Kicking the Horse's Ass
I've met some people who talk out of both sides of their mouth but this takes the cake. I joined in a discussion about homeschooling after Nikki made assertions like this:
I do understand a parent embracing the homeschooling philosophy for several reasons. Control of curriculum and topics, friends, diet, convenience and school shootings to name only a few.
I know a lot of homeschoolers and controlling diet and friends doesn't even make the list. Besides the fact that she understands nothing about homeschooling she goes on to use some of the most inane sterotypes:
However, in my mind the decision to home school is made by control freak parents.
She gives no basis for said opinion other than she knows some homeschoolers. Apparently there is some magic number by which you draw a conlusion on a much wider group of people.
She continues:
The issue is the controlling aspect of what children are taught and the arrogant nature in which a parent deems their curriculum better or of a higher standard. While public schools are struggling, for the most part I think education today is better than it has ever been. Yet, we continue to complain about American competitiveness on a global scale. Breeding little compete-mongering children is not a good formula for society.
This contradictory statement makes little sense. On the one hand 'public schools are struggling' yet their 'better than they have ever been'.
It's also about our national security. Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.
LIFE is one competition after another. Is she serious when she says we shouldn't be breeding competition because that would make us look like fools on a global scale?
Pity the kid who never realizes that finding a job or getting a promotion is about competing against another employee. Hell even finding a spouse involves competition.
This came from a report made in 1983 about functional illiteracy in the US: (I realize it's dated but it still has value for today)
Knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce and are today spreading throughout the world as vigorously as miracle drugs, synthetic fertilizers, and blue jeans did earlier. If only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit of all--old and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we are entering.
and from CNN:
......here is the most astonishing statistic in the whole field of education: an increasing number of researchers are saying that nearly one out of three public high school students won't graduate, (not just in Shelbyville) but around the nation.
For Latinos and African-Americans, the rate approaches an alarming 50 percent. Virtually no community, small or large, rural or urban, has escaped the problem.
After making the invitation and suggesting she enjoyed opposing views she decided I was arrogant and posted the following at the top of her blog.
POUND THAT BLOODY DEAD HORSE
I'm confused...does she welcome opposing views or not?
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Brooke— 2008/08/19 @ 05:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/19 @ 06:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/08/19 @ 06:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/19 @ 09:17 AM — (Reply)
The whole thread asked more for agreement than information and I was sorry it was so condemnatory even after getting your good info, Elbro. Your passion is real and based on good experience and I'd ask that people remember not all schools are created equal and all parents deserve the right to make the decision they feel's best for their kid. That's not CONTROLLING, as was suggested. CONTROLLING is indoctrinating our kids in ways our parents would prefer stops and our parents having no recourse.
If anybody has the time and is interested in the pros and cons of homeschool and the kind of s(^*& you might get for considering it, you might want to read the linked thread.
Comment by Z— 2008/08/19 @ 11:29 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/08/19 @ 12:34 PM — (Reply)
How dare people want the best for their kids... How dare they!
Comment by FJ— 2008/08/19 @ 01:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/19 @ 01:46 PM — (Reply)
This woman is nothing but a whiny bitch. She posts a thread that's insulting to a hell of a lot of people who love their kids and just want to do the best they can for them, calls them control freaks for it, and then whines about how there are SOOOOO many people commenting, SOOOOOOO many peole who are mean because they disagree with her, SOOOOOOOOOO many people who DARE post opposing views and who DARE back them up with facts. And because these people are passionate about the topic and want to ensure that the truth gets out, they're obviously controlling and proving her point for her.
Get that straight, folks: if you disagree with this... ahem... woman and you dare debate your opposing viewpoint using facts, you're proving her point, and therefore, she wins the argument by virtue of posting nothing of factual or evidentiary value at all.
Comment by Nicki Fellenzer— 2008/08/19 @ 02:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/08/19 @ 03:12 PM — (Reply)
I have some friends that homeschool their kids...very successfully I might add.
Comment by EDGE— 2008/08/19 @ 04:27 PM — (Reply)
most of them are conservative too edge
Comment by elmers brother — 2008/08/19 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Homeschoolers and private school consistently outperform public school students. Choice in education is just as important as any other aspect of our lives.
Comment by kevin— 2008/08/20 @ 01:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/20 @ 02:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Burns— 2008/08/20 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
el bro, you are too right by far. i kept reading what was happening, i just could NOT respond. we were quite successful if i do say so myself. and their high school and university instructors agree.
if i had only known, all these years, that i could tell people they had my point for me by disagreeing i could have been soooo much more successful in my debating courses. thanks for exposing it for the rest of us, el bro!
