mrshowrules:

I think he is claiming that the idea of evolution is racist. The idea that humans evolving from the same common ancestor as apes is somehow racist.

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. Yet influential as Haeckel was among scientists, his general impact was even greater... His major popular work Weltratsel ("The Riddle of the Universe"; 1899), was among the most spectacular successes in the history of printing. It sold 100,000 copies in its first year, went through ten editions by 1919, was translated into twenty-five languages, and had sold almost half a million copies in Germany alone by 1933. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Bevets: mrshowrules:

I think he is claiming that the idea of evolution is racist. The idea that humans evolving from the same common ancestor as apes is somehow racist.

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. Yet influential as Haeckel was among scientists, his general impact was even greater... His major popular work Weltratsel ("The Riddle of the Universe"; 1899), was among the most spectacular successes in the history of printing. It sold 100,000 copies in its first year, went through ten editions by 1919, was translated into twenty-five languages, and had sold almost half a million copies in Germany alone by 1933. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

You have been informed previously that quote mining is an inherently dishonest practice. Your continued use of the practice demonstrates that you are dishonest and, as such, that you are not a credible source of information. Additionally, your reliance upon the fallacy of appealing to adverse consequence does not falsify the validity of the theory of evolution.

Bevets, you are a demonstrable liar and you are relying upon inherently fallacious argumentation. Your arguments, therefore, are not credible.

Minus1Kelvin: keylock71: Your views have been given a fair hearing... numerous times. The final decision is that they are not based on science and don't belong in a science class.

THIS. They've been put through the test and they failed to provide anything useful. I'm sorry it is so difficult for you that your idea lost. Either figure out how to provide new data that's actually demonstrable, verifiable, and falsifiable or accept that your belief is not science.

They've gone to court and been biatch slapped when it was revealed they were intentionally changing "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" in their books to make it seem less religious based... Something their main spokesman says they have to do in order to get religion back into public schools.

Why they can't be content to have their views taught in a comparative religion class is beyond me... yet, here we are again discussing another moronic ideologue trying to get their religious nonsense taught as science.

Bevets: mrshowrules:

I think he is claiming that the idea of evolution is racist. The idea that humans evolving from the same common ancestor as apes is somehow racist.

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. Yet influential as Haeckel was among scientists, his general impact was even greater... His major popular work Weltratsel ("The Riddle of the Universe"; 1899), was among the most spectacular successes in the history of printing. It sold 100,000 copies in its first year, went through ten editions by 1919, was translated into twenty-five languages, and had sold almost half a million copies in Germany alone by 1933. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

We should follow an idealogy that has never been associated with racial concepts or racism. Like Christianity perhaps? Christians have always taken the high-road on this subject. Amirite.

You do realize that race is not even a scientific concept? It is a construct of religion and politics and not of science. On a genetic level, race does not even exist?

heinekenftw: Dimensio: You have been informed previously that quote mining is an inherently dishonest practice. Your continued use of the practice demonstrates that you are dishonest and, as such, that you are not a credible source of information. Additionally, your reliance upon the fallacy of appealing to adverse consequence does not falsify the validity of the theory of evolution.

Give up on him. He's been told that quote mining is wrong in every single evolution thread he's popped up in in the last few years. He's not going to get the point.

Bevets, like many creationists, is lying in an attempt to convince individuals who may be unaware that his claims are lies. Continually identifying his false claims as lies and his fallacious arguments as invalid serves to warn new readers that his assertions are demonstrably false and fallacious and that he is not a credible source of information.

Bevets: Phillip Johnson

Yay, I knew you couldn't resist going to the DI tards eventually.

The Discovery Institute is a right-wing thinktank founded by Christian fundamentalists (it even has a not-so-subtle, cross-like appearance for a logo) and funded by the Republican Party, used to lobby for Creationist thought and doctrine. It popularized the term "Teach the Controversy" in what they refer to as the Wedge Strategy, by insisting that the public debate on evolution is unsettled and that there are valid alternative theories (but really just one: Creationism). They are attempting to bypass the normal channels of accredited scientific inquiry:

1) conduct experiments
2) publish scientific papers
3) let those papers be scrutinized and those experiments duplicated by peers (peer-review)
4) if they pass they get printed up in journals and magazines for laymen
5) After about 20 years of this solid testing, experimentation and exploration backed by evidence and peer-review, the science goes for review to be inserted into highschool textbooks.

The main thrust of the motives of the Discovery Institute is to bypass the first four steps and insert Intelligent Design doctrine directly into schools now. Today. At once. This is not only wrong and dangerous, it is bordering on criminal.

For these reasons, The Discovery Institute is NOT a scientific institution. It has not done any science. It has NO accredited papers, journals or research, and its modus operandi is to finance specious studies -- usually in layman book form, the lowest form of science -- to advocate theological agendas. It is miscalculation, speculative nonsense, God in scientific clothing, fringe crackpot junk pseudoscience, the phrenology of biology. Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and everyone else at the Discovery Institute are essentially frauds.

Bevets: My issue is not that my view is not taught. My issue is that competing views are taught. If we are going to address the topic of origin of life in the public classroom, we need to acknowledge that the topic is inescapably intertwined with metaphysics and we need to examine various metaphysical positons. We could ignore the origin of life topic completely -- that would be boring. If we do address the topic, I dont have a preference for venue. It can be Biology, History, Philosophy, or wood shop -- as long as my view is permitted a fair hearing. ~ Bevets

This is a great point: We should teach all sides.

