Education

I see evos, even scientists, showing a deplorable lack of scientific rigor and basic logic and reasoning. Not to sidetrack this, but I learned this past week debating on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, that it wasn't just that his drawings were used in textbooks, but according to the 1997 Richardson study, evolutionist scientists in their research had pretty much just taken the claim of a single phylotypic stage on faith without any citations, except maybe Haeckel who had faked his data.It was quite eye-opening to say the least, but I think it illustrates a point. Evos claim to be more scientific, but often I find evos are really very far from science, but just clothe unscientific approaches and reasoning, such as basing theories (such as a phylotypic stage) off of unsubtantiated and unproven claims), with scientific data.Evolutionism, it appears to me then, to be more of a hybrid of mythmaking and real science, a sort of pseudo-science.On the other hand, often the informed creationist or IDer seems to understand evolutionary theory better than evos themselves.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 03:15 PM

an illustration of what I am talking about There is messianic sense among evos that belief and acceptance of their theory is necessary for the salvation and security of the world. It never occurs to evos that one of the main reasons the public doubts their claims is that the evidence they have used, the icons of evolution such as peppered moths (claiming microevolution equals macroevolution), frauds like Haeckel's drawings, claiming the fossil record shows evolution (ignoring the lack of transitionals), etc, etc,...is so easily refuted that a reasonable person should doubt evo claims.Perhaps if evos stuck to science instead of relying on hoaxes, frauds, overstatements and exagerrations, they would have more success, but listening to basic evo claims is like hearing Al Gore claim to have too the initiative in creating the internet or another dem come out and promise a middle class tax cut.It just doesn't work anymore because people are seeing these types of things for what they are, false evidentiary claims.

Can't be worse than what the evos do in teaching the Biogenetic law until the 50s, 60 years after it was known to be wrong, or presenting Haeckel's faked drawings claiming a single phylotypic stage, claiming human gill slits, etc, etc,...I am sorry, but Jack Chick is about the same level, actually a little higher, in adherence to scientific standards, imo, than most of what passes as evolutionism.

Robert, you make a good point. One of the main things I try to do is point out the overstatements evos make to try prove their claims.I am often subsequently asked about my beliefs, and I present some of them, but openly admit I don't think we have enough evidence to say exactly how it all happened, and this in turn leads to evos becoming upset as if I am dodging them.I think most evos, that debate the topic at least, have a need for an answer. An answer of "I don't know" is not good enough. Ironically, they will also say they are just working with a model, that can be changed, but their dogmatic attitude shows they don't merely approach evolution as science, but as dogma, regardless of the facts.

The attitude of evos is they are asserting a proven fact, and they assert this with more dogmatism than any other area of science I know of. The idea they consider it scientifically, as something not proven, is demonstrably proven wrong by the inherent and unreasonable dogmatism of evos.

I think when a group of scientists rely on faked data and claims for over 100 years, despite repeated evidence the claims and data are faked, then yes, I think they are probably less rigorous than Jack Chick in their fact checking.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 05:08 PM

Schraf, I already told you due to your behaviour, I would not participate on that thread any longer. Maybe you didn't realize I was serious.I did note though that someone else provided a link as you were demanding, and you still ignored it.

What do you call Haeckel's drawings and the theory of recapitulation, if not a myth?

Please substantiate this. Specifically show:1. How the mere fact of fossils of any kind substantiates evolution. For example, how many fossils of transitionals does ToE predict, or are you you merely arguing a totally unfalsifiable theory.2. How any number of transitionals shows evolution. Should there not be some sort of prediction or analysis of how many transitionals should be found? To just claim any that are found more or less proves evolution is basically, once again, not showing a falsifiable scientific theory, since what you are arguing is that any combination of fossils automatically verifies evolution.

So the fact your wife studies beetle evolution somehow validates 125 years of presenting a myth, faked data, as accurate, eh?Too bad you evos don't abandon all the faked stuff. Maybe if you did and stuck to not overstating the data and exagerrating the evidence, the evidence such as your wife's work could be presented.But then again, I am not sure showing that all beetles share common descent does much to prove evolution. The creationists would just argue that beetles are one kind, and so speciation based on that one kind is in full accord with their predictions.

Sometimes they can be the same thing.But it's not an obsession. I just think truly understanding the evolution of recapitulation theory and Haeckel's drawings provides a good window into the mentality of evolutionists.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 10:21 PM

Even the guy in the street knows that faking and doctoring photos is wrong. Apparently everyone knows this but evos.

Crash made a claim. I am merely asking him to substantiate it.Are you saying his claim is in error?

So doctoring evidence and putting it in textbooks is acceptable to you.Ok, but most of the rest of America thinks things like that are wrong.

Uh huh,...really? Care to show where I have ever written anything about the Big Bang, much less that it was an atheist plot.Is this sort of like the Haeckel mentality? Fake the data to make your claim? Also, you actually beleive evos didn't put any credence in Haeckel's drawings for decades? MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichLooks like evos were taking Haeckel's claims very seriously up to at least 1997, to the point they accepted his claims of a phylotypic stage uncritically and offered little to no citations, as if it had already been well-established, which it was.The problem is Haeckel's work contained fraudulent data to make his claims.