Comment by heidianne jackson— 2008/08/21 @ 02:45 PM — (Reply)
I will admit that it's a rather odd technique but it did stop the conversation - simply declare it over
Nikki F. - thanks for voicing your support there as well
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/22 @ 05:32 AM — (Reply)
Elmer, I have been meaning to e-mail and commend you for the incredibly patient, reasoned, rational and consistently ignored FACTS you presented, again and again, in "her" comments section. It was a noble effort, Sir, obviously falling on intentionally deaf ears.
There you go! Exactly. Competition is unrealistic and evil... right? Riiiiiiiight... Nothing liberal about that espousal, eh? What a self-exposed faker!
IMHO, the only thing "she" was serious about was pushing a hot button issue, in an emotional, unbridled, completely unsupported, painfully unveiled attempt to garner massive traffic and attention.
Well, she got her got her proverbial '15 minutes'... and little more, besides deserved contempt. It sure illustrates the shallowness possessed to think that her readers, former, in this case at least, were so blind as to not see through it. I was disgusted to recognize the pattern of a childish eighth grade equivalent rant... pun fully intended. When she asked, in a comment at the blog, to be added to our bloglist, it was a distinct clue. (You will find our blog on no one's list that was not a spontaneous decision of the owner of said list... as it should be.)
One thing her post did accomplish, besides uncovering her true motives... it identified her equivalents, and those truly esteemed that are worthy of my time. I'm sure that would be deemed "elitist" at her address. So be it. This is one "snob" that will never darken her doorway again.
Very well done! Take best care, Sir.
Comment by Defiant_Infidel— 2008/08/21 @ 03:40 PM — (Reply)
soooooooooo, homeschooling parent's DON'T suck in bed?
whew!
wiggly
Comment by nanc— 2008/08/21 @ 05:54 PM — (Reply)
at least homeschool parents are the ONLY ones carrying the gunz to school!
arming
honest to pete - you still have the most obnoxious w.v. on the planet - almost like it knows what you're going to type...
Comment by nanc— 2008/08/21 @ 05:56 PM — (Reply)
I think there is truth to what you said DI. She got complimented on the 'number' of commments.
I can understand a willingness to agree to disagree when there is a basis for an opinion or when it is backed up by facts but that conversation was so very odd on her part.
She used such ambiguous terms and phrases:
'homeschoolers are not prepared for life's realities'
'homeschooling parents control every aspect of their child's life'
If she could have defined 'controlling' or phrases like those above the conversation probably would have been much more inviting. I think she got frustrated because I exposed the fact that her argument was so shallow.
I was disgusted to recognize the pattern of a childish eighth grade equivalent rant... pun fully intended.
I often felt like I was discussing something with someone in Jr. High.
Thanks for the support and the compliment. I look forward to getting to know you better DI.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/22 @ 05:41 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/22 @ 07:09 AM — (Reply)
I agree, EB... see through as a freshly Windex'd picture window.
Comment by Defiant_Infidel— 2008/08/22 @ 09:13 AM — (Reply)
did she shut it down?
darn, I left a comment.
oh well.
Go, ElBro!!
I ditto you, as always.
I wish I had the energy to homeschool again.
Maybe someday.
Until then, we'll supplement with unschooling, art, and continue to point out the lies that they learn in public school.
ahem. which are many.
you gotta be on watch, ya know?
Comment by Pinky— 2008/08/22 @ 11:43 AM — (Reply)
pinky she didn't shut down comments
only in the sense that if you carry on the conversation you're beating a dead horse
we do some unschooling also, you have to do what you believe is right for your family
Comment by elmers brother— 2008/08/22 @ 12:18 PM — (Reply)
duhkkky - I see you lurking...if you want to continue the conversation from your comment at Nikki's let's roll
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/22 @ 12:44 PM — (Reply)
every homeschooler is different
creation vs. evolution? Which faith system should kids be indoctrinated in?
I think the objections to both should be discussed. This is the way many Christian colleges teach it. The problem with many public schools (especially universities) is they are unwilling to discuss any objections to evolution. So it then becomes indoctrination instead of education. So which educational system is really the more broad or open minded?
Does evolution answer the question of which came first the chicken or the egg?
It's a mechanism as is intelligent design or creationism. If people are honest they'll agree that the egg/chicken question cannot be unequivocally answered by either. Otherwise there'd be no question. Both rely on a faith system.
I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools. It's not the main reason many homeschool but given that homeschooling is a choice they can choose to or NOT.
