Another Anti-Science Bill

Another Anti-Science Bill

There are 454 comments on the Okie Funk story from Feb 19, 2014, titled Another Anti-Science Bill. In it, Okie Funk reports that:

The Oklahoma House could consider a bill today that if signed into law would undermine science education in the state's classrooms, especially the teaching of evolution theory.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Okie Funk.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#264 Mar 20, 2014
Many evolutionists have openly acknowledged that their methods of scientific investigation are founded on an a priori committment to atheism. I posted a quote by Lewontin on the other thread, attesting to this fact. If you think he's an isolated example, I can post others. A belief in evolution is founded on the assumption that evolution must be true. Every obstacle that you encounter is answered by the simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma... "mutations + natural selection + millions of years". You do not subject your theories to any scientific scrutiny. You assume that evolution is true only because you assume that creative design is more implausible. In other words, you argue the validity of a "scientific" theory by your core rejection of God.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#265 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
Many evolutionists have openly acknowledged that their methods of scientific investigation are founded on an a priori committment to atheism.
SOME!
HTS wrote:
I posted a quote by Lewontin on the other thread, attesting to this fact.
It was one man's opinion.
HTS wrote:
If you think he's an isolated example, I can post others.
I've already addressed this.
HTS wrote:
A belief in evolution is founded on the assumption that evolution must be true.
It is not a belief. It is a conclusion based upon the available evidence.
HTS wrote:
Every obstacle that you encounter is answered by the simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma... "mutations + natural selection + millions of years".
BS.
HTS wrote:
You do not subject your theories to any scientific scrutiny.
More BS.
HTS wrote:
You assume that evolution is true only because you assume that creative design is more implausible.
It is more implausible because it lacks supporting evidence.
HTS wrote:
In other words, you argue the validity of a "scientific" theory by your core rejection of God.
Even *MORE* BS.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#266 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
Many evolutionists have openly acknowledged that their methods of scientific investigation are founded on an a priori committment to atheism. I posted a quote by Lewontin on the other thread, attesting to this fact. If you think he's an isolated example, I can post others.
Go ahead, We dare you.
HTS wrote:
A belief in evolution is founded on the assumption that evolution must be true.
No one on the science side "believes in evolution." We accept the science behind it. It,s a matter of EVIDENCE and a demonstrated FACT, not A PRIORI BELEIF, like your demented Jesus Freak creationism.
HTS wrote:
very obstacle that you encounter is answered by the simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma... "mutations + natural selection + millions of years".
That's a clear description of the mechanisms, not dogma like your sick Jesus Freak religion.
HTS wrote:
You do not subject your theories to any scientific scrutiny.
Evolution theory has been subjected to nothing BUT scientific scrutiny for 150 years, and has passed with flying colors.

If it's THAT easy to rebut, what's stopping you and your sleazy Jesus Freak friends from gaining worldwide fame and rich fortunes by proposing and proving ANOTHER set of mechanism explaining the diversity of biological species?

It's not like you haven't had plenty of time, right?
HTS wrote:
You assume that evolution is true only because you assume that creative design is more implausible.
No, we accept taht it is true because the overwhelming evidence in DNA and fossil records,e tc. all point to evolution, and NONE of it pints to instant special creation 6000 years ago by your silly Torturer God.
HTS wrote:
In other words, you argue the validity of a "scientific" theory by your core rejection of God.
Shall we quote you again and again and agin the voluminous support for evolution theory from other Christians and people of other religious faiths?

Why would such support exist if this were all an atheist plot to reject God?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#267 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
Many evolutionists have openly acknowledged that their methods of scientific investigation are founded on an a priori committment to atheism.
Confusing the opinions of individuals with the body of science. There are evolutionists with a whole range of beliefs...except YEC biblical literalism of course.
A belief in evolution is founded on the assumption that evolution must be true.
tautology a belief in anything is founded on the assumption that its true. But if its assumed to be true because evidence supports it, as is the case with evolution, that is very different from assuming it to be true on faith, as is the case with YEC.
Every obstacle that you encounter is answered by the simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma... "mutations + natural selection + millions of years".
Yes, that is how science works. Elegant unifying explanations that deal with an enormous range of observed phenomena. But there are no "obstacles" we know of. Merely questions not yet answered. You still have not offered a single example that evolution could not deal with conceptually. However, in many cases the phenomena you do present have not been investigated or there is insufficient fossil evidence to date.
You do not subject your theories to any scientific scrutiny. You assume that evolution is true only because you assume that creative design is more implausible. In other words, you argue the validity of a "scientific" theory by your core rejection of God.
Every hypothesis offered by biologists in evolution is scrutinised, attacked, dissected, chewed up and reconsidered.. You appear to be completely unaware of the debates over PE, out of Africa vs multi-regionalism, Haldane's dilemma, genetic drift, endosymbiosis, group selection, evolutionary psychology, and so on...and NONE of it relies on a "core rejection of God", nobody gives a toss. Private views are private, and do not affect the science.

What you mean to say is "core rejection of Genesis". Absolutely. Nobody can accept Genesis literally and understand evolution, geology, physics, or astronomy in anything like a modern context.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#268 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
Many evolutionists have openly acknowledged that their methods of scientific investigation are founded on an a priori committment to atheism. I posted a quote by Lewontin on the other thread, attesting to this fact. If you think he's an isolated example, I can post others. A belief in evolution is founded on the assumption that evolution must be true. Every obstacle that you encounter is answered by the simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma... "mutations + natural selection + millions of years". You do not subject your theories to any scientific scrutiny. You assume that evolution is true only because you assume that creative design is more implausible. In other words, you argue the validity of a "scientific" theory by your core rejection of God.
Just one problem - the theory of evolution itself has nothing to do with atheism.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#269 Mar 20, 2014
MikeF wrote:
I've already addressed this.
Everyone has already addressed everything.

All he's doing now is endlessly repeating arguments we debunked last year.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#270 Mar 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone has already addressed everything.
All he's doing now is endlessly repeating arguments we debunked last year.
Agreed.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#271 Mar 23, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Every hypothesis offered by biologists in evolution is scrutinised, attacked, dissected, chewed up and reconsidered.. You appear to be completely unaware of the debates over PE, out of Africa vs multi-regionalism, Haldane's dilemma, genetic drift, endosymbiosis, group selection, evolutionary psychology, and so on...and NONE of it relies on a "core rejection of God", nobody gives a toss. Private views are private, and do not affect the science.
What you mean to say is "core rejection of Genesis". Absolutely. Nobody can accept Genesis literally and understand evolution, geology, physics, or astronomy in anything like a modern context.
The "debates" to which you refer are only debates on MECHANISMS of evolution...not on whether or not evolution occurred.

Evolution doesn't just reject Genesis. It rejects intelligent design... Everything from an amorphous intelligent force to a personal beneficent god. That is why evolution is a tautology. It is assumed to be true because it's founding assumption is that intelligent design does not exist.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#272 Mar 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "debates" to which you refer are only debates on MECHANISMS of evolution...not on whether or not evolution occurred.
Evolution doesn't just reject Genesis. It rejects intelligent design... Everything from an amorphous intelligent force to a personal beneficent god. That is why evolution is a tautology. It is assumed to be true because it's founding assumption is that intelligent design does not exist.
You are correct in the statement that its only details of evolution that have any controversy in the scientific community and the veracity of the theory as a whole is not questioned. Even the mechanisms are not really under question, the details discussed are even more minor. Such as, given the enormous convergence found among 30+ species of dino / bird, where exactly did the split between dino and bird occur?

But this agreement on the fundamentals is not because scientists ASSUMED no intelligent design was necessary. Its because there is no aspect of evolution that has been found to require intelligent intervention (Behe's misguided efforts notwithstanding). Therefore it would be redundant to ASSUME intelligent intervention where none was necessary.