We can start with this:



and then this:



and this:



and this:



we also can't forget about this:



and of course this:



and if we got time, maybe this:



but especially this, because the controversy wasn't properly taught 1700 years ago:



Yes, we should teach ALL SIDES, and let the kids choose their beliefs.

lennavan: mrshowrules: You do realize that race is not even a scientific concept? It is a construct of religion and politics and not of science. On a genetic level, race does not even exist?

[citation needed]

I'm trying my best to find a citation but it is very difficult. First of all, I can't find a scientific or genetic definition of race.

Secondly, I can find any scientist who has been able to show genetic markers identifying people into the sociological/cultural categories of race.

Other than colour and appear, I can't even find a list of traits defining particular races. Even political/social categories of race are unclear.

Let's take some cultural not scientific categores of race. Black/African and White/Caucasion. When scientist look at thes groups genetically, they see more genetic variation (range) within the groups than comparing the "average" genetic norms across the groups. For practical purposes that means those groups/samples are artificial. Would you like some citation on that because there is a shiatload.

Different genetic traits have tremendous scientific signifiance in biology and medicine and psychology. Problem is that even these traits don't reliably map on to any arbitrary definition of what constitutes a particular race. Hell even skin tone (the most obvious trait) doesn't map reliably on to cultural category of what is considered "race". Race/genetics go together like astrology/astronomy.

What element would you like a citation for?

Bevets:

Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson

My issue is not that my view is not taught. My issue is that competing views are taught. If we are going to address the topic of origin of life in the public classroom, we need to acknowledge that the topic is inescapably intertwined with metaphysics and we need to examine various metaphysical positons. We could ignore the origin of life topic completely -- that would be boring. If we do address the topic, I dont have a preference for venue. It can be Biology, History, Philosophy, or wood shop -- as long as my view is permitted a fair hearing.

keylock71:

Why you can't be content to have your views taught in a comparative religion class is beyond me... yet, here we are again discussing another moronic ideologue trying to get your religious nonsense taught as science.

Bevets: Why you can't be content to have your views taught in a comparative religion class is beyond me... yet, here we are again discussing another moronic ideologue trying to get your religious nonsense taught as science.

Yeah, I see enough of your nonsense in threads... I don't need to go to your shiatty blog to read more nonsense.

So your HTML effort, much like your crusade, is useless.

colon_pow: keylock71: Bevets:

So your HTML effort, much like your crusade, is useless.

you're wrong about that. bevets is unarguably a legend, and an inspiration to many. Jesus was referring to people like him in Matthew 10:22.

I don't remember the beatitude that started, "Blessed are the intellectually dishonest..."

But, seriously, I don't hate him for his views. I mock him for his views.

The Homer Tax: Bevets: Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence.

What evidence is there to support ID or Creationism? Difficulty: in Science, "evidence" involves a testable hypothesis and repeatable results.

Dude, he's got a whole bunch of quotes from... himself.

If that isn't evidence, I don't know what is.

The Homer Tax: Bevets: If we are going to address the topic of origin of life in the public classroom,

We're talking about Evolutionary Biology, not the origin of life.

Holy fark, do you not even grasp the basics of the argument that you've based your entire persona around? Your life actually means *less* than we've all thought? That must suck.

Bevets has been informed previously that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. His continued conflation of the two subjects is prima facie proof of his dishonesty. Consequently, his claims are not credible.

lennavan: mrshowrules: Secondly, I can find any scientist who has been able to show genetic markers identifying people into the sociological/cultural categories of race.

Look into medicine for evidence of biological variability among races that likely has a basis in genetics, not academic science. Race seems to a variable in predicting outcomes for various drug treatments and so on.

mrshowrules: What element would you like a citation for?

None really. But the fact that our skin color is different says that biologically we are different. I don't think you can find any scientist or biologist (worth a damn that is) who is willing to say there is zero difference genetically amongst the races. There's a difference and medically it's probably relevant. Future studies...

I mentionned medicine. Wealth and lifestyle also have bearing on the success of medical treatment. When they look at "race" the are really looking at ancestral groups. Specific genetic traits are predominant it people from certain geographic backgrounds who followed simialry migration patterns (e.g., descendants of American slaves). This should not be confused with the concept of race which no definition in genetics. A predominance of a particular type fo trait amongst people with thed same ancestral background in not the same as a genetic profile or even collection of traits common to a "race". There has been no scientific utility identified in trying to categorize people biologically that way.

There is no inventory of traits in biology/genetics that say if you have A, B and C you are this race. It doesn't exist in science.
There is no taxonomy for race in biology and there are no specific defition of which race is which.

Reposting (with a slight tweak) from the recently pulled third thread on the topic....

Look, fundies. God has done a boatload in the history of existence. Stuff that's not in the Bible, which, oh by the way, hasn't been added to in nearly two thousand years. To quote a song I happen to like, "Now I ain't sayin' that the Bible was wrong, but you see the whole tale would've taken too long!"

I have no problem saying God started everything, I don't. Might have even played a part in evolution. But you all have to realize two things about the topic at hand.

1. Teaching a religiously-based theory in a public school means, by most interpretations of the First Amendment, that you have to teach ALL religiously-based theories of evolution, no matter how loopy or sacrilegious they may be in your eyes.
2. Even if you get past the discouragement of #1, you're still stuck with having to prove how man has pulled off Mendelian genetics experiments and made new creations because of it. Because if God allowed that sort of evolution, who's to say God didn't also allow us to evolve from other creatures?