It's the test scores in reading and math you SHOULD be heralding. As I suggested at Nikki's the data bears homeschooling out as not only an option but one that works well.
Unless you prefer functional illiterates, in this regard you'd have to agree.
Do you have children Duhkkky?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/22 @ 01:20 PM — (Reply)
Evolution IS a religion and not a science.
Comment by Papa Frank— 2008/08/24 @ 03:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/24 @ 05:24 AM — (Reply)
Here is the wikipedia definition of religion:
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
That is evolution to a tee. I don't have a problem with other people's religion and so I don't have a problem with evolution. I simply ask that it be taught as a religion and not a science.
Comment by Papa Frank— 2008/08/24 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
Monism: A metaphysical/theological view that believes in a universal underlying principle in nature
Stating “Evolution is a fact” is a bullying tactic. How can one validate the truth if one is unable to explore the objections to that truth? People object to the materialist philosophy that is presented in the name of science.
I like what Philip Johnson suggested in one of his books:
“We have to learn to distinguish the difference between what evolutionists assume and what they investigate.
e.g Scientists assume that naturalism is true and therefore try to give purely natural explanations for everything including our existence. It could be it’s the best explanation they have at the time, whether it is true is another question. Biologist have authority over biology but they have no authority to impose a philosophy on society. That is why it is so important to insist that “evolution is a fact”
Change that to “evolution is a philosophy” and the game is over.
We should keep our eye on the mechanism of evolution. Some Darwinists distinguish between what they call the “fact of evolution” and “ Darwin ’s particular mechanism”
The fact usually means that organisms have certain similarities like DNA , and are grouped in patterns. What’s controversial is the cause of that pattern.
If scientists decide that the cause of that pattern is only a purposeless material mechanism than they have now made a philosophical and religious argument. Evolutionist argue with each other about the relative importance of chance and natural selection but some combination is about the only game in town.
That mechanism has to be able to design and build complex structures like wings and eyes and brains.
Scientists also take for granted that the ancestors existed and that the transitions occurred, so they ought to be finding positive evidence if they are to have successful careers. They are under tremendous amounts of pressure.
Human evolution is also an area where there is a tremendous amount of subjective interpretation. If you can interpret the data to establish a fossil as a human ancestor and if the other experts will support you than your future will be a glorious one, government grants, notoriety etc.
BTW the highest proportion of fossils used to “prove” evolution come from this one specialty
Do I think scientists purposely mislead people? No. There have been occasions (Piltdown man for e.g. ) but I don’t think it’s committing deliberate fraud.
Remember the words of Richard Feynman, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Critical thinking is good for Christianity too. Other Christians have suggested that students be handed the objections to Christianity along with the Bible. Dealing with tough questions is a lifelong process. There are many Christian colleges that do this.
One of the illusions of scientific materialism is that materialists don’t have faith commitments. Faith isn’t opposed to reason. Faith is something everybody needs in order to get started in any direction and to keep going. In my opinion reason builds on a foundation of faith.
For e.g. scientific materialists have faith that one day they will discover the origin of life. Niles Eldridge (an evolutionist) says for e.g. that he believes despite the invertebrate record that the theory is true. That’s a faith statement.
Every position has its difficulties. The evidence satisfies neither evolutionists nor creationists.
A lot of people don’t feel qualified to judge scientific disputes. Even Richard Dawkins the famed evolutionist and zoologist says that he is not qualified to answer questions of a biochemist for e.g.
So the question is do scientists find it possible to explain evolution through the evidence or through their materialist philosophy that allows no alternative?
Even scientists such as James Shapiro of the U. of Chicago has said in response to Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” (if you’re not familiar you may want to read this book about the complexity of organisms)
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject – evolution- with so little rigorous examination of how well it’s basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity”
Shapiro is not a creationist and he blasted Behe for arguing that those unexplained biochemical systems might be designed. It does however illustrate how strong the hold of materialist philosophy is on contemporary biologists.
If one were to place their trust in evolution than I believe you will have to admit that there is an inherent philosophy or religion that belongs with it. So claiming some moral high ground because it is amoral and non religious in my opinion is bunk. The fact that Huxley declared that the supernatural was being swept away means that science has not divided the two (religion and science). I also think that choosing to place your faith in evolution and declaring “evolution is true” is a means for one to live their life with no accountability and that perhaps this would give one motivation for believing in evolution. One can eat drink and be merry if there is no one to be accountable to.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/24 @ 06:24 AM — (Reply)
It's hard to find schools that teach evolution as a theory anymore. I would not at all claim that creation is a perfect science (mostly because it was not intended to be). However, there is as much science to creationism as there is to evolution and just as much faith to evolution as their is to creationism. Science should stick to the common principles and sound science found in both theories such as natural selection and the evolving that happens WITHIN a species.
