pseudobug

You're welcome. Although you are being sarcastic as hell, I meant no malice towards you. That may change, however.
Yep, I certainly am familiar with them. I graduated from one in the heart of Bible-thumper fundieland--Tennessee--21 years ago. I am also aware that back then--as now--most teachers were/are ill-qualified to teach science in secondary schools.[/QB][/QUOTE]

The list is not necessary. Evolutionary theory was quite sound twenty years ago. In fact, it displaced every single competeting theory decades ago. My secondary school education did not, however, prepare me to understand that as I am sure yours did not. In fact, the vast majority of college graduates today have little, if any contact with evolutionary theory in their curricullum and if they do, few end up with little more than a rudimentary understanding of it.

The point is that you were playing a semantic game with the definitions as one of the other posters pointed out. I was trying to say, in a nice way, that your background and interest didn't prepare you to really understand many of the concepts as you yourself admitted in your initial post.

I'm going to be honest with you, echidna. I have a PhD in microbiology. I understand microbiology well, and microbial physiology and microbial genetics very well. That, however, does not make me an expert in paleontology, population genetics, ecology, geography, comparative vertebrate anatomy and a whole host of other scientific disciplines. I struggle with some of the concepts of these disciplines as I read about them for fun because I have not dedicated myself to them and have not studied them for years. I do, however, believe I can pick up on the gist of of different scientific disciplines a bit quicker than your average joe on the street. Furthermore, I guarantee you that a "secular secondary education" at it's very best, gives an 18 year-old no more than a cursory understanding od the general concepts of evolution

Finally, I know for a fact how science is done as I have been engaged in it for over a decade. I know for a fact just how rigorous the peer-review process is and the standards that are required for publication and for obtaining funding. I also know for a fact that what is passed off as "science" by creationists is horsecrap. Furthermore, I know for a fact that scinece is conducted or disproved by semantic games such as what you were pulling in your iniital post. Nor is science conducted--and it shouldn't be taught--with a "less sit down and discuss how we feel about about the concepts' approach. Science stands on data or observations which either proves or disproves hypotheses. The and data supporting or refuting hypotheses are scientific "facts". Those facts are formulated into more encompassing theories which explain how the natural world and the processes governing it work.

You are right in that evolutionary theory was not as "watertight" twenty years ago. It was, however, a sound theory, and the only theory that had any evidence supporting it. Whether or not you remained agnostic because of the "soundness" of evolution has no frigging bearing on the issue. Why? Because religion is about faith in the supernatural and science has nothing to do with the supernatural.


I most certainly did not call you a dinosaur or even hint that you had inferior schooling. I merely hinted that perhaps you weren't inquisitive with regard to the biological sciences--something that you admitted yourself. Nothing wrong with that. I hated art classes as a kid. People have different interests. If one is interested in something as a student, they are more likely to put more effort into learning about a particular subject.

The last part of what you quoted me on above was merely an observation. You can learn a lot here on this board if you choose. Many of the posters are quite knowledgeable in a variety of areas. They well also treat you well if you have a genuine interest in evolution. However, they also have very sensitive bullshit detectors and will crush you if you play semantic games. It seemed that you were beginning to do just that. I was only giving you fair warning.

It's up to you what you choose to do here. I don't care as long as you don't put word into my mouth.

pseudobug

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Reasonable attempt at an answer. I would submit to you that physical laws operate in the absence of any inteeligent intervention. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any "intelligence" had a hand in "creating" any of the physical laws. Finally, a machine is, in most cases, the result of a designer. Finally, there are loads of "feedback" mechanisms in biology and biologists are well aware of how they operate.

Again, not bad, but there is no evidence for a designer. Furthermore, given the correct conditions, we can replicate snow.

It wasn't my intent to suggest pantheism at all. However, many Christans have a view of an active "God" that is constantly intervening in the lives of his/her creations. I was just curious as to what your response might be with regard to the fact that we see no evidence of his/her/its intervention.

Thanks again for your response.

echidna

While personally I don’t even bother debating YEC's, I appreciate that frequent confrontations can build understandable frustrations. But I think you’ll find that your caustic tone is not necessary with me pseudobug. I have no desire to turn EC into Bible class. Maybe we have different understandings of “nice”.

My “semantic game” was a genuine attempt to understand why I have been led down a path where ID has not been as clearly refuted as Creationism. While from a PhD microbiology perspective these words have clear meanings to you, I maintain that from a layman’s angle, these words are still slightly ambiguous. When they were originally chosen by Darwin et al, was not Evolution was far more theoretical and far less understood than today ? Is their colloquial ambiguity is a legacy of the years ? I don’t know. For instance, what were Dawkins reasons for advocating “exaptation” ?

(And don’t mix this with an attempt to refute or undermine the concepts of Evolution.)

OK, as you say, probably the greater reason for confusion is simply that high school teachers teach Evolution and biology naively. Old news to you, but only a relatively recent discovery to myself. The concept of exaptation is a simple one, and yet I’m bewildered that it wasn’t taught clearly when I was at High School. How widely is it taught today ? It was easily my biggest stumbling block for many years.

As if to illustrate the misunderstandings of language … I had intended “can” to mean “are permitted” as an invitation.

pseudobug

OK, echidna. Let's just call a truce on the subject of semantics. You were well within bounds to voice your idea on the issue of word meanings as they relate to common misunderstandings.

I am sorry that my initial response came across as being "caustic" in my initial reply to you. Message boards are notorious for meaning and intent to be lost as they lack the ability to convey intonation and visual cues.

Post away and stick around...you seem like a reasonable fellow. And, no hard feelings, ok?

goody2shoes

Welcome, but I was responding to a question about snowflakes; not people.

Goody

echidna

Cheers pseudobug, actually I was packing up my tent Sunday morning and thinking that my high school beliefs were more along the lines of Lamarkian Evolution than ID, but I guess gene-jumping and such tends to flush Lamarkianism down the gurgler as well.

Definitely no hard feelings, out of forgiving and forgetting, forgiveness isn't required and I’m exceedingly good at the latter.