parmandjack said:
umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated...
If you were actually "initiated" or had any inkling of what you were talking about, you would know the term
evolutionism refers to a philosophical position popular in mid-to-late 19th century anthropology and sociology (including its cruder manifestations as Social Darwinism, from which we get the term "survival of the fittest" --- a term that Darwin himself never used). It has nothing to do with biology per se, and cannot be reasonably applied to the broad range of individuals that you are attempting to label.
Evolutionism was later supplanted by structuralism (a la Levi-Strauss), which itself was supplanted by poststructuralism (a la Derrida). Ironically enough, poststructuralism is increasingly giving way to a more dynamic, non-unilinear model of sociocultural evolution as outlined by thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas, North Alfred Whitehead, and Ken Wilber.
The modern use of "evolutionism" by so-called "creationists" is a fantasy devised by fundamentalist scientists and philosophers that have a desire to try and "even the playing field" by portraying the biological theory of evolution as some type of metaphysical ideology --- which, as any sane scientist will tell you, it is not. Most of these individuals have no idea as to the content of evolutionism's original meaning, as a form of unilinear sociocultural progress.
I did note the use of the dreaded "L-word" to denigrate one's detractor, however. Always a surefire sign that the speaker is more concerned with ideology than statistical evidence.
parmandjack said:
...they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...
nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God
This position is typical of many "creationists", and evinces a fair degree of transference on the part of the critic. It is, in essence, an attempt to collapse "evolution" and "atheism" into some sort of bastard child that science most definately does not espouse.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but in the 8 or so natural science courses I've taken (between two high schools and two colleges), not once was I ever presented with the notion that the theory of evolution "negates" God --- although God is not "required" for evolutionary theory to work --- nor, does it negate anything necessarily religious or supernatural in nature.
In fact, there is no philosophical or metaphysical content to evolution whatsoever. It neither supports nor refutes the existence of God.
You also seem to be collapsing Big Bang Theory (the province of physics) and the Theory of Evolution (the province of biology). Again, no big surprise here.
parmandjack said:
...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science
Before you go around calling me a liar --- which, by the way, is considering
sniping and very much against MartialTalk's code of conduct --- I would suggest you get your facts straight.
First off, all theories are "unproven". But, the point you seem to be missing, is that a theory is a really big deal in science. Our knowledge of cells is also an "unproven theory". We refer to it as the Cell Theory. A theory is simply a time-tested hypothesis. In no way are they unquestionable "facts", but they also are far more than speculative ideas devoid of scientific evidence (which is the common argument that "creationists" like to call upon).
Secondly, your notion that evolutionary theory is presented as "fact" is not something that agrees with my personal experiences in science. Even in my philosophy class (which was very sympathetic to theism), evolution was always presented as fluid theory that may be supplanted in the future.
Perhaps you could draw some citations from reputable journals or institutions that have presented the theory as such?? While you're at it, why don't you draw specific quotations as to who on this board has presented evolutionary theory as "fact"??
parmandjack said:
why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?
Communal confirmation (or rejection), a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Karl Popper called it falsifiability.
So-called "creation science" has been overwhelmingly rejected by peer-reviewed scientific panels and journals. Conspiracist speculations concerning the great "atheist agenda" can be called upon, but these have no supporting evidence --- and, in fact, fly in the face that the vast majority of scientists in the world are Christians.
Of course, as with your speculations on "unproven theories", all this simply indicates you don't have a very solid grasp of the scientific method. I would suggest reading a little Thomas Kuhn before arguing specific theories.
parmandjack said:
... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...
Sure, evolutionary theory is under attack by members of the "scientific community" that have never tested their findings before peer-reviewed panels or journals without being flat-out rejected.
Listen, just because a few scientists on the fringes of their respective disciplines are "attacking" evolutionary theory does not mean they have anything resembling a solid case. What is required in science is communal verification of evidence. These "creation scientists" have overwhelmingly failed this criteria time and time again.
If every hypothesis in science expounded by a handful individuals was valid, without recourse to communal verfication, then the discipline would be an absolute mess. Anyone with a degree could put forward ideas without having to "prove" them to their peers. There is a reason they do things the way they do.
parmandjack said:
Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...
You have yet to evince this "great deal" of understanding. You perpetually demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific understanding of both theory and falsifiability. Attributing this ignorance to "common verbiage" doesn't change this.
Also, since you are specifically talking about the field of science and its criteria, yet decline from using said field's definitions it is rather disingenous to make claims that you are trying to speak to the "common man".
parmanjdack said:
Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.
Last time I checked, convincing a like-minded neophyte is not a valid substitute for convincing a peer-reviewed scientific panel. This is something your "origins scientists" have yet to do.
parmandjack said:
... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...
Okay, no you are leaping into the realm of the absurd.
If my analysis of the Dark Ages is correct, you is your original statement still valid. This is basically akin to saying, "well, you make an excellent point --- but I'm still right, even though I don't have the evidence to support my position".
Last time I checked, ideological rigidity does not trump hard evidence.
parmandjack said:
As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.
I'm afraid your collapsing concepts. Again.
The brutal and violent oppression of all intellectual "competition" in the Dark Ages cannot be compared to scientific criteria for falsifiability. Just because you believe something to be true --- and the vast majority of the scientific community does not --- does not mean you are a victim.
And, to note, your "data" has yet to be verified --- at least not by any peer-reviewed panel.
parmandjack said:
...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.
Its actually quite sober. "Science" did not spread through Christianity, it spread through secular humanism during the Renaissance and Age of Reason (precisely as a reaction against traditional religion). Before this time, "science" was severely frowned upon by the Church (re: Galileo).
Simply uttering your beliefs over and over does not make them any more true.
parmandjack said:
... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.
Of course you're not interested --- because it actually has factual support.
The simple truth is that "science" is flourishing just as well in non-Christian nations like Japan as it is anywhere else. Your notion that science is "brain-dead" in non-Christian societies is just flat-out untrue.
parmandjack said:
.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews..
Sources, please.
parmandjack said:
however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution
Ah, the good old conspiracist speculation that there is a "secular atheist agenda" to stamp out those poor wittle "creationists". Just ignore that there is no evidence to support these ideas --- and the fact that the vast majority of scientists are Christian.
parmandjack said:
I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...
You made this claim once before, on another thread. It was equally dismissed then, too.
Same old song. The "well, I have proof but I can't show it to you because you're obviously not good enough to understand it" argument doesn't fool anybody here.
Simple problem is that by refusing to show proof you are failing the burden of proof. Ergo, your speculations must be concluded to be full of poppycock.
Heh. Laterz.