Whereas in abiogenesis, intelligent intervention is still a possible conjecture, but its not directly testable. The closest we can do would be to find a hard law of physics or chemistry that must be broken in order for the progression to occur. So really, the only path of investigation open to research is to look for a non-intelligent intervention pathway from organic chemistry to life, and if we fail to find one after trying all possibilities, the assumption of intelligent intervention arises by default.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#273 Mar 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "debates" to which you refer are only debates on MECHANISMS of evolution...not on whether or not evolution occurred.
Evolution doesn't just reject Genesis. It rejects intelligent design... Everything from an amorphous intelligent force to a personal beneficent god. That is why evolution is a tautology. It is assumed to be true because it's founding assumption is that intelligent design does not exist.
You don't even know what a tautology is. Even if it rejected an intelligence behind it (which it doesn't) that still wouldn't make it a tautology. It's now assumed to be true because of the evidence.

That you can't deal with.

Explain orthology Hooter.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#274 Mar 24, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

But this agreement on the fundamentals is not because scientists ASSUMED no intelligent design was necessary. Its because there is no aspect of evolution that has been found to require intelligent intervention (Behe's misguided efforts notwithstanding). Therefore it would be redundant to ASSUME intelligent intervention where none was necessary.
Whereas in abiogenesis, intelligent intervention is still a possible conjecture, but its not directly testable. The closest we can do would be to find a hard law of physics or chemistry that must be broken in order for the progression to occur. So really, the only path of investigation open to research is to look for a non-intelligent intervention pathway from organic chemistry to life, and if we fail to find one after trying all possibilities, the assumption of intelligent intervention arises by default.
"No aspect of evolution has been found to require intelligent intervention?"
Of course not,...because all obstacles, such as sea turtle migration, are automatically relegated to the unknown category with the ASSUMPTION that a naturalistic explanation exists, regardless of how implausible. That is why you think IC has been answered. You haven't answered anything. You assume that all unknowns can be explained by the dogmas of evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#275 Mar 24, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Whereas in abiogenesis, intelligent intervention is still a possible conjecture, but its not directly testable. The closest we can do would be to find a hard law of physics or chemistry that must be broken in order for the progression to occur. So really, the only path of investigation open to research is to look for a non-intelligent intervention pathway from organic chemistry to life, and if we fail to find one after trying all possibilities, the assumption of intelligent intervention arises by default.
At what point have "all possibilities" been tried?
Dawkins and other atheist stooges consistently mock creationists for giving up on the search for naturalistic explanations.
You will never give up on abiogenesis. You have not one shred of evidence that DNA can self organize. How many more years of wasted energy will need to transpire before you have tried all possibilities?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#276 Mar 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point have "all possibilities" been tried?
Dawkins and other atheist stooges consistently mock creationists for giving up on the search for naturalistic explanations.
You will never give up on abiogenesis. You have not one shred of evidence that DNA can self organize. How many more years of wasted energy will need to transpire before you have tried all possibilities?
It seems to me like for several THOUSAND years that you guys were the only game in town, and had more than ample opportunity to make the case for an explanation that requires a Supernatural agent.

Thus far however, you have not provided evidence needed that requires the inclusion of said agent.

Should you provide the scientific community with clear, objective evidence of this Supernatural Being, and evidence that His/Her/Its actions were instrumental in the creation of the universe, for the 'spark of life', or for any of the (supposed)'miracles' referred to in the Bible, I for one would be among the first to change my mind.

I *STILL* am open to the idea of a Supreme Being. YOU have not provided this clear, objective evidence for the existence of this Deity.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#277 Mar 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
"No aspect of evolution has been found to require intelligent intervention?"
Of course not,...because all obstacles, such as sea turtle migration, are automatically relegated to the unknown category with the ASSUMPTION that a naturalistic explanation exists, regardless of how implausible. That is why you think IC has been answered. You haven't answered anything. You assume that all unknowns can be explained by the dogmas of evolution.
We think IC has been answered because it has quite literally zero scientific backing. Therefore all your objections are rendered moot. Your objections are also rooted in the assumption that an intelligent agent is necessary. Yet you have zero evidence and even zero explanatory mechanisms. Your objections are also rooted in the assumption that intelligence is a "non-natural" and "non-materialistic" phenomenon, despite all evidence to the contrary. Ergo your argument is Goddidit with magic - a non-falsifiable non-scientific position.

