“Jocko Homo” - DEVO (from “Q:Are We Not Men A: We are Devo!”, produced by Brian Eno, 1988)

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it’s all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
We’re pinheads now
We are not whole
We’re pinheads all
Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We’re all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. let’s go!

It’s interesting to see how people who obviously have a fair degree of knowledge and information respond.

Brendan Nelson may have had that in mind when he sought to be reasonably fair-minded about whether people’s faith could be accommodated in schools without compromising the evolutionists vehement defence of theirs.

Sorry about the embarrassment.

“DNA contains what could be called identifyable and unchanging information in each species. How does information in a DNA strand evolve separate to the species and form it at the same time? Simultaneous mutations of form and information?”

This is downright embarassing - not so much a stoush as a squib.

Evolution depends on huge, almost unimaginable time spans to have any hope of working. Creation depends on a God and requires faith. These are difficulties for all sides.

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

The “unimaginable” time spans have certainly been imagined, and more - they have been theorised, predicted, and measured. Which is why there are no “difficulties” on the side of evolution.

There is no “controversy”. Evolution is FACT as such as the sky and earth are facts. Just as sure that we both are primates of the genus Homo who share a common ancestor not only with all the other primates, but the entire clade of Mammilia, the phylum of Metazoa (Animals), in the kingdom of Eukarota, who, billions of years ago, parasitised some bacteria, and we still carry their separate DNA within us.

‘T.Rex: Science does not compromise with the facts. It does not need to “compromise”; it needs to produce testable, disprovable, hypotheses about the Universe.‚Äô

ID is a compromise, not science.

And that’s precisely why science and science curricula should have nothing to do with it. Science is about the nature of the Universe, not political compromise.

‘T.Rex: Science is by definition about the natural world.‚Äô

Dictionary: Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Science is not epistomology. Science is not even just a type of epistomology. Science is a epistomological method for learning about the natural world. And checking dictionary.com to see where you got the “dictionary” definition that you appear to plucked out of thin air above yields nothing, as it defines science as (and you might note definition 2);

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

But dictionary definitions of a word (i.e. the meanings in which it is used by people) don’t denote the practice, anyway, just like the way that a map is not the territory.

talk.origins won’t discuss Brendan Nelson’s comments.

But neither are you. You’ve barely if at all mentioned him or his comments. And talk.origins covers in detail every single talking point you’ve regurgitated so far.

‘T.Rex: Creationists are liars. Lies make the baby Jesus cry‚Äô (again & again)

Jesus isn’t a baby. He grew up. He wants you to follow his example.

Jesus called a spade a spade. And creationists ARE proven liars (the ’scientists accept evolution have problems’ is but ONE example of these incessant lies). Isn’t “thou shalt not bear false witness” one of your religion’s commandments?

Lies make baby elephant Ganesa angry. Soon, the age Kali Dhurga will come to an end, and Siva Nataraja shall cleanse the world of ignorance and the cycle of death-in-life will start over again. Maybe that’s the puff of smoke that two-bit fraud Behe is looking for.

Q
‘Can you disprove this theory by providing contrary examples or can you propose another theory based on empirical observation that makes this one a subset of one that depends on belief in God?’

The answer, in terms of conceding that your view of ID or creationism is correct, is no, because the available data is the same for all three arguments and not fully persuasive for any.

Evolution depends on huge, almost unimaginable time spans to have any hope of working. Creation depends on a God and requires faith. These are difficulties for all sides.

Science on the other hand throws up interesting questions which have yet to be answered by either side, which is why science, like math or languages, should be taught in schools according to the available evidence, and theories attached to science should be taught as separate curriculum.

Neither evolution or creation is going to work for everyone. I concede that for you this is a hugely inadequate point of view, and that you’ve argued well and been fair despite wanting to place creationism in your sites.

Happy hunting.

Now, was that a sin of omission or one of commission?

Nabakov:
A large body of empirical and well documented data clearly shows that:
a) people who believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method; and
b) people who don’t believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method.

It also follows that:

a) people who believe in evolution can carry out valid work using the scientific method; and
b) people who don’t believe in evolution can carry out valid work using the scientific method.

Yer edging into snarkland there FaceLift.

(And also completely dodging the various questions raised above. Your religion teaches you to be charitable right? So assume the questions above were asked in good faith.)

But if you wanna go the snark route, then bring it on. I warn you though - you won’t like me when I’m snarky.

“He wants you to follow his example.”
Tortured to death at 33 as a political hit? No thanks.

ID is a compromise, not science.

‘T.Rex: Science is by definition about the natural world.’

Dictionary: Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

talk.origins won’t discuss Brendan Nelson’s comments.

‘T.Rex: Creationists are liars. Lies make the baby Jesus cry’ (again & again)

Jesus isn’t a baby. He grew up. He wants you to follow his example.

Nabs; yeah I’m not much of a rhetorical brawler really.

Makes sense to me Irant. Isn’t that how they signal God’s choice of his top enforcer on earth?