Hello everyone, and my senior paper

I fear we may be coming across as hostile and insular. I can't put my finger on exactly what it was, but something in Kevin's initial few posts apparently set people off. He was just trying to say hello, maybe we could lighten up a bit.--Percy

Well, I can put your finger on it. It's that Mr. Athans wrote this: Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with what he said. But that is horrendously wrong, as I'm sure you know, and you shouldn't be surprised that people should try to correct it. This is why I, Catholic Scientist, PaulK, and nwr all took objection to what he said.Theodoric, I will admit, is on this occasion being a bit of a jerk. Nonetheless, he also has a bit of a point. (I may have made one or two posts myself which have those characteristics.) This is a site for debate and discussion, it's not a support group, it's not EvC Anonymous: "My name is Dr Adequate, and I have an opinion about biology ..." We're not here to share our feelings, but, in principle, to expose our ideas to the strongest criticism that anyone can come up with. "Agree to disagree" is something of a cop-out if someone wants to post here and benefit from doing so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you are not following the thread why are you posting responses.You seem to have decided to pick a fight with me so I responded. I don't want a fight but I will defend my posts. Again maybe you should follow the thread.If you were following you would see that I was telling him that to post Is a cop out and has no place in a board like this or as an answer for his senior paper.If you want a fight go someplace else please. If you don't agree with me fine, just go swing your dick elsewhere.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Let me suggest that the problem might be statements like this: The proposed solution to fixing these errors is to read the history behind Darwin's work rather than to study the science, which by the way need not involve even looking at 'Origin of Species'.KevinAthans then goes on to denigrate certain lines of scientific inquiry based solely on his superior grasp of scientific history: Perhaps the hostility level KevinAthans is receiving is a bit over the top, but I'm not the least bit surprised that posters are calling him on to do a little introspection. I find the hubris level in his posts quite high. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would like to expand on my previous statements.Suppose I were to say: "God has revealed to me that we should practice polygamy and also human sacrifice" --- then all Mr. Athans could do, really, is say: "No he didn't, you're hallucinating", to which I might reply: "Yes he did, and I'm not."In order to practice theology at all, we need to agree on what is and is not God's revelation of his thoughts to us.If we are Protestants, then the answer is sola scriptura. If we are Catholics, then God's guidance of his Church implies that tradition is also part of his revelation. If we are Jews, then we restrict ourselves to the Torah --- at least, if we are Conservative Jews, a small minority. If we are Orthodox Jews, then the oral tradition is also of God. If we are Muslims, then the Koran and the hadith are revelations from God, and anything in the Bible that says different is a corruption of the texts. If we are Mormons, then the Book of Mormon is God's word, handed to us by the Angel Moroni.And so on and so forth. In order for us to start doing theology, we have to decide which texts are from God and express his opinions, and which statements are delusions from the Devil meant to lead us astray, or nonsense written by well-meaning or schizophrenic men.Once we've made out minds up, then we can start to participate in theology. The chosen texts provide us with the board, the pieces, and to a large extent the rules. But we have to have the texts in order to play the game at all.In saying this, I am not deprecating theology as a mere game: I'm proposing an analogy. But it is still the case that to practice theology we need to take certain texts, certain statements, certain propositions as being true, as coming from God. This is very different from the practice of science, where we take actual observations as being superior to anything that anyone has written, whatever his credentials.

Kevin likes what he studies and thinks it's important. He's not the first person guilty of this, and it's no crime to cry about.You don't think the things he studies are as important as some other things; he doesn't find the things you care about as important as the stuff he studies."Agree to disagree" is, quite honestly, the best way to handle such an utterly meaningless difference of opinion.

Well; Kevin's not trying to practice science with his paper.Kevin is trying to resolve issues with claims about Darwin's religious convictions by analyzing the editions of his Origins. His project sounds very similar to the undertakings of biblical historians who attempt to reconstruct original versions of texts to reveal information about the people who wrote the documents and the people who later edited them.In Kevin's case, however, the people who wrote the originals and the people who later edited them are one in the same, and his analysis will reveal changes in that person over time as he developed his theory, with a particular focus on the religious aspects of his character.I find the project interesting precisely because it has nothing to do with practicing science, but is specifically about textual analysis. And on this I believe Kevin and I see things in common, in that we are more interested in these textual and historical matters than we are in the hard science itself. The hard science is good; but some people just have different interests and their study of the hard science is thus indirect.Why is this a problem? I don't know. I'm okay with it. You seem to be rather okay with it. Others don't mind. But there are some folks here who are lashing out at Kevin at the mere mention of him holding interests in science that don't align with their own.Those people just need to be ignored.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I did not say anything like that. I commented on the fact that his remarks were provocative and I argued that they were also incorrect. I did not say anything about the importance of his studies.I'll also note that he's backed off of those initial remarks. Let's you and I agree to disagree.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Could you please point out examples of this?

And yet he also wrote: "Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying?" Which is a proposition about the practice of biology, or it is nothing.If he hadn't written that, no-one would have had any objections. And if you are unwilling to defend that statement specifically, then you are not defending him against the criticism that he has actually incurred.

These are just opinions and value judgments that Kevin is throwing around.They aren't for anyone to debate because opinions don't matter.

This says more about our educational system than it does about there being an actual debate in the US about evolution.Little things crop up here and there but it does so also in the UK. These problems ONLY come up in high schools or middle schools. There is no problem ever with teaching evolution with regards to biology at the college/university level. That's why I believe there really is no issue.I mean, here in this forum there's a debate about it because that's what this forum is about. It's mostly for entertainment, and I suspect those on the side of intelligent design or creationism don't really think they're actually going to change the entire world's understanding of biology and/or evolution. Boy that would really take some serious evidence to convince everyone from here to the far east that everything they know about biology and the history of life is wrong. Which frankly will never happen. If anyone here on the side of ID or creationism truly believes biology will change their views on evolution then they are delusional.The US as a whole is no different from this forum I believe. Some parents will try to bring it up in their local districts, but they'll never change the way our universities teach biology. What will happen is those kids who who's parents teach them that the evolutionary biology taught in their schools is wrong will just fail. And in that respect, who really needs them? There's plenty of other kids around the world ready to take their place.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'm guessing this is your opinion?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I shall leave it up to you to explain to him why his opinions don't matter. I shall confine myself to explaining why they are factually inaccurate.

Well since you seem to be in his brain and know his intentions, why did he boast to a discussion board if he did not want any feedback?Isn't this a discussion forum a debate site. If opinions don't matter why do you bother coming here?