Tossing Those Terms Around

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Run from what???? You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

The evolution of species by natural selection.

Now......refute it!!!!!

I'm not interested in your piecemeal attempts......either list the three or four principles that identify Darwin's theory, or get lost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

And you haven't disproven it.

Start here.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Run from what???? You haven't stated what Darwin's theory is.

I'm afraid of nothing.....I'm fearless.....and always right.


You, on the other hand simply run and hide when challenged to post what you imagine Darwinism is.


Get an education, grow a spine, and drop back.

The evolution of species by natural selection.

Now......refute it!!!!!

I'm not interested in your piecemeal attempts......either list the three or four principles that identify Darwin's theory, or get lost.

Refute the one I posted........if you dare.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Whether or not this is dispositive as to the value or harmful nature of the teaching of Darwinism, results of before and after are enlightening.

“In the final episode of PBS’s television series, the narrator states that for decades after the 1925 Scopes trial “Darwin seemed to be locked out of America’s public schools.” When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, in 1957, according to the narrator, Darwin was restored to the curriculum and “long- neglected science programs were revived in America’s classrooms.”

Yet during the supposedly benighted decades between 1925 and 1957, American schools produced more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world put together. And in physiology and medicine—the fields that should have been most stunted by a neglect of Darwinism—the U.S. produced fully twice as many Nobel laureates as all other countries combined. Obviously, biomedical science does just fine without Darwinism." “Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution,” Chapter 7. Available online (April 2006) at: This site is under development.



“Chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote in The Scientist that his “own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.” Skell had “recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”

After reviewing the major biological discoveries of the twentieth century, Skell concluded: “I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.” Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 19:16 Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/.



Soooo.....why is Darwin's theory de rigueur in government school?

There is a great value to teaching the failed theory of Darwin…..but that value is not to science.

 

[Hollie]

"When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, in 1957, according to the narrator, Darwin was restored to the curriculum and “long- neglected science programs were revived in America’s classrooms.”

Science back in classroom.

I guess Arks can't fly.

Yet during the supposedly benighted decades between 1925 and 1957, American schools produced more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world put together.

Government school graduates?

Thanks for confirming the failures you home skoolurs inflict on yourselves

 

[Hollie]

12. Whether or not this is dispositive as to the value or harmful nature of the teaching of Darwinism, results of before and after are enlightening.

“In the final episode of PBS’s television series, the narrator states that for decades after the 1925 Scopes trial “Darwin seemed to be locked out of America’s public schools.” When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, in 1957, according to the narrator, Darwin was restored to the curriculum and “long- neglected science programs were revived in America’s classrooms.”

Yet during the supposedly benighted decades between 1925 and 1957, American schools produced more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world put together. And in physiology and medicine—the fields that should have been most stunted by a neglect of Darwinism—the U.S. produced fully twice as many Nobel laureates as all other countries combined. Obviously, biomedical science does just fine without Darwinism." “Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution,” Chapter 7. Available online (April 2006) at: This site is under development.



“Chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote in The Scientist that his “own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.” Skell had “recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”

After reviewing the major biological discoveries of the twentieth century, Skell concluded: “I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.” Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 19:16 Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/.



Soooo.....why is Darwin's theory de rigueur in government school?

There is a great value to teaching the failed theory of Darwin…..but that value is not to science.

Soooo....you cut and pasted an opinion <----note the bolded text for added drama.

Your next series of cut and pasted ''quotes'' should include your obligatory Berlinski, Meyer and Kenyon ''quotes''.

The Disco'tute hacks are a staple of your cutting and pasting so don't disappoint us.

It's always a laugh when religionism is confused for science by the hyper-religious.

 

[ReinyDays]

Pray tell ... Miss PoliticalChic ... what scientific theory do you offer that better explains the emergence of MRSA ... other than "DemoNazis" ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pray tell ... Miss PoliticalChic ... what scientific theory do you offer that better explains the emergence of MRSA ... other than "DemoNazis" ...

haha, stop being mean. He is never going to answer that. You are just embarrassing him.

 

[ReinyDays]

haha, stop being mean. He is never going to answer that. You are just embarrassing him.

No ... I'm interested ... there should be competing theories about all this ... scientific method is an adversarial process ... there's supposed to be people saying "evolution is wrong because [this] is correct" ... like James Maxwell did about force ...

 

[Hollie]

12. Whether or not this is dispositive as to the value or harmful nature of the teaching of Darwinism, results of before and after are enlightening.

“In the final episode of PBS’s television series, the narrator states that for decades after the 1925 Scopes trial “Darwin seemed to be locked out of America’s public schools.” When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, in 1957, according to the narrator, Darwin was restored to the curriculum and “long- neglected science programs were revived in America’s classrooms.”

Yet during the supposedly benighted decades between 1925 and 1957, American schools produced more Nobel Prize winners than the rest of the world put together. And in physiology and medicine—the fields that should have been most stunted by a neglect of Darwinism—the U.S. produced fully twice as many Nobel laureates as all other countries combined. Obviously, biomedical science does just fine without Darwinism." “Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution,” Chapter 7. Available online (April 2006) at: This site is under development.



“Chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote in The Scientist that his “own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.” Skell had “recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”

After reviewing the major biological discoveries of the twentieth century, Skell concluded: “I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.” Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 19:16 Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/.



Soooo.....why is Darwin's theory de rigueur in government school?

There is a great value to teaching the failed theory of Darwin…..but that value is not to science.

It’s an unfortunate circumstance that the hyper religious tend to be science illiterates.

One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved

Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. Her research could now be used to predict which species...

www.sciencedaily.com

Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death.

And, I’ll include a “quote”

van Holstein said: "We are standing on the shoulders of giants. In Chapter 3 of On the Origin of Species Darwin said animal lineages with more species should also contain more 'varieties'. Subspecies is the modern definition. My research investigating the relationship between species and the variety of subspecies proves that sub-species play a critical role in long-term evolutionary dynamics and in future evolution of species. And they always have, which is what Darwin suspected when he was defining what a species actually was."


There are terms used that the home skoolurs won’t understand so if you have questions, raise your hand and I’ll try to help.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

haha, stop being mean. He is never going to answer that. You are just embarrassing him.

No ... I'm interested ... there should be competing theories about all this ... scientific method is an adversarial process ... there's supposed to be people saying "evolution is wrong because [this] is correct" ... like James Maxwell did about force ...

Oh, you're right, of course. But the fraud OP is not going to give you an alternative hypothesis. We have tried. Many times. Yet another reason to know for a fact that this fraud couldn't summarize any of these arguments in his own words if his life depended on it.