Comment by Papa Frank— 2008/08/24 @ 07:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/24 @ 08:00 AM — (Reply)
Elbro!
I wanted to share this quote with you, it is from Thomas Sowell.
When amateurs outperform professionals, there is something wrong with that profession. If ordinary people, with no medical training, could perform surgery in their kitchens with steak knives, and get results that were better than those of surgeons in hospital operating rooms, the whole medical profession would be discredited.
Yet it is common for ordinary parents, with no training in education, to homeschool their children and consistently produce better academic results than those of children educated by teachers with Master’s degrees and in schools spending upwards of $10,000 a year per student — which is to say, more than a million dollars to educate ten kids from K through 12. Nevertheless, we continue to take seriously the pretensions of educators who fail to educate, but who put on airs of having “professional” expertise beyond the understanding of mere parents.
Comment by Jungle Mom— 2008/08/24 @ 02:47 PM — (Reply)
I've worked in government jobs where it's nearly impossible to fire a person. Without competition people get lazy and think they are entitled. (sounds a bit like socialism) When you must perform to keep your job you have to work hard at being the best at it and usually the company/management rewards you with things like promotions and merit raises. In the those jobs that just require you to show up, the slugs get a raise right along with the hard workers.
Competition breeds excellence. This is why homeschooling is a workable solution to a great education.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by mos— 2008/08/25 @ 09:58 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 10:19 AM — (Reply)
Comment by mos— 2008/08/25 @ 11:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 11:58 AM — (Reply)
We could argue over the mechanism all day long but I am curious though
Does evolution answer the question of which came first? the chicken or the egg?
Does evolution explain the first moment in time? or what preceded the first moment in time?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 01:56 PM — (Reply)
I agree, creationism shouldn't be taught in classrooms and homeschoolers have the right to do that in their own home or in private schools unreliant on taxes. But I was right, I don't find your arguments against evolution reasonable. Sounds like the arguments pastors make against evolution because it contradicts the Bible. If, say, a percentage of scientists opposed evolution in numbers like those who oppose global warming, we would have that discussion on the controversy. But evolution is nearly universally supported by scientists and the few who protest are simply very loud and claiming that the Christian view on life is the only correct one. I look at who ardently supports evolution (scientists) and who ardently oppose it (Christian and Muslim fundamentalists). I don't need to pour over the "evidence" to decide whose argument is credible, I simply need to look at the messenger.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
This my friend is a faith statement. You don't need to look at the evidence because you believe the messengers.
You do understand that many scientists have problems with the peer review process?
How effiecient is the peer review process? What's the batting average?
So evolution satisfies the chicken/egg argument? Don't you find this question reasonable?
You don't find statements like this reasonable:
Every position has its difficulties. The evidence satisfies neither evolutionists nor creationists.
I included statements from evolutionists (ardent ones at that) who still have questions, oh but you don't?
Critical thinking is good for Christianity too.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 02:40 PM — (Reply)
What is wrong with believing in the messenger if the messenger is credible? Hearing a science argument for evolution is a bit more credible than hearing a religion argument against evolution. Your arguments against evolution are based on "faith" as well. If evolution is not true, please enlighten me with an alternative that doesn't include the worship of a zombie lord. A real, scientific view that uses all the evidence supporting evolution and proves it is incorrect.
I have taken countless biology, geology, and anthropology classes in college that explain that evolution doesnt't set out to explain the origin of life, rather the origin of species. I have studied evolution and looked at evolution from a critical viewpoint so it has less to do with faith, but when discussing evolution with people who believe that we just appeared 6,000 years ago I need to relate to how they think...and that is simply based on the messenger.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 02:55 PM — (Reply)
You observed said scientists perform said experiments or know of his credentials?
I'm sure you consider this hubris but really it's called using a baloney detector.
I have taken countless biology, geology, and anthropology classes in college that explain that evolution doesnt't set out to explain the origin of life, rather the origin of species.
So you're saying evolution doesn't answer all of your questions?
I have studied evolution and looked at evolution from a critical viewpoint so it has less to do with faith,
While I commend you for studying said subjects you have still chosen to believe them.
but when discussing evolution with people who believe that we just appeared 6,000 years ago I need to relate to how they think...and that is simply based on the messenger.
Who said I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:04 PM — (Reply)
Unfortunately evolution cannot provide a moral compass with which to live one’s life by.
