alt.education

On Sep 25, 12:33 am, Danwood wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2:32 pm, Danwood wrote:
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>> Danwood wrote:
> >>>> You misunderstood, I stated something to the effect, that science is
> >>>> supposed to be hard nosed, objective, dispassionate. However, some
> >>>> people have become so emotionally invested in evolution that when some
> >>>> aspect of evolution is questioned or challenged they become very
> >>>> disturbed. In this regard they are little different from any religious
> >>>> fanatics. For _such_people_ evolution _is_ a religion; it's part of
> >>>> their worldview - it's who they are.
> >>> "Worldview" and "philosophy" and "culture" are not the same things as
> >>> "religion". "Religion" is a set of beliefs about the supernatural or
> >>> ultimate nature of the universe.
> >>>>> The only reason you (or this other Dan Wood) get called a liar, is for
> >>>>> lies like that.
> >>>> I'm convinced that this "liar" moniker is nothing, but a subterfuge to
> >>>> divert any real debate away from discussions about some of the fallacies
> >>>> of evolution.
> >>> The fallacies are entirely in the form of misunderstandings that
> >>> people have as to what "evolution" entails.
>
> >> I came across a book by Niles Eldridge in which he is complaining about
> >> assertions by "students of adaption" "that complex functionings of
> >> structures are carefully fashioned through natural selection. For
> >> instance, a woodpecker manages to blast into a tree with such rapidity
> >> and force without scrambling it's brain because the bones and muscles of
> >> a woodpecker head are built through (random mutation) and natural
> >> selection precisely to avoid brain scrambling."
>
> >> Eldredge, 1995. .
>
> >> It occurs to me that this is no better explanation than the design
> >> hypothesis.
>
> > Tell that to the primitive woodpeckers who scrambled their brains and
> > died leaving the descendents of modern woodpeckers to have all the
> > babies.
>
> >
> Ok provide the supporting evidence for your claim. I don't mean the
> "just so stories" ie such as Kiplinger's fables explaining how the
> elephant got his trunk and the leopard got his spots". I want to see
> hard empirical evidence, not just an appeal to theory.

Natural selection is an observed phenomena. Creationism isn't.

Martin