human tails and the midriff - hiccups, what are the creatonist theories about them?

quote:

---

Here is an evolutionists saying that it is OK to lie if it gets them to believe in evolution. How disgusting is that ?

---

I find the actual truth of the matter rather less disgusting than your (mis)representation of it above.Education is not a simple matter of teaching the full exact truth. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart even describe education as necessarily "lying to children" (see Wikipedia explanation here). And the main point concerned (NOMA - Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) is a philosophical one, that in an ideal world could be left out of the class altogether.If you read the NYT article that the story is based on you will see that the teacher is making some compromises in the details to get across a broadly accurate picture - against considerable resistance. He does not say that he is out to get the kids to simply believe in evolution but to try to get them educated.Campbell in class: And the response he gets from one pupil when he sets a test: Do you really think it is so bad to gloss over the details of the interaction between science and religion if it gets kids to actually provide answers to test papers ?

quote:

---

Of course, the point is that generalisations are rarely good. CMI is a serious creationist organization which takes much care in not perpetrating false claims.

---

From my memory CMI is simply less bad than some other creationist organisations. Untruthfulness is solidly embedded in creationism from people like Kent Hovind and Clifford Burdick all the way through to the Discovery Institute.

Good luck with that. What subject, by the way? You're sure? Well, I did say I might be wrong. But that would just make it a bigger lie.Let's hear Dr Woodside declare this himself, and say why. You are absolutely my favorite creationist. Yeah, his attack on NOMA is wrong. I disagree with his philosophy.Does he, at any point, say anything factually inaccurate about biology? It's quite disgusting. However, you should note that the "lie" he's talking about is not anything to do with the facts of biology. The "lie" that he's sticking up for is that it's possible to believe in science and God. The "lie" that he's defending is that it is possible to have scientific knowledge and religious faith. I happen to think that this is true. So do you.And it's not a lie that he actually tells himself. What makes me want to punch people like him very hard in the face is that he thinks that I'm lying when I say it, and he's being kindly and understanding and tolerant about me telling this lie. But when I say it, it's not a lie.Please note that this is not a "lie" that he tells himself. He never says that science is compatible with religion. What he says is that when I say it, I'm lying, but that's kind of OK by him.To summarize. He says that science teachers are lying to their students when they say that you can have God and science, and that in his opinion it's OK for them to lie in this way. I think that this is a dishonorable and pusillanimous opinion for him to hold, and I also despise him for believing that people who talk in that way are lying.---But in any case, I did not claim that no evolutionist has ever told a lie about any subject. Looking back on my life, I believe that I have told a few lies myself. What I claim is that creationists lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. And lie and lie and lie. And lie. And lie. And lie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My advisor, Dr. Gilbert Woodside, was chairman of the Department of Zoology at the University of Massachusetts and was an evolutionist with an international reputation in embryology. He apparently did not appreciate a scientific alternative to evolution, but he declared to me very clearly that evolution was not applicable in the field of embryology. It was obvious to him that evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines, because many fine scientists had wasted their time trying to fit data from their studies into some illusionary evolutionary scheme.

---

Also, it needs to be pointed out this supposed incident happened of 50 years ago.One more point. Why does a supposed comment by an embryologist have any real relevance? Here is one guy that MAY have had some reservations about how embryology may be affected by a current scientific paradigm of the time? We have no evidence other than an anecdote.Now this Frair dude is an interesting guy. SourceHmm, wonder where his papers have been published? Oooh gee looks like Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.
Don't they even realize that it isn't science if it presupposes a biblical creation? Real sharp scientists there.His specialty is Baraminology
Look at the definition. Presupposition. Kind of throws science right out the window, doesn't it. Dr. Frairs personal statement.

quote:

---

In our scientific studies we learn a lot about nature, which is God’s creation. Also, God reveals himself in history and our consciences, but most importantly in His inspired Word, the Bible. For a full and fruitful life, no matter what our occupation is, I believe we must live in accord with this book.

---

quote:

---

Also, as a Christian, I accept the historicity of the Bible, this being supported by much external empirical evidence, and I have found no reasons from science to reject the Bible...But it has been my custom for more than 40 years, a custom which is consistent with that of conservative Christian biblical scholars, to take an inductive-historical approach to the Bible. This means that to construct our theology we start with accepting the Bible as literally and historically true, and we compare one passage with others to obtain a consensus on their meanings.

---

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

By the way, you should probably know the names of your sources.It is Frair not Fair.Kind of important to know the guys name.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Where is he saying anything about lying?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Gee he has been dead since 1992. How convenient to have an anecdote from someone that cannot confirm or deny the story or the context.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thanks. I​

See previous post. Hope it answers some. This comment of yours comes in sharp contrast to a previous comment from Modulous in the 'kinds are not related' thread (message no5, sorry I don't know how to link messages), where he accuses creationists of not wanting to define what a kind is. Yet here we have a scientist with a PhD in biochemical taxonomy who worked his whole life in defining what a kind is, and what were the original kinds from a scientific point of view through genetics etc., and you seem to condemn him for doing so.I would suggest that you and Modulous sort this out as what you would want creationist to do: continue to use the word 'kind' without defining it or studying exactly what they mean when they use the word kind. You can't really have it both ways. Are you suggesting that presuppositions are not an integral part of how science works ?

quote:

---

As Theodoric said, D.r Woodside unfortunatly is dead. But you have to take into account that at the time he and Dr. Frair worked together, embryonic recapitulation was still being discussed in embryology, and Haeckel' fraud was not a well-known fact even amongst embryologist. This was all before the coming of your application of evolution to embryology, which is somewhat a greatly downsized version of embryonic recapitulation.