If God is dead as declared in the mid 20th century by evolutionists such as Huxley:
Why hasn’t the utopian progress promised by science happened by now?
Why aren't we all communists and atheists?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
These are just examples given by Julian Huxley noted scientist and evolutionary pioneer:
Some day no one will have to work more than two days a week... The human being can consume so much and no more. When we reach the point when the world produces all the goods that it needs in two days, as it inevitably will, we must curtail our production of goods and turn our attention to the great problem of what to do with our new leisure.
"Prof. Huxley Predicts 2-Day Working Week" The New York Times (17 November 1930) p.42
Has this two day work week happened?
I mean if God is truly dead...then this scientific paradise should have come about by now.
The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated... or that death is always due to witchcraft... The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.
Religion without Revelation (1957) p. 58
Why do 90% of Americans reject evolution? Do you think Christians have that much influence on that large of a population? Why haven’t evoluionists been successful in their indoctrination if what they say is absolutely true?
In the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is neither need nor room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.
The Humanist Frame (1961) p. 18
I wish I could ask Huxley what his definition of a soul is and just when during the evolutionary process mindless natural selection and chance gave us one.
I assume you would consider yourself a materialist, if you don’t many evolutionists do.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:00 PM — (Reply)
We AGREE!
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:05 PM — (Reply)
and if both based on some measure of faith then we both follow a religion don't we?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:06 PM — (Reply)
I hope that isn't how you came to your conclusions as I don't see how any of that disproves evolution or offers another viewpoint...
Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that the world is 6,000 years old? That Adam and Eve actually walked the earth as the first human's ever. That the world was created in six days?
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
I hope that isn't how you came to your conclusions as I don't see how any of that disproves evolution or offers another viewpoint...
Where did I say that I was disproving evolution? I merely ask questions and seek the answer. I hope you do the same.
I tend to lean toward ancient creationism. God could have created in fiats. He could have created one day with an indeterminate number of days in between. I'm not sure.
You see DB if evolution cannot answer the origin of our species then we are merely arguing the mechanism used after the fact. That as I said we can argue till we're blue in the face.
So tell me which came first the chicken or the egg? If evolution doesn't answer this question then you as unsure as anyone about where they came from and that puts us in the same boat. All aboard.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:13 PM — (Reply)
What would be a good percentage? Is there a place where you can check on the percentages of scientists who may disagree?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Are you a punctuated equilibrium kind of guy or a classic Darwinist?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:21 PM — (Reply)
You don't find our agreeing on this issue reasonable?
Do others that you may know who support creationism/ID also agree that it shouldn't be taught in schools?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:23 PM — (Reply)
and you think us closed minded and gullible? yet I'm the one asking questions about all of it; creation and evolution.
How can one validate the truth if one is unable to explore the objections to that truth or one doesn't question the evidence, YOU merely accept it.
In case you missed this faith statement by an evolutionist:
For e.g. scientific materialists have faith that one day they will discover the origin of life. Niles Eldridge (an evolutionist) says for e.g. that he believes despite the invertebrate record that the theory is true. That’s a faith statement.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:36 PM — (Reply)
What do you have a degree in?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 03:39 PM — (Reply)
This is the crux of the matter isn't it.
Was Jesus an historical figure? do you deny that He lived at all? If He did live (and there are historical records and eyewitness testimony outside of the Bible) then what happened when He died?
A real, scientific view that uses all the evidence supporting evolution and proves it is incorrect
You can't prove scientifically what time you got up this morning.
You can use legal testimony, historical data but that's about it...we can't go back in time and re-observe it.
Can you observe evolution or is it inferred by the evidence?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 04:15 PM — (Reply)
I am still not convinced you have presented what the alternative to evolution is. If evolution is entirely wrong, what is the competing view against evolution and how did they reach that conclusion?
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 04:26 PM — (Reply)
Bio-E is a historical science, and the limitations of historical data provide reasons to be cautious about conclusions.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 04:26 PM — (Reply)
I agree with that. I think that we should keep looking. People have even questioned some of Darwin's proposals (and presented better ideas using newly discovered evidence. Evolution isn't 100% and no evolutionist would claim it is. But short of a competing alternative view, evolution is what we have. The people who reject evolution outright have yet to present a logical alternative.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 04:45 PM — (Reply)
As I said we can argue the mechanism till we're blue in the face...
BTW I apply this same kind of questioning to my pastor's sermons.
How does evolution explain something from nothing?
Has evolution answered the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first?
You've said it doesn't set out to do that, yet at some point it has to think of something or the primordial soup just appeared out of nothing.