Aside from your tendency to ignore all inconvenient posts, all this alone refutes anything you ever have to say.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#278 Mar 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point have "all possibilities" been tried?
Dawkins and other atheist stooges consistently mock creationists for giving up on the search for naturalistic explanations.
You will never give up on abiogenesis. You have not one shred of evidence that DNA can self organize. How many more years of wasted energy will need to transpire before you have tried all possibilities?
Of course DNA can self-organize. Every lifeform on planet Earth is an example of exactly that.

UNLESS you can provide evidence that any one of those lifeforms required intervention by invisible Jew wizards.

Explain orthology Hooter.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#279 Mar 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point have "all possibilities" been tried?
Dawkins and other atheist stooges consistently mock creationists for giving up on the search for naturalistic explanations.
You will never give up on abiogenesis. You have not one shred of evidence that DNA can self organize. How many more years of wasted energy will need to transpire before you have tried all possibilities?
I would consider giving it up once all reasonable possibilities that might apply have been tried and failed. That would be reasonable.

Why do you object?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#280 Mar 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would consider giving it up once all reasonable possibilities that might apply have been tried and failed. That would be reasonable.
Why do you object?
I agree with you in principle.
The problem is, many intellectuals grossly overstate what is known, and grossly understate biologic complexity.

Take for example the proposed evolution of powered flight in birds. I've heard all of the explanations, and they are nothing but unrealistic bedtime stories. Even if an evolving bird became fortuitously endowed with the correct anatomy and feathers, it could not fly without co-adaptive changes of instinct. Any suggestions as to how instincts always seem to evolve to match phenotypic changes?

What sort of responses do you post? You don't address the challenges. You point to the fossil record, or you make broad simplistic statements in an attempt to appeal to my imagination.

I would have far more respect for evolution is true biologic complexity was squarely acknowledged
HTS

Mandan, ND

#281 Mar 25, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course DNA can self-organize. Every lifeform on planet Earth is an example of exactly that.
You're an ignorant troll.
How many times do I need to explain to you that your repeated references to DNA self-organization are nothing of the kind. Every life form on the planet requires PRE-EXISTING DNA. We are talking about abiogenesis.

Dude, all of your posts are nothing but irrelevant distractions.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#282 Mar 25, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We think IC has been answered because it has quite literally zero scientific backing. Therefore all your objections are rendered moot. Your objections are also rooted in the assumption that an intelligent agent is necessary. Yet you have zero evidence and even zero explanatory mechanisms. Your objections are also rooted in the assumption that intelligence is a "non-natural" and "non-materialistic" phenomenon, despite all evidence to the contrary. Ergo your argument is Goddidit with magic - a non-falsifiable non-scientific position.
Aside from your tendency to ignore all inconvenient posts, all this alone refutes anything you ever have to say.
Explain orthology Hooter.
You have zero evidence that evolutiondidit. Your objections are all rooted in the assumption of atheism.
Your repetitive arguments that evolutiondidit with magic is non-falsifiable and unscientific.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#283 Mar 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would consider giving it up once all reasonable possibilities that might apply have been tried and failed. That would be reasonable.
Why do you object?
When are you going to give up on abiogenesis?
Do you seriously think a naturalistic explanation for the origin of a genetic code is within the reach of chance?
Do you have ANY scientific evidence that would lead one to believe in such a phenomenon?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oklahoma Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Oklahoma landlord to pay $800,000 to resolve se... 19 hr Bob Up 2
News Oklahoma college board member chided for anti-g... Tue chide on 1
News Record Number Of Bikers Deliver Presents To OKC... Mon troopA 1
IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read o... (Jul '07) Dec 8 seektruth 18,907
News OSBI: Investigating the Investigators (Apr '10) Dec 7 his wife 95
News The Latest: Prisons chief: Halfway house closur... Dec 5 MAGA 3
News Body cam footage shows night Oklahoma legislato... Dec 5 shocknawe 1
More from around the web