Longloadr wrote:

Thats not correct Lysholm. What gave you that idea? :)Do you realize that there are PhD scientists in virtually every scientific field imaginable that say the evidence best supports the ID, or the creationist model?

There are indeed biologists who supports ID like Michael Behe but they are very few. The vast majority of biologists are evolutionists.

Longloadr wrote:

Both ID and evolutionism are ideological.

That could be true, I don't know how often politicians talk about evolution but evolution is the scientific theory, ID is the religious one.

Longloadr wrote:

Eugenics... getting rid of the less fit... increase the fitness of the human race... I wonder where such an idea came from?

Not from Darwin. His ideas were misused.

Longloadr wrote:

Eugenics... getting rid of the less fit... increase the fitness of the human race... I wonder where such an idea came from?

Well given it's all the rage to answer with passages from you-know-what. How about this for a suggestion to answer that?

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man..."

Lysholm wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Thats not correct Lysholm. What gave you that idea? :)Do you realize that there are PhD scientists in virtually every scientific field imaginable that say the evidence best supports the ID, or the creationist model? There are indeed biologists who supports ID like Michael Behe but they are very few. The vast majority of biologists are evolutionists.

Fortunatly for all of us science is not a concensus sport. The majority has often been wrong. Behe? From all the quotes of various scientists who support ID or Creationism, I don't think I have EVER used him. (And as a few Interpallers like to p

Longloadr wrote:

f quotes) As I said... there are doctorate level scientists in virtually every field of science who agree bthat the evidence supports a Creator, and a young earth. Longloadr wrote: Both ID and evolutionism are ideological. That could be true, I don't know how often politicians talk about evolution but evolution is the scientific theory, ID is the religious one.

I disagree. Both models examine the same evidence. Scientists examine the same rock layers...the same fossils...the same galaxies... the same DNA, but have different interpretations of the evidence based upon starting beliefs. If you believe or don'y believe in a Creator, you will interpret evidence according to your beliefs / your starting point of bias. So, evolutionism is as religious as ID, because both are beliefs about the past.

Longloadr wrote:

Eugenics... getting rid of the less fit... increase the fitness of the human race... I wonder where such an idea came from?

Not from Darwin. His ideas were misused.[/quote]
Ok... perhaps... But Darwin did think white people were more highly evolved than other people...

Charles Darwin wrote:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon....

Longloadr wrote:

Do you realize that there are PhD scientists in virtually every scientific field imaginable that say the evidence best supports the ID, or the creationist model?

This doesn't mean that they are a majority.

Longloadr wrote:

Fortunatly for all of us science is not a concensus sport. The majority has often been wrong.

Are you thinking of any particular case?

Longloadr wrote:

Ok... perhaps... But Darwin did think white people were more highly evolved than other people... Charles Darwin wrote: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon....

That was sadly a very common belief during the ages of colonial empires but it doesn't prove Darwin to be wrong. Furthermore where did you find the quote?

Lysholm wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Do you realize that there are PhD scientists in virtually every scientific field imaginable that say the evidence best supports the ID, or the creationist model? This doesn't mean that they are a majority.

No, certainly not... They are a minority but do number in the thousands. 700+ PhD scientists have stuck their necks out and signed onto Dissent from Darwin. Included in this list are some who secularlists (not creationists or ID)

Dissenters wrote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged..... There is scientific dissent from Darwinism, It deserves to be heard

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Lysholm wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Fortunatly for all of us science is not a concensus sport. The majority has often been wrong. Are you thinking of any particular case?

Well there are many, many examples. Just for fun let's start with global warming. Is the majority correct about that? Perhaps... Perhaps not. It was not that many years ago when the majority of scientists were concerned about global cooling. During the 1970's, some scientists thought that we should nuke the polar ice caps to try reverse the trend of global cooling.
Other examples:
1. During the Scopes trial in the 1920's, one of the pivotal arguments used by the side for evolution was that our bodies contained 180 useless organs... biological remnants/ vestigial organs. The majority of scientists actually believed that! We now know that all those 180 organs do serve a purpose. The majority was wrong.
2. The majority of scientists once believed the majority of our DNA was junk... they actually believed that this was proof of an evolutionary history. Fortunately real science trumped that belief... We now know much of what was once considered junk DNA is actually functional serving a purpose. Almost as if it was there by design.
3. 'Scientists', or the educated used to believe that the universe revolved around the earth. That belief originated with ptomly, a Greek mathematician. Fortunately real scientists don't always go along with the majority. (Ie. Copernicus and Galileo)
4. For the last 40 years of the1800's the majority of scientists thought that variation of species was connected to pangenesis or gemules. These were a couple of Darwins 4 postulates with some similarities to Lamarckian evolution. This incorrect belief by the majority held up growth in the field of genetics by 30+ years as they mostly ignored Mendels work.
5. The vast majority of scientists once believed human embryos had gill slits which were an evidence of amphibian ancestry. This false belief made its way into all biology textbooks. The belief was based on fraudulent drawings, and not real science. The majority fell for the hoax because it seemed to confirm their beliefs.
There are likely hundreds of examples but thats a start

Lysholm wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Ok... perhaps... But Darwin did think white people were more highly evolved than other people... Charles Darwin wrote: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon.... That was sadly a very common belief during the ages of colonial empires but it doesn't prove Darwin to be wrong. Furthermore where did you find the quote?

Quote is from 'Descent of Man'. Darwins attitude towards people seemed to change quite a bit with this book. He really did not like blacks... and especially pygmies it seems. But its inderstandable in a way... since he thought that there were different races of people and some more highly evolved.

Longloadr wrote:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

That link talked mostly about neo-Darwinism. What is the difference between neo-Darwinism and classical Darwinism?

Longloadr wrote:

Well there are many, many examples. Just for fun let's start with global warming. Is the majority correct about that? Perhaps... Perhaps not. It was not that many years ago when the majority of scientists were concerned about global cooling.

I am not going into details about global warming here but there was no scientific consensus about the risk of global cooling in the 1970s. The vast majority of scientists predicted global warming even in the early 1970s. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Longloadr wrote:

'Scientists', or the educated used to believe that the universe revolved around the earth. That belief originated with ptomly, a Greek mathematician. Fortunately real scientists don't always go along with the majority. (Ie. Copernicus and Galileo)

Science was vastly different in the days of Copernicus than today.