<p>So again,</p>
<p>Why not ID for every other major scientific theory? Why are organic molecules so much more important?</p>
<p>Woodwork, what I am suggesting is that v. Sternberg is a false martyr. There’s absolutely no evidence that he was actually retaliated against in any way, but he stridently claimed to have been - presumably to advance the cause he rather transparently claims not to champion. </p>
<p>Even the McCarthy-esque “special counsel” found:
Darn those sneaky anti-creationists at NCSE - denying him the opportunity to mecome a martyr for thecause by refusing to retaliate against him. Definitely politburo-esque, wouldn’t you agree?</p>
<p>The best the highly politicized Special Counsel could come up with (after concluding that no laws were broken) were e-mails which indicated that scientists affiliated with the Smithsonian were (a) ticked off that v. Sternberg had (apparently deliberately) circumvented the usual processes used to vet material before publication, (b) felt he had published an article which was based on shoddy work, and (c) were embarassed to be associated with the guy who engineered the scam. Is it “retaliation” to write: “the paper is a sheer disaster We are evolutionary biologists, and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods, USA…?” </p>
<p>How would you expect scientists associated with the organization to feel about being associated with a guy who published the biological equivalent of a paper explaining that the world is actually flat? Yes, they were embarassed and ticked off, and made no bones about it. But ultimately they decided to hold their noses and look the other way.</p>
<p>Most of the publications who condemned what they thought had happened relied on the inaccurate report of the Klinghofer article published on the Op page of the WSJ, not realizing that it was replete with inaccuracies and misleading innuendo and completely failed to present the Smithsonian’s side of the story. </p>
<p>Tell me, exactly what were the “politburo” actions you decrie? Writing e-mails saying how much of a jerk the other scientists thought v. Sternberg was? Not wanting to be associated with him by being named as his “sponsor”? (but sucking it up and doing it anyway?) Practically a gulag, huh?</p>
<p>This sad, sad and hopeless thread anger and fear mitigated by nothing more than optimism and wishes (a good start, nonetheless).</p>
<p>bneg, haven’t missed your posts (where are you going to school…pm me if you don’t care to broadcast it to the intelligentsia).
Driver…well, you already know–what more can I add?
Woodwork…see you soon–2 more weeks
my own bed!</p>
<p>All the rest…happy trails and good luck to you and your interesting, peculiar and hyper-modern faith!</p>
<p>In the end, we will know in which wonderful ways we differed (Rumi said that long ago, and I concur 700 years later with hope and conviction) though some think of the end as the end Im in it for the long haul.</p>
<p>UCLAri, i don’t understand your post, but i would rather try to answer than leave you thinking that we are ignoring you again and again. correct me if i’m wrong, are you asking that why don’t we argue about how chemistry and physics are also designed and stuff right?? well, if that’s the case, here’s a response: first of all, whether we apply the concept of a designer to one or all realms in science has no relevance to the validity of ID. Secondly, you’ve noted something interesting: if ID was merely a religious/political movement (again, there is no need in judging the theory by the proponents nor source of funding, wherever that came from), ID proponents would push ID in ALL aspects of science. The fact that it is NOT, the fact that ID is to be taught along with evolution proves that ID is just there to balance the metaphysics implied in evolution. It makes sense: if it is going to be hard to get rid of all the implied atheistic beliefs, then maybe we can just teach another assumption to raise awareness that ‘there is no creator’ is simply metaphysics, simply not science, simply not supported by the fact that life forms have changed since the creation of life. </p>
<p>There i’m done!! whew, I will take a break from this thread, for most posters right now are more interested in a raw-force verbal battle than a discussion. And when that dies down eventually, hopefully (like the trio) and we have new, valid and respectful ideas posted by posters who HAVE ACTUALLY CAREFULLY READ or have not deliberately ignored the arguments, i guess we will be very willing to come back for more DISCUSSION…and boy has it been a long time since we’ve had one of those. </p>
<p>Goodbye to all those who have cared to listen!!! And God bless!!</p>
<p>bneg, fountain siren, driver, woodwork,
It’s been fun trying. I don’t think we ever will get certain questions answered, but oh, well. (Interesting links back there, UCLAri, even though they didn’t answer the question driver and I were asking) I am retiring from this thread for awhile, too. Thanksgiving is coming, and I have a son coming home to visit. Lots of food to get ready!</p>
<p>Have fun, all. :-)</p>
<p>Sigh…
<a href=“Loading...”>Loading...;
<a href=“http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm[/url]”>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm</a></p>
<p>Sigh…
</p>
<p>Sigh…
<a href=“http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/12499058.htm[/url]”>http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/12499058.htm</a></p>
<h2><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html</a></h2>
<p>“Great is truth, and mighty above all things.”</p>
<p>And Woodwork, since martyr Sternberg’s pitiful story leans heavily on purportedly “independent” verification, it’s worth noting the anything-but-independent nature of the OSC, which appears to have been converted into an enforcement arm of the right wing of the Republican Party under Bush’s appointee: see <a href=“http://www.alternet.org/rights/22000/[/url]”>http://www.alternet.org/rights/22000/</a> for a discussion of the operation of this agency and the nature of the political appointees (including McVay) under the Bush administration. </p>