If not you've admitted that we're both relying on a belief system. I suggest you come up with a statement of faith and hang it on your wall.
You're also welcome to prove that God doesn't exist.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
Again, I agree. One should question everything. There is a lot that evolution has yet to explain, but that doesn't mean we should discard it and stop looking. I am not out to disprove god either. Evolution doesn't disprove a creator, just the literal interpretation of the bible. Why should I not "believe" in evolution? What is an alternative?
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 04:48 PM — (Reply)
I haven't suggested that we discard it nor stop looking. AND the geste of what I'm saying you put very succinctly here:
There is a lot that evolution has yet to explain,
I am not out to disprove god either. Evolution doesn't disprove a creator, just the literal interpretation of the bible. Why should I not "believe" in evolution? What is an alternative?
As long as your reasoning than the alternative might be intelligent design or ancient creationism...I'm open to hearing it all and questioning it all.
BUT my worldview IS colored by the conclusion I came to after studying the life and death of Christ, just as yours is colored by your college education.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
You're such an open minded person. Please tell me what happened when He died?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 04:48 PM — (Reply)
Again, what does this have to do with evolution? Does 'open-minded' mean accepting the Christian version of events? Would 'close-minded' mean the denial of other faiths version of events? I think open-minded is an ideal that none of us attain. But again, what does this have to do with evolution?
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 04:54 PM — (Reply)
The reason it's relevant is that if you can look at the life of Christ objectively, and you seem like a reasonable person than perhaps you might find the other belief system just as viable.
Capiche.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
too often they do claim that it is, and I think this is where the rub is even with Christians such as myself. They claim it as absolute fact and ignore, mock or disrespect anyone who questions it. To me this is bad for science.
They've even fired teachers and squashed the objections/questions of students. The appearance is that they don't want it to be questioned.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:09 PM — (Reply)
To me, any question regarding Jesus is not an alternative to evolution (unless you are reading some kind of bible translation I have never heard of). I am simply asking what you think is a reasonable alternative to evolution, to which I have gotten no answer. I haven't stopped questioning, I just don't hear any suggestions that don't end in the literal bible interpretation.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Evolution doesn't answer that question. Biblical Christianity (whether it's a literal translation of Genesis or not) does.
If you've looked at that alternative then fine.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:18 PM — (Reply)
to which I haven't received an alternative answer
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:21 PM — (Reply)
As long as they control the microphone and the peer process, logical alternatives will have a difficult time raising those objections or providing a logical alternative.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:11 PM — (Reply)
"The people who reject evolution outright have yet to present a logical alternative."
Exactly. Call it whatever you want, but until they have an alternative that counters evolution, we really can't play the "unfair" card.
There is the Discovery Institute and plenty of other places for a rational theory to be presented, but that has not happened yet either.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 05:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
I don't get it. You say that there is no logical alternative. Then you say that the alternative viewpoint would essentially be silenced. But the point remains, there is still no alternative regardless of whether it would be silenced or not.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 05:22 PM — (Reply)
Yet evolutionists have these same questions.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Where is the control?? If the alternative (which by your admission doesn't exist yet anyways) was real, there is plenty of places to get the work published. Book publishers are all about publishing attacks on evolution, as are countless Christian organizations.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:53 PM — (Reply)
Breaking those paradigms is very difficult. I didn't say there wasn't an alternative, I said that the we could argue these alternative till we are blue in the face. They are merely the mechanisms by which either evolution or creation/ID occurred.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
If you're referring to this, this is your quote which I copied to make an earlier point. the italics at bloghi often don't work correctly when we have this many comments.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Human evolution is also an area where there is a tremendous amount of subjective interpretation. If you can interpret the data to establish a fossil as a human ancestor and if the other experts will support you than your future will be a glorious one, government grants, notoriety etc.
Consider what scientists themselves say about the peer review process for example:
Mike Dunford is a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studies evolution:
“Peer review is not a perfect system. It is absolutely flawed. It is, in fact, not good at catching fraud. It does not catch many flawed studies. It does make it more difficult to publish new ideas, and it is absolutely capable of sucking the will to live from people. (Just because I made that one up doesn't mean it isn't right.) To paraphrase Churchill, peer review is the worst system out there, except for all the others that have been tried.”
