fossils and other evidence. Carbon is only one of many elements that can be used for dating (although humans are typically more fun), and all yield different results. Age-testing one specimen with five different elements produces five different scores, and those very widely spread. A 9 million year old jawbone can also read as less than 3,000 years old. So, why use carbon? Because it brought back the result the theory expected. Sound familiar? "Because the Bible says so" is a pathetic "proof." So is using the dating method that was chosen for fitting Darwinian theory.
When some of us who state, pretty clearly, that the ID theory better explains the variables and holes, DE people quickly point out that ID is not "science" (yup, copped to that already) and that they have "scriptures" (contradictory and unverifiable bits of "evidence") to back up their claims.
Darwinian Evolution is a theory. It is riddled with holes, but it also has some puzzle pieces for exhibition. Intelligent Design is a theory. It has geological and thermodynamic "evidence" to trot out and display, but nothing "conclusive." This is why both are THEORIES.
Comparing ID to Astrology and DE to Astronomy is "spin." DE is not "science," even if most (but not all) scientists put so much faith into it. A better comparison is to show a picture of someone lecturing on Tarot Cards and Palmistry, or Astrology and Numerology.
The swagger of Bible-thumpers is ridiculous. Arrogance from the junk-science crowd is not much (if any) less silly.
Until Darwinism is proven and is no longer a theory, it is nonsense to teach it as "fact" and deny any competing theory. If teaching theory is wrong, then take evolution out of the classroom.
Sadly, most of the ID scientists (Ph.D. types) ARE religious (but, still accomplished scientists) and they report their findings of fact in a casserole of science and religion. I have to pick out the "bones" of superstition to get to the "meat" of science ... but the science is there. If you decide to take a walk on the wild side, you will get a snootful of religion, and that is unpleasant ... but if you do not consider the other side at all, your own opinion is suspect and uninformed.
You will not research it though. You found the faith you are comfortable with and elect to tie the loose ends together with belief. People do it all the time. But to monopolize school time and funds indoctrinating students in one "side" of an undecided issue, especially when being ignorant of the (science aspects of) other side is immoral and irresponsible.
My point is not that anyone's belief is right or wrong. My point is about equal time, reasoned debate, and due diligence.
(Posted as a comment at http://justorb.com/)
posted by Author | 8:52 PM
|
0 comments