<p>Without knowing anything about the claimed “peer review” - other than it wasn’t by the peers at the publication - it’s hard to tell if they were also shills or not. Either way, the whole affair just looks like a publicity stunt to me.</p>
<p>since most of this controversy centers around highschool biology, ill just concentrate on it</p>
<p>biology teaches us evolution because it is happening all around us, it really is. Survival of the fittest is evident everywhere</p>
<p>whether evolution started life, that is a whole another story… and that aspect of evolution is never really touched upon in highschool curriculum. It is barely mentioned at all. </p>
<p>When evolution is talked about in school, it is more focused on genetics, mutations, disease immunity rather than the “creation of life”. Many people mistake that evolution in schools is soley based on the “creation of life”, it’s not. In highschool curriculum, it barely touches that. </p>
<p>Besides, most of the time we are concentrating on other topics such as protein synthesis, DNA transcription, cellular respiration, human anatomy, and all that other good stuff</p>
<p>"since most of this controversy centers around highschool biology, ill just concentrate on it</p>
<p>biology teaches us evolution because it is happening all around us, it really is. Survival of the fittest is evident everywhere</p>
<p>whether evolution started life, that is a whole another story… and that aspect of evolution is never really touched upon in highschool curriculum. It is barely mentioned at all. </p>
<p>When evolution is talked about in school, it is more focused on genetics, mutations, disease immunity rather than the “creation of life”. Many people mistake that evolution in schools is soley based on the “creation of life”, it’s not. In highschool curriculum, it barely touches that. </p>
<p>Besides, most of the time we are concentrating on other topics such as protein synthesis, DNA transcription, cellular respiration, human anatomy, and all that other good stuff"</p>
<p>Uhh, great, but you’re barely scratching the surface here. A bried overview: ID asserts that life is too comlex to have evolved via a darwinistic process, hence its “specified complexity”, and “irreducible complexity”. Research those and come back later. </p>
<p>Evolution (you might want to read up on this) asserts that ID is pseudoscience and dogma, because it’s not scientifically falsifiable, although if you ask me, one only need apply rudimentary logic to see the eminent flaes in it. Really, it’s not beyond highschool science, but you still don’t want to add higschool science into your argument. not a good strategy.</p>
<p>FountainSiren: exactly is this thread sad? I doubt anyone came here with the mandate to change another’s mind, because obviously that person is bound to be severely disappointed. We’re all either obstinate preachers of evolution or ID here, and to have our minds changed by someone on the internet? what an absurd notion.</p>
<p>I’ve had my mind changed many times in debate online. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will be one of those times. However, being able to debate these issues improves my own understanding of my positions strengths and weaknesses. I’m very Millsian like that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bneg,</p>
<p>Tell me, how can something be secular if it has to do with God/a higher being?</p>
<p>HOW CAN ID BE FALSIFIED???</p>
<p>Life arising from natural conditions and evolving does nothing to contradict a Creator.</p>
<p>:) I don’t want to put words in other people’s mouths, but I think ilah0421’s whole point was that the entire controversy thing is way overblown by fundies, and that high school barely touches on the creation of life as is. I think you might be disagreeing with someone who’s already on your side!</p>
<p>sorry to interrupt, but could an ID supporter tell me what exactly does it offer besides ‘there must be a greater force’? Does it lay out an alternate solution to evolution with documented evidence? Does it have a scientific foundation on which to base its claims other that supposition? I’m not trying to be rude, I really want to know</p>
<p>Can’t resist the comment: The US of A now have our own, Trofim Denisovic Lysenko and his adherents.</p>
<p>“I’ve had my mind changed many times in debate online.”</p>
<p>I have too, politics-wise. I think almost everyone on here is well read enough on ID to know what side he/she’s on though.</p>
<p>“I don’t want to put words in other people’s mouths, but I think ilah0421’s whole point was that the entire controversy thing is way overblown by fundies, and that high school barely touches on the creation of life as is. I think you might be disagreeing with someone who’s already on your side!”</p>
<p>who’s disagreeing? I was just saying how his argument wasn’t all that relevant.</p>
<p>Hey hows this for intelligent design…who thought this up ???</p>
<p><a href=“Botany | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History”>Botany | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History;
<p>the titan arum is now 51.4 inches tall</p>
<p>People who believe in intelligent design must also believe god is a practical joker…scratch a dog under the chin and his back legs start wiggin out. There must be a reason but I am not smart enough to see it.</p>
<p>LOL, I’ve never tried that. It would be awesome if god was a practical joker too. Why don’t any religions give god a sense of humor?</p>
<p>It’s good to know that the designer is so intelligently intervening to mutate bird flu into more deadly forms.</p>
<p>So instead of Intelligent Design shuold we call it “Smart-Funny Design”…hey how about “Quirky Design” …god as a Univ of Chicago grad…yeah …oh wait…it might not be god. …hey like Alanis Morrisette in Dogma.</p>
<p>In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, whom I usually think is an idiot, turns out not to be an idiot.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html</a></p>
<p>This is the concluding paragraph:</p>
<p>“How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.”</p>