FloydLee
Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
| Quote | | Likewise, no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas. No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook. FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny. Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence? |
(1) No claim was made that those two particular editions were used in Kansas. Strawman, Csadams?
(2) I made it clear that Miller's wording was not in current editions. I said, "the first two editions".
(3) The FTE brief makes absolutely clear what the point of the Miller example was, relative to their textbook issue. (Which of course poked a hole right into "Matzke and Forrest's" stuff.)
I also pointed out, relative to OUR thread topic here, that Miller's statement actually reinforced one of the Incompatibilities.
Curiously, Csadams has nothing to say to refute those actual points themselves. Cat got your tongue Cs?
(4) You asked about a cite. The FTE amicus brief itself directly cited, "Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life 152 (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994)."
Clear enough.
(5) You try to link to an earlier PT discussion not related to the FTE quotation or to an Incompatibility, but that's a two way street you're walking. Let's walk together for a minute.
| Quote | | "One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn’t give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it. " |
Using an older edition of the same textbook, you were able to show that the last sentence needed to be retracted, which I did do precisely that.
The first sentence remained clear and affirmed however, and there was nothing you could do about it except fall silent on the point. Here's what I said back then:
[quote]I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.
***
On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:
| Quote | One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.
Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond.
None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated.
(In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.) |
That was that. There was nothing you could do about it. Holt 2004 "Biology" had the last word.
******
See, that's what I like about an extended debate like this. We can take our time and hash out a little more stuff, at least to some degree.
******
But, again we're kinda wandering a bit. Let's bring it back a little.
Csadams, you say you are a Christian. Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?
FloydLee
|