He goes on to say that reviewing every paper is impractical:
“Right now, more papers are published than can possibly be read. That 617,207 figure for 2005 came from a single database that primarily indexes journals with biomedical applications. It doesn't capture the entire biological literature, buch(sic) less the entire scientific literature. Peer-review, while imperfect, does serve to keep the worst papers out of the mix. If everything was published, every individual scientist would effectively have to conduct his or her own review on every paper of possible interest. With so many scientists doing and publishing so much work, that just isn't remotely practical. “
or this from a group of scientists involved in an intellectual development company:
“The truth about the peer review process is that, like all things involving people, it is political. Its reality falls well short of its ideal. Powerful people and institutions warp the process because they can. And so, if Steorn actually has what they claim, then the approach they are taking is very likely their only chance at getting something close to fair and honest evaluation from the scientific community.”
Others believe that "embarrassing frauds have created a demand for a system that can detect fraud."
And still others understand that politics plays a role.
Peter Duesberg (HIV/AIDS researcher) wrote on this very issue in his 2003 paper, and I think it very valid here:
The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of “experts”. These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this “peer review system” appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system – free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships – all legal in the US since president Reagan – ”peer reviewers” do not fund applications that challenge their own interests (Duesberg 1996b; Lang 1998; Zuger 2001). Since “peer review” is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the “jury”, and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. The corporate equivalent of academia’s ”peer review system” would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer.
Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government-funded majorities because they depend on their monthly “scientific breakthroughs”, the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers. For example, an early precursor of this article was written in response to an open invitation from a pharmacology-journal over 3 years ago. But, after considerable pressure on the journal from anonymous “AIDS experts”, the editor requested a reduced article, which was neither accepted nor rejected. Instead, the editor simply dropped all further correspondence. Subsequently, the editor of a prestigious German-based science journal invited another precursor of this article 2 years ago, which received two favorable reviews in short order. But before the manuscript could be revised, the editor informed us that the publisher was concerned about losing subscribers if our paper were published and ceased all further correspondence. It is this passive resistance that can grind down even the most determined truth seeker.
However, the mere potential to resolve the agony of AIDS by alternative hypotheses, such as ours, should be sufficient reason to replace the medieval “peer review system” by a modern jury system without conflicts of interest and with rights for representation and appeals of the applicant. If the current, unproductive AIDS establishment objects, because AIDS-science is too complex to be understood by non-HIV-AIDS scientists, funding should be withheld until the AIDS establishment finds ways to explain the complexity and merits of its expertise to other scientists.
Peer review has been defined as “a negotiation between the author and journal about the scope of knowledge claims that will ultimately appear in print” and as an “evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field”. It is the assessment by experts of material submitted for publication and is a critical component of the publication process in all major journals as it serves to validate the quality of the literature published in them. This should not be confused with the review process associated with awarding research grants, though some of the processes are similar to both.
There are basically two types. In the first, the referees and authors are blinded to each other’s identity. Confidentiality serves to protect the authors from others stealing their ideas and discoveries, while the referees are safe from retribution. This is not a very foolproof method since it is easy for referees to discover the names of the authors. In the second, the authors’ names are revealed to the referee but not vice-versa. Another more recent version of this process is the open method, wherein both authors and referees know the identity of each other. It has been said that this method is better than the other two since it promotes accountability, encourages civility, and generally improves the quality of the paper.[12] Some journals request authors to suggest names of referees though there is no agreement that the manuscript should necessarily be sent to them.
Scientists themselves realize the some of the disadvantages to peer review, it’s simply the best they have to offer: (from the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine)
Peer review has been described with unflattering adjectives such as subjective, prejudicial, crude, offensive, secretive and as the “informed prejudices of old men”.
Even if authors and reviewers are blinded to each other’s identity, the editors are not. This has lead to some authors believing that editors may be acting in a high-handed fashion and arbitrarily rejecting manuscripts.
It has been criticized for its potential bias and inadequacy. It has been proven that reviewers from the United States (US) and outside the US evaluate non-US papers similarly; viewing papers submitted by US authors more favorably. US reviewers have a significant preference for US papers. Novel work is usually rejected. Many peer reviewers find it difficult to accept new ideas and hypotheses that are totally in contrast to the prevailing ideas at the time.
It cannot detect conflict of interest by the authors.
It is expensive.
Even though most journals practice anonymous peer review system there is no hard evidence that this is better than an open system.
It cannot determine (at all times) if the results of the study are presented honestly and without fraud and whether the data were fabricated or embellished. (I understand this is not one of the purposes of peer review but in my opinion it is important to remember)
Peer review cannot always ensure detection of duplicate publications.
Scientists and researchers often are upset at the lack of reliable peers.
Dr. Steven J. Breckler Executive Director for Science for the APA agrees that there are concerns about peer review:
Despite a collective ambivalence about peer review, it is better than the alternatives. If some aspects of peer review are undesirable, then we should strive to repair them. When peer review is set aside for purposes of political expediency, we must be quick to cry foul.
