Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[IanC]

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in after the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

"If they believe in some higher power, good for them....Creationism is inconsistent with reality."

A distinction without a difference.
Clearly, if God exists, i.e., 'some higher power,'....then he is the Creator.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In response to the question posed..... yes.

I won't bother to explain why. If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.

Can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen, essentially, the very same post!

It always means one of the following:

1. The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science….but doesn’t want anyone to know that.
2. The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isn’t toeing the party line.
3. The poster couldn’t comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

So that I may address you correctly….which of the above apply?

You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn. You are here to argue, so, there is no point in giving into your pointless charade which everyone can see through. If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you would research it instead of ask people on a political debate forum.

"You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn."

This post of yours truly gave me a chuckle.....it is a knee-slapper, if unintentionally so.


I've seen your posts....gone over them carefully with my SEM, in fact.....looking for any hint of intelligence.
To date: none.

The idea of looking toward one of your ability in order "to learn"?????

As I said....a knee-slapper.

 

[Truthmatters]

how christiany of you PC

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in after the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.

I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science.


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

how christiany of you PC

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
John Keats


Now, have a beautiful Sunday, Ms. Truthie.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are a terrible christain

 

[editec]

I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.

Now it seems, since the RW has brought the fundamentalists into their fold, they've had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra about why species have come and gone over time.

Politics not only makes for strange bedfellows, it also forces partisans to march in lockstep even to the point where what they believed in the past they must stop believing if it offends their bedfellows.


How weak is that?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a terrible christain

I notice the astounding consistency: your conclusion in this area is as informed as it is in every one of your posts.


But...your grammar is markedly improved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.

Now it seems, since the RW has brought the fundamentalists into their fold, they've had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra about why species have come and gone over time.

Politics not only makes for strange bedfellows, it also forces partisans to march in lockstep even to the point where what they believed in the past they must stop believing if it offends their bedfellows.


How weak is that?

If only you were as informed about the subject, you might hesitate to write about it.
Many, known as scientists, have " had to back down from his "survival of the fittest" mantra."




a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

d. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

e. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com




On the other hand, I applaud how astute you are to identify Darwinism with politics.
Have you seen this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html




Now....don't be afraid to consider all possibilities.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

 

[rdean]

Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.

Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.

Understanding communication didn't stop with Alexander Grahme Bell.

It only stands to reason that understanding evolution didn't stop with Darwin.

Yet, how many on the USMB quote Franklin, Curie or Bell? None I can think of.

Right wingers are "huh?" That doesn't even make any sense. Of course not. Not to them.

 

[newpolitics]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

ACtually, "God" isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, at best.

 

[Greenbeard]

I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.

Ironically, given the thesis of this thread, Marxism was in some respects a leftwing backlash against the excesses of rightwing Social Darwinism.

 

[newpolitics]

Can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen, essentially, the very same post!

It always means one of the following:

1. The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science….but doesn’t want anyone to know that.
2. The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isn’t toeing the party line.
3. The poster couldn’t comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

So that I may address you correctly….which of the above apply?

You are not interested in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn. You are here to argue, so, there is no point in giving into your pointless charade which everyone can see through. If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you would research it instead of ask people on a political debate forum.

"You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn."

This post of yours truly gave me a chuckle.....it is a knee-slapper, if unintentionally so.


I've seen your posts....gone over them carefully with my SEM, in fact.....looking for any hint of intelligence.
To date: none.

The idea of looking toward one of your ability in order "to learn"?????

As I said....a knee-slapper.

Yeah I don't really care. You're a buffoon. Anyone who could wrote something like the OP clearly is. You obviously think you're very smart, yet, you demonstrate over and over again, quite the opposite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

 

[rightwinger]

Only the most ignorant refer to evolution as 'a FACT.'

But, no revelation here.

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

An education gone to waste...

Columbia University sheds a collective tear today

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are not interested in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn. You are here to argue, so, there is no point in giving into your pointless charade which everyone can see through. If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you would research it instead of ask people on a political debate forum.

"You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn."

This post of yours truly gave me a chuckle.....it is a knee-slapper, if unintentionally so.


I've seen your posts....gone over them carefully with my SEM, in fact.....looking for any hint of intelligence.
To date: none.

The idea of looking toward one of your ability in order "to learn"?????

As I said....a knee-slapper.

Yeah I don't really care. You're a buffoon. Anyone who could wrote something like the OP clearly is. You obviously think you're very smart, yet, you demonstrate over and over again, quite the opposite.

Did you know that botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is useful to control your drooling, crossed eyes, and sweaty palms?

Just tryin’ to be helpful.