---

The "modern" recapitulation is based on the ideas of Haeckel's rival von Baer - and it was von Baer's deas that Darwin used.And of course, such an old quote could be quite untrue if applied to the current situation

quote:

---

Yes, he did promote something factually inaccurate about biological evolution. The situation is that he was discussing a situation where a teaching in school used the example of the evolution of mickey mouse through history and applied it to Neo-Darwinian evolution. This equivocation, of course, is known to be fallacious by any evolutionists. But Mr. Zikovic defended this approach to evolution in schools saying that although we know it to be false, if it gets the students to believe in evolution, then it is OK to use it.

---

Of course that is a dubious and uncharitable interpretation on your part.

quote:

---

Sometimes I feel that I could say the same thing about certain evolutionists. But I can't disagree with you either, since many creationists seem to have a difficulty to let go of an argument that has been demonstrated to be false. However, I do not believe this applies to CMI.

---

You haven't done much investigation of their website, have you ?Here is one example: The Links are Missing Complete with the standard misrepresentation of Steven Jay Gould, that has been refuted so many times.

From Darwin' origin of species:

quote:

---

the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state

---

This not only looks a lot like the idea Haeckel developped later on, it is also in stark contrast with Von Baer' 4th law:

quote:

---

Fundamentally, the embryo of a higher animal form never resembles the adult of another animal form, such as one less evolved, but only its embryo.

---

My knowledge on all this is far from complete, and so I readily accept any further development from your part on this. Nonetheless, I have the impression that although Darwin was influenced by Von Baer (which is logical, since he was the father of embryology),the links he made between embryology and his theory of evolution were the foundations that Haeckel later developped upon. [/qs]And of course, such an old quote could be quite untrue if applied to the current situation[/qs]The point was that because of Haeckel's frauds and the impact it had on embyology, modern embyologist do not readily relate their field with evolution anymore. How is my interpretations different from what he did say ??:

quote:

---

It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall.

---

Actually, I have been reading their website as much as I have been reading the talkorigins.org site, and I can tell you that the proportion of errors both those sites contain are pretty much proportional, and inside the realm of normal unvoluntary errors done by faillible humans.About the example you came up with, are you suggesting that the lack of transitional fossils is not what inspired ponctuated equilibrium to professor Gould ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Amazing! Wonderful!Please start a thread and bring to the OP (opening post) what this definition of "kind" is.

My knowledge in Baraminology is as limited as anyone's right now. But I agree this could be a very interesting subject. I'll try to read as much as I can about it and hopefully will try to start a new thread about this.This may take some time of course, because I want to focus on my university classes before investing time in anything else.

quote:

---

From Darwin' origin of species:

​

quote:

---

the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state

---

​

This not only looks a lot like the idea Haeckel developped later on, it

---

Did you read that in context, or just copy it from a creationist source ?

quote:

---

The point was that because of Haeckel's frauds and the impact it had on embyology, modern embyologist do not readily relate their field with evolution anymore.

---

So you dismiss my point that the quote cannot be trusted to tell us about the modern situation (being ~50 years old ) by saying that it IS supposed to be about the modern situtuation. Did you really mean to say that ?

quote:

---

How is my interpretations different from what he did say ??:

---

Because he doesn't want them to believe inaccuracies - he just finds it better than believing something even further from the truth, Which - as I pointed out - is not that unusual in education.

quote:

---

Actually, I have been reading their website as much as I have been reading the talkorigins.org site, and I can tell you that the proportion of errors both those sites contain are pretty much proportional, and inside the realm of normal unvoluntary errors done by faillible humans.

---

I doubt that. but again that doesn't address my point. You boasted that CMI didn't hang on to discredited arguments. It didn't take me long to find a counter-example.

quote:

---

About the example you came up with, are you suggesting that the lack of transitional fossils is not what inspired ponctuated equilibrium to professor Gould ?

---

Yes, that is another discredited creationist argument. Eldredge and Gould say that their starting point was Mayr's allopatric model of speciation, which had already become the dominant view in evolutionary science. Punctuate Equilibria

Why do I and and Mod have to sort anything out? Anti-creationists are not some sort of monolithic block that think and act like one mind. Let Mod have his ideas and I will have mine. Quit evading. Science does not have a supposition in the supernatural. That would make it 'not science'.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The fact that this statement is utterly, ludicrously, wildly untrue kinda vitiates your argument. I've been reading that article: it's a tissue of lies and a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end.In response to your specific question, as Gould has given it as his opinion that transitional fossils are, and I quote, "abundant" in the fossil record, he can scarcely have been inspired by the made-up "fact" that they are lacking from said record.Gould was most annoyed by creationists lying about him. As he writes in his essay Evolution As Fact And Theory: I note that the website also calls him a Marxist. This seems strange --- I know they must hate him for his real views of the fossil record, but if they're going to pretend that he said something that they approve of, then why also tell a lie about him that seems designed to discredit him?As his widow has written, he was not a Marxist: Why do creationists lie so much? Now, superficially it would seem that this is just because they couldn't support creationism by telling the truth. But this would hardly explain the scope of their dishonesty --- they have no need to make up petty little lies about Gould's political leanings. They could just lie about the fossil record, or other relevant facts. Moreover, as I have pointed out, since they are trying to use him as support for their lies about the fossil record, lying about him to discredit him is actually contrary to their interests.One is therefore forced to the conclusion that they simply have an ungovernable compulsion to be untruthful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.