Critics of peer review have plenty to complain about. Yet, when the institution is attacked or ignored, we come to its defense. We love it and we hate it. In the end—especially when the stakes are high—we place our trust in it. Long live peer review!
In other words faith. Faith that everyone who is involved in the process will adhere to the highest of standards.
From Wikipedia:
A related form of professional misconduct that is sometimes reported is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is of course unknown, but the United States Office of Research Integrity has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers.
So if the scientific community also has questions about the peer review process, why can’t others?
and if there are questions about the process then the credibility of the findings also should be questioned.
I realize this does not present an alternative but it makes me question the infallibility that is so often taught, lectured on and quite frankly college students are indoctrinated in.
I will find the references for the material here if you wish. I've had this for some time because I've had this discussion before. I didn't get them from a creation website, I believe one source was the University of Hawaii and another source was scientific periodical.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 05:49 PM — (Reply)
You said: "The people who reject evolution outright have yet to present a logical alternative."
Am I just misreading that rather clear statement??
Don't mistake that I don't understand your arguments about the flaws in peer review and the "gaps" in evolution, but no other alternative view on evolution has been presented to me in this conversation, nor in the real world, that blows evolution out of the water. I would expect nothing less if what is presented is "truth".
Trust me, I am all about someone disproving evolution. Galileo changed the world with his concept of the heliocentric universe (disputed by a certain group of people ironically). Einstein changed the world with his theories on relativity (which presents far more "gaps" and "leaps of faith" than evolution-yet no one disputes it on the scale they dispute evolution). The atomic theory and plate tectonics changed how we think about the world. I am all about the ground breaking and better theory that shows evolution is wrong...but it hasn't been presented yet.
If you dispute evolution, what do you believe? Screw the "alternative model" that I have yet to recieve an answer on...what do YOU believe happened?
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
I believe that God COULD have created in fiats. In other words on Day 1 He created than an indeterminate time in between day 1 and day 2.
I believe the earth could be older than the 6,000-12,000 years that recent creationists hold.
This was the common belief among Christians before Darwin.
But then I am open and I am constantly learning. As I've said the mechanism is not nearly as important or interesting as the discussing the cause.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
Here's a logical alternative - the bible is 100% reliable and correct.
Comment by The Dudeler— 2008/08/26 @ 01:03 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:05 PM — (Reply)
Ya, your comment system of quoting is kind of wacked. I will assume from now on you didn't make that statement. But if you did not, please tell me what an alternate view to evolution is.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)
1. You've already rejected any alternative out of hand.
2. It's merely the mechanism and not the root cause.
3. Both are belief systems and are therefore difficult to prove as you said 100%
To me the mechanism isn't nearly as important as the root cause. I find that conversation much more interesting.
In evolution to some it might be the Big Bang...depending on who you talk to.
In creationism it's God created.
I'm not trying to obfuscate but I don't see any reason in arguing an alternative that won't be seriously considered.
I think we also agree that both alternatives do not answer all of our questions.
You accept evolution because it's all you got. I've been willing to look at and question both.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
So as you can see I have a lot of questions, some of them answered, some of them not. Neither explanation (creationism/evolution) has satisfied my questions completely.
The processes involved, human bias's....all of it causes me to come to the conlusion that I don't know it all.
BUT I have tried over the years through this process to question both sides.
I've been up for over 24 hours DB, so I'm not quite 100%....not trying to give you an excuse but I am tired.
I'll summarize what I think:
Neither creationism/ID/evolution answers all my questions.
Both involve a measure of faith.
I believe in the case of evolution that it's not because all the evidence demands we go in that direction, but because of a religious adherence to a philosophy called naturalism. This philosophy negates the existence of God.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:22 PM — (Reply)
At least we agree that there is no 100% answer and to continue questioning and searching. 99% of the time I am arguing against people who believe in the 6 day creation.
Comment by DB— 2008/08/25 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
I've also appreciated the fact that we can discuss these issues cordially.
I'll be the first to admit to you DB that I don't have all the answers. BUT I am searching and questioning.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:41 PM — (Reply)
the reply link let's you insert a comment wherever you want
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
The original scope of the discussion was that neither one is pure science and both involve faith. As faith is the focus of religion they are both a religion. Seems I've missed a lot here.
Comment by Papa Frank— 2008/08/25 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/25 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/08/25 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/08/26 @ 05:05 AM — (Reply)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)
great debate, elbro and db.
Comment by nanc— 2008/08/26 @ 11:52 PM — (Reply)