Darwinism

[_EAllusion]

Intelligent design is dubious religious apologetics masquerading as science. Since the government should not be imposing religious beliefs on the public, public schools, as government run schools, should not be permitted to teach intelligent design to students.

This was established in Supreme Court precedent in the 1980's with respect to "scientific creationism." Scientific creationists responded to this defeat by relabeling their views "intelligent design" and implausibly claiming this was a different thing. The move was blatant and there is a lot of evidence, including a smoking gun paper trail, to establish it. This evidence was discussed in the Dover trial and was part of the basis for the result.

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo - I've corrected this in the past, but you are using the term "neo-Darwinian" wrong. You are using it exactly as it is found in creationist circles, but that's not what the term means in biology. Neo-Darwinism refers to the synthesis of evolutionary theory by natural selection with classical genetics. It's mostly old-school population genetics. "Neo" meaning new is misleading as it was "new" in the first half of the 20th century when it picked up that label. Creationists have been misusing the term since the term was new, but their misleading is getting ever more confusing.

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, an example of neo-Darwinism taught at the middle-school level, is quite obviously science. By "neo-Darwinism" you mean something akin to modern evolutionary theory. That's also quite obviously science too, but when you attempt to condemn modern evolutionary theory, you end up picking a term that refers to an older, smaller subset of evolutionary science. Maybe you intend to also condemn teaching the basics of classic population genetics in school, but I doubt that's what you think you mean.

[_RockSlider]

Ceeboo,

I have to run off to work. I will not be able to respond until tonight. It's good to talk and I will gladly dive into morality discussions after we talk about ID (likely should be a new thread).

Later ...

[_Some Schmo]

In an effort to dispel the idea of a common ancestor, it's ironic people ape primitive ideas.

[_canpakes]

In an effort to dispel the idea of a common ancestor, it's ironic people ape primitive ideas.

I see what you did there. : D

[_Themis]

Unfortunately, neo-Darwinian evolution is not among this enormous body of scientific facts (I realize that you do not agree) - thus we should not be teaching it as such to our children.

First you need a little foundational knowledge in order to have even a sliver of an informed opinion. You have spent years coming here with this crap and have not spent even an hour learning some evolutionary science. This is why Ceeboo avoids any questions that gets into the actual sciences, and why he will continue to not be taken seriously on this topic.

[_RockSlider]

You think that was bearing a testimony? There wasn't even a hint of testimony there. Odd.

You made a very short statement of your beliefs.

"As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is."

What I heard was "I believe in ID!"

"I understand what that means (an intelligent designer) so I completely get why it is so vigorously rejected but that rejection has no impact on reality."

What I heard was "I believe those that reject an intelligent designer vigorously oppose ID, but their rejection does not invalidate the reality of its truthfulness"

It reminded me of Mormon testimony bearers that state what they believe and how they feel, but provide no reason for their beliefs or provide any evidences of the truthfulness.

As for your other answers I understand/heard you say that you agree that ID is pseudoscience and you disagree with pseudoscience being taught as hard science in public schools.

Based on this, there is only the remaining question from my previous posts. Does the material you are sharing source from an institution dedicated to a hidden agenda which was unknowingly against your worldview?

For a new question:

Having said that, I do not think ID is a hard science - I don't think neo-Darwinian evolution is a hard science either,

Give me an example of something taught in neo-darwinian evolution that you believe is pseudoscience.

[_RockSlider]

Ceeboo, I hope I did not offend you.

I've been thinking about statements people make. It seems there are three types, and perhaps two of them are identical

A statement of opinion
A statement of belief
A statement of assertion

I think the first two are the same. both equal to a testimony. They are worth the 2 cents for your thoughts, or consider the source, or take it with a grain of salt type of deal.

However, an assertive statement puts a burden of proof on the person making the statement.

How should I have taken your statement?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Rock

Ceeboo, I hope I did not offend you.

No - not at all, friend.

I've been thinking about statements people make. It seems there are three types, and perhaps two of them are identical

A statement of opinion
A statement of belief
A statement of assertion

I think the first two are the same. both equal to a testimony. They are worth the 2 cents for your thoughts, or consider the source, or take it with a grain of salt type of deal.

However, an assertive statement puts a burden of proof on the person making the statement.

How should I have taken your statement?

You should have taken my statement as a very strong personal opinion that intelligent design is abundantly obvious.

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo is saying that intelligent design is obvious to point of self-evident and that it is rejected because people don't like the implication that it supports the existence of God.

That intelligent design is a pseudoscientific movement grounded in bad reasoning and mendacity escapes him.