How important are Darwin vs. design issues globally?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 2, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In Hong Kong-based International Business Times (September 28, 2011), Maggie Astor advised readers that US prez hopeful Herman Cain “has not taken a position on evolution.”

Imagine that!

Even not taking a position on a question that isn’t even about ye old conventional politics is now worthy of international notice … guess it matters.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

I don't know about hilary, but I did see this floating around the web: "Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans and they also visit fortune-tellers more often… The results also show that Democrats are far more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than Republicans" http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/12/17/democrats-more-likely-to-believe-in-ghosts-reincarnation-other-scientifically-proven-things/ I have not idea how accurate that is. But if republicans are more fundamentally Christian then it would make some sense since Christians tend to not believe in ghosts, fortune telling, horoscope astrology etcjunkdnaforlife_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Citation please. Eleanore Roosevelt Astrologer and hilary clinton astrologer both have zero hits on Google. Their names paired with astrology bring up only idiots casting their horoscopes. Who told you that Eleanore Roosevelt and Hilary Clinton had astrologers in the White House?dmullenix_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

GinoB: "GWB was one of the most scientifically illiterate Presidents we’ve ever had. Besides disregarding almost every recommendation from the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" ==== Yes and the President before him needed regular BJs in his White House office while on the phone with advisors over issues like the Balkans War in former Yugoslavia. Well documented. Seems both sides have had their share of idiots. ---- GinoB: "Heck, Nancy Reagan even had an astrologer in the White House advising Ronnie on world affairs." ==== So did Eleanore Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton. Looks like both sides are loaded with complete imbeciles and apparently from the lack of world peace, clean environment and any secure economy, it doesn't take a PHDed Genius to figure out the present form of governance here on Earth has been an absolute failure. What's even dumber are all the kool-aid sucking followers on BOTH sides who believe and pimp that only their gang is still in the right.Eocene_{November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2Thorton
If there is one thing on which the scientific community agrees it is that evolution is made of fine details, just about the finest details anyone can imagine. They are very fine, and very detailed. What good is an explanation of a finely detailed process without fine details?
Science knows a great many details about evolution. I've presented many to you but you never bother to read them since you know everything already. Like any scientific field there are debates in areas still being researched - 'tree down' vs. 'ground up' for the origin of flight in birds, for example. None of that affects in the least the central ideas of ToE - common descent with modification, genetic variations driven by selection that accumulate over generations. Those are all facts beyond any reasonable scientific dispute. You wouldn't understand any of that since you've never taken a science class in your life and have only your AIG and ICR 'learning' to draw from. I'd love to hear the details you can provide about Biblical Creationism, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, etc. Shouldn't take you more than 5 seconds.GinoB_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

It's had considerably impact in the past. GWB was one of the most scientifically illiterate Presidents we've ever had. Besides disregarding almost every recommendation from the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), GWB also cut science research and science education spending to historically low levels. Heck, Nancy Reagan even had an astrologer in the White House advising Ronnie on world affairs.GinoB_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

GinoBThornton,
There’s absolutely zero controversy over the central tenets (not fine details) of the theory of Evolution in the scientific community. NONE.
I would love to hear you distinguish between a central tenet and a fine detail. But that's beside the point. If there is one thing on which the scientific community agrees it is that evolution is made of fine details, just about the finest details anyone can imagine. They are very fine, and very detailed. What good is an explanation of a finely detailed process without fine details? A "central tenet" without fine details is a hypothesis untested. But a hypothesis is always open to question and controversy. That's what it's for. If you don't question it then it isn't science.ScottAndrews2_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

GinoB, then how come it has had ZERO impact in the past? Oh wait, if you are a committed Darwinist, you don't think evidence matters, right?News_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

There's absolutely zero controversy over the central tenets (not fine details) of the theory of Evolution in the scientific community. NONE. There is political controversy cause by right-wing religious groups trying every backhanded method they can think of, including dumbing down school science standards, to discredit ToE. They think that will let anti-science positions like Intelligent Design / Creationism in the door. It's critically important for the elected leader of this country to be scientifically competent and understand the technical challenges and potential solutions to complicated issues. Showing support for Creationism is a sure indicator of scientific ignorance and is a huge red flag for the future scientific health and scientific competitiveness of the nation.GinoB_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

These were the key insights I took from reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and "Darwin on Trial"Alan_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

I used to think it was dishonesty (and I admit it is very difficult in some circumstances to think of any more charitable characterization of certain actions), but more and more I've come to realize that it isn't so much a matter of honesty as a matter of inability. The committed materialist views all of reality in light of the idea that "evolution" is just one grand process operating throughout the whole of nature, manifesting itself in different ways, from minor cyclical changes in bacteria populations, to the formation of life, to the development of the universe itself. Once trapped in this mindset, it is inevitable that the materialist sees everything as just another confirmation of the worldview. Mistakes and blunders in nature? Evolution. Exquisite design of living systems? Evolution. Fortunately, if one is able to escape from the intellectual trap of thinking all reality is just a process of evolution, then one is able to start asking questions that just wouldn't make sense to the committed materialist, such as whether there could be such a thing as intent, purpose, design.Eric Anderson_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

And yet according to some darwinists there's no controversy on this issue. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/there-is-no-controversy/ Perhaps one day, those darwinists will try being honest for a change.Blue_Savannah_{November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply