alt.education

Martin Phipps wrote:
> 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.
>
Ok, again if NG has been observed at work in the formation of the
woodpeckers head, then you should have no problem in presenting the hard
empirical evidence clearly demonstrating the role of NS in the evolution
of the woodpecker.


Danwood
>
> Martin
>