Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

You responded to a post including the process for amending the constitution by saying "that settles the argument."The argument was the constitutionality of laws enforcing the teaching of ID/creationism.If you don't believe that the possibility of amending the constitution "settles the argument", then why did you say it did?

Or in this case, the thread.Cheers

My first post in this thread was an immediate response to your first post in this thread.Exactly what in this thread do you think I've missed? If all you have to offer are one-line evasions, don't waste our time, ok?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-10-2004 05:52 AM

quote:

---

You just keep on telling yourself that and someday you may actually convince someone, perhaps even yourself.

---

What you don't seem to understand about how science is done is a lot.Nobel prizes are awarded to scientists who overturn dominant paradigms.Why do you think Einstein became so famous?He showed how Newton's theories were wrong, and by doing so allowed science to take a great leap forward in progress.If we were to find evidence that completely overturned the Theory of Evolution, that scientist would certainly win a Nobel prize, and our understanding of natural processes would take another leap forward.I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the ToE isn't maintained to be the best explanation of the evidence because it is dogmatically held.It is maintained because every time we find another fossil, it's in the geologic layer it's predicted to be in, and because we can observe mutation and speciation in organisms in real time, and because the theory survives lots of other tests.That's what each and every one of these experiments and observations are, DS; tests of the theory.Just because the ToE hasn't been falsified doesn't make it unfalsifiable.

I'm afraid you are not quite right.Yes, Einstein did get a Nobel prize for work overturning a dominant theory.Yes, Einsteins work on Relativity did overturn aspects of the then-dominant paradigm of Newtonian mechanics - indeed even Special Relativity destroyed the intuitive idea that there was an absolute reference for motion. There is no such thing as "at rest" except in a relative sense.But the work Einstein got the Nobel for was not Relativity. It was for his earlier work on the Photoelectric effect which marked a move away from the then-dominant wave theory of light, back to a particulate theory (which was what Newton proposed !). This was one of the founding works of Quantum Mechanics - placing Einstein in the forefront of the two greatest achivements of 20th Century Physics.So although your post contains a common and understandable error, the truth actually reinforces your point. Not only is Einstein chiefly remembered for his work overturning one dominant paradigm, he also recieved the Nobel prize for work overturning ANOTHER dominant paradigm. Two for the price of one :-)

Ah, but I didn't say he got the Nobel for Relativity.I said he is famous for it, which is true.However, I certainly see how it could be taken from my message that I made the error.I had my facts right, but crapped up my writing. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2004 03:05 PM

I hope this helps to clarify things. The discussion had moved from the authority of the Ohio board of education to decide science curriculum into the realm of what is and is not constitutional, namely, majority rule. jar's contention was that majority of public opinion did not matter when it came to the u.s. constitution. At which point I responded..... And then posted the following..... To which jar replied..... To which I replied..... So you can hopefully understand why I am a bit perplexed that you were unable to follow along with the discussion. Any previous discussion of hypothetical amendments had nothing to do with the constitutionality of majority rule, which as you have just read, jar said was unconstitutional.My posting of article 5 of the constitution settled the disagreement of whether majority rule was constitutional or not, which it most surely is. But the real beauty of article 5 is that a minority of the populace can still win out if they are able to convince a majority in the senate & congress, along with a majority of the states, to agree on an issue even when the majority of the overall populace is against it.We the people, have chosen to elect representatives to "represent" us and for the most part they do just that because of their strong desire to be re-elected to another term in office, and they make decisions for us based upon the constitutional requirement of majority rule as stated in article 5 of the constitution.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Hi schrafinator I am afraid you may have misunderstood what I was saying to froggy.crashfrog had stated..... Now while I can accept that honest evolutionists are always willing to amend the theory of evolution based upon new discoveries, crashfrogs contention of being "ready", "willing", and "eager" to toss it on the scrapheap in the face of disconfirming evidence, (is disconfirming even a word? I don't believe that it is but please correct me if I am wrong.), seems most disingenuous.Ready? Yes, quite possibly I think we must remain so to be perceived as truly honest and in search of the truth.Willing? Maybe so, but most definitely with a fair bit of reluctance and trepidation.Eager? Hell no!The first step in abandoning the theory of evolution would be one of tremendous hesitation, not eagerness. Besides, crashfrog never offered an example of exactly what that disconfirming evidence would consist of, (still find it difficult to accept that as a legitimate term so help me here if you can), and I seriously doubt scientists would simply abandon the theory of evolution in the face of any single piece of strong contrary evidence.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

I don't see how you would expect one piece of evidence to be disconfirming.So, from that perspective, it doesn't look like we're on the same page again. True or false - the theory that would replace evolution would be revolutionary, yes? And likely the source of much acclaim for its theorist?

Actually I wouldn't, unless it was something totally mind-blowing, say like some actual creator entity like thing showing up on earth, slapping us all upside the head and saying to us, "What the hell were you thinking!" Uh, yeah! Duh! Again, uh, yeah! Duh! Seriously though, it would require some tremendously earth shaking revelations for the theory of evolution to be replaced by something else.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Well, with so much in store for the guy who overturns evolution, why wouldn't you think we all would be so eager to do it? Which we await with bated breath. We're not so eager, of course, that we're going to do bad science, and throw away a good theory that could be made better. But when the next theory comes along, good scientists are going to be on the bandwagon, provided it's good theory.

Well, for one thing, you won't find alot of scientists out there working to replace the theory of evolution with something else even when they are confronted with a virtually undeniable sense of design in everything. You will, on the other hand, find a plethora of scientists working diligently to support and sustain the theory of evolution. Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design. I see the debate on the origins of life eventually progressing into one of intelligent design(creation) vs unintelligent design(evolution).Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

is at the very lowest, most fundamental level. It is possible that the very basic rules, perhaps at the string level but most likely even lower than that, may have been designed. There does appear to be some underlying relationship, some lowest level that we may never reach in understanding, that governs how all matter, energy, time and even intangibles such as thought, behave. I can well imagine that some designer began by speaking those very most basic rules of the game.But after that, there is no indications whatsoever of any hand being involved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So in your opinion, does design demand a designer?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Demand? No.Allow for the possibility of a designer? Yes.But at anything higher than the lowest levels (and as we learn more that level continues to get shoved further and futher back) there is no sign of or reasonable possibility of designer intervention.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion