We need to bring Reagan back... to fight Japan.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:25 am

Bill, I looked up Elliot Gould, and all I could find was lots about a so-so actor. Can you provide anymore info on the guy you're talking about, and his theory?

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:58 am

I give up as well, Bill. You still just don't get it, and you're so determined to be PC and fair to everyone regardless of their outright lunacy you never will. You've completely missed every point made by valkenar, myself, and eloquently by IJ.

Fair enough, you have a school to run, and can't afford to say that people who believe in creationism are being ridiculous. It's too "controversial" as opposed to arguing to a student that there is no chi.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:53 pm

TSDguy wrote: Fair enough, you have a school to run, and can't afford to say that people who believe in creationism are being ridiculous. It's too "controversial" as opposed to arguing to a student that there is no chi.

Have you ever read William Dembski's "Intelligent Design?"
Do you understand Irreducible complexity? Do you understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

I've seen how people who hold Evolution as their holy grail act, and I don't see them as any better than the people who thump their bibles over the heads of sinners.

I think Bill's probably been one of the most level-headed posters in this thread. A lone voice of reason in a sea of pre-loaded bile. Step back, breathe a little bit... it shouldn't be personal.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:04 pm

I'm not upset at all, my posts just usually look chaotic. And yes, I've done my research on evolution to the point that I've actually "converted" a few creationist. Really, if they give you about 20 minutes of attention and you have time to prepare, there is no reason why you can't basically prove them wrong. That's one of my beefs with what Bill is suggesting. You can't legitimize nonsense or it spreads. Say to the office of VP of one of the most powerful nations in history.

One girl said she was a creationist, so I 'proved' her wrong, starting by dispelling her myths like we came from apes, and then eventually go all the way down to cellular evidence. She said, that's great, but I don't understand how this works with my god. I said, why can't you believe god created evolution? Score 1 for humanity and sanity, score 0 for Bill and promoting idiocy.

Edit: I still think we will never hear Bill say creationists are flat out wrong because he has a school to run. I'd be shocked if this thread goes anywhere.

Edit 2: Gah, I didn't mean for it to sound like I was promoting ID or something; that's even worse than creationism. I meant I told the girl "What if your god created a universe that has rules, after all we KNOW that evolution happened and is happening." When you get to before this point, you might as well shove a god into the formula, it's all just as absurd. Our brains aren't capable of understanding where the universe came from. What created god, what created matter and energy... it's all philosophy at that point. If there was nothing at all, we can't grasp that.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:38 pm

Jason Rees wrote:
Bill, I looked up Elliot Gould, and all I could find was lots about a so-so actor. Can you provide anymore info on the guy you're talking about, and his theory?

Yep... Elliot Gould is the actor. Stephen Jay Gould is the biologist.

See Punctuated Equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

Thanks for the heads up.

- Bill

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:01 pm

Jason Rees wrote: Have you ever read William Dembski's "Intelligent Design?"
Do you understand Irreducible complexity?

Irreducible complexity has been repeatedly debunked.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:23 pm

Valkenar wrote:
Irreducible complexity has been repeatedly debunked.

Great! *notes* Irreducible complexity has been repeatedly debunked. Source: Valkenar...

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:40 pm

Jason Rees wrote: Great! *notes* Irreducible complexity has been repeatedly debunked. Source: Valkenar...

I don't bother going into detail debunking 9/11 conspiracy-theories either. Anyhow, it's not like you actually made any point you just said "irreducible complexity" and apparently expected that to be a gotcha. Well, it isn't.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:30 pm

It must be nice and warm in a glass house, but probably pretty lonely. Thanks for the glimpse.

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:03 am

"I also have a bit of a problem with those who might quibble with "Theistic evolution." If you want to believe that your "God" guided evolution, well then good on you as far as I'm concerned. Why not? Are all on this thread so arrogant as to think they have all of science figured out? If you do, then that again is a sure sign of ignorance. And frankly the concept of "God" could very well be that which is the laws of the universe and of nature. Works for me! Call it whatever the hell you want, so long as it is truth. A rose is a rose by any other name."

People that have it totally figured out on either side are overconfident. However, science rewards new discoveries (Yeah, I read Kuhn, and there are stick-in-the-muds, on the other hand, the general direction of science is spurts of progress, a lot like your evolution diagram, and the structure is set up to reward new ideas and progress). We all know that the general nature of religion, on the other hand, is to stick to tradition. Look at the Roman Catholic Church, for example; Pope John Paul elects a billion like minded cardinals, essentially ensuring the organization will stick to precepts created before the explosion of scientific knowledge and industrialization. The organization is geared toward resisting change, and rewarding adherence to immutable rules rather than rewarding progress.

In the context of evolution, the available evidence overwhelmingly supports natural selection; no data I am aware of suggests the presence of a Creator except to those who assumed there was one then went looking for footprints. It's a complete devotion to a foregone conclusion, in search of any available supporting evidence.

Is openness to being refuted good? Of course. Is assuming you're missing parts of the picture good? Of course. Is leaning toward the very justified position of natural selection wise? Of course. How about throwing yourself toward Intelligent Design (the theories of which are just creationist work with the names switched out--literally) on faith? That is NOT a comparable position. It's as if I were brought up in a Scientologist family and they stressed Lamarck to me from age 3, and now I'm totally convinced that's correct because, afterall, evolution is just a theory? Good on ya? Hardly.

That's sloppy thinking and sloppy thinking should be open to critique. Same goes for imperfect evolution science, afterall.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:09 am

The older I get, the less certain I am of anything, except that there seem to be more and more idiots on both sides of the aisle.