Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
FTK,
Blind? Or perhaps didn't know because I haven't read that post. I DO miss things and I certainly don't read every post. Ahhh the paranoid tendency to see hostility and persecution where none exists (even when a disclaimer is used!), it smells so....pathetic. But this:
| Quote | | I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact. It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation. And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion? I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP. |
And this
| Quote | | I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight. |
Are not going unremarked upon.
1) No evolutionary biology is not speculation. You've been sold a lie if that's what you believe. It is also not taught dogmatically, there is no dogma to teach.
What IS taught is the best set of explanations we have based on the best facts we have. Sorry if your beliefs conflict with reality to such and extent that you have to deny the facts.
IDC is NOT science, never has been, never will be. The data simply does not support it at all. IDC is demonstrably old wine in new bottles. Antique ideas about teleology in nature that weren't very good when they were invented and are contradicted by every single thing we know about the universe. The reason IDC is not taught as some alternative to evolutionary biology is because it is not an alternative to evolutionary biology, it is wishful thinking coloured with jargon words to make it sound sciencey to the rubes who buy Dembski et al's books. It's a con. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.
You pride yourself on an open mind (something for which no evidence can yet be found) then do what any good scholar would do...go and find out. Ask a prof at a local uni, phone them up, email them, ask for a reading list. You'll find hundreds of people willing to help. Pay an impoverished post grad a tutorial fee ($20 or whatever it is, it will be small) for an hour's tutorial on things you don't understand (they'll be so flattered you could probably get it for free!). Instead of wringing your hands and crying "why why why how" and "it's all speculation" (when it so isn't) go an find out. Take the time you waste on line and actually go and use it productively.
A college textbook will have references in it, GET THEM. I cannot stress this enough. When you get those references look at the references section of them and get THOSE references. Keep going until you can't go any further. It takes time, it costs money, it takes a lot of effort. We call it "researching the primary literature" and it's a good idea to do this BEFORE you even get to do basic research.
I say all this but then:
2) You think all college students are like you? Mindlessly parroting facts to get back to the bar and to obtain a passing grade? You think this is how science works? Oh purleeez! It's the "Don't think, accept" attitude that typifies poor (read: non-existent) scholarship. I positively HATED this trite drivel when at school and university and yes I regularly blasted people who espoused it. This is the antithesis of the scientific endeavour, the opposite of research and the very epitome of shoddy anti-intellectual, incurious, shallow, "cargo-cult" style pseudo thought. It's the most contemptible thing I have seen you express, and sister, that says a lot given the crap you spout.
You will never, can never understand even the basics of science with an attitude to scholarship like this. Oh sure, you can parrot things back to people but that does not constitute either learning, thought, understanding or scholarship. The opposite is true: Don't accept, THINK.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
