Pence makes me embarrassed to be from Indiana. I was quite happy he got out of the guvner's seat, but then I realized my worst fear might ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
President Pence?!?

Wortfish wrote:

Greyman wrote:Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

Wel, the watchmaker may be the ultimate explanation for why a watch exists on the heath, but it is not a sufficient explanation that informs us how and why the watch was assembled in the way that it is. That's why his argument is a religious/philosophical one and not a scientific one.

Well, that's totally true. It was not a scientific argument and was more of a philosophical musing. I don't think that the idea has much merit, either way, but I'm happy that you notice that Paley's point was 100% removed from science. You know what science is, and I think that should be acknowledged.

Zadocfish2 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

Greyman wrote:Negative. Paley had an explanation for the origin of complex mechanisms that need to be assembled whole from manufactured components, like watches. Watchmakers. He was insisting that the same explanation could/should be used for the origin of living organisms that grow and reproduce themselves, like chickens.

Wel, the watchmaker may be the ultimate explanation for why a watch exists on the heath, but it is not a sufficient explanation that informs us how and why the watch was assembled in the way that it is. That's why his argument is a religious/philosophical one and not a scientific one.

Well, that's totally true. It was not a scientific argument and was more of a philosophical musing. I don't think that the idea has much merit, either way, but I'm happy that you notice that Paley's point was 100% removed from science. You know what science is, and I think that should be acknowledged.

Except that he demonstrated in the other thread, that he doesn't.
He thinks scientists think up hypotheses out of the blue and then only look for evidence to confirm that hypothesis.

I thought that was creationists?

Wortfish wrote:

Alan B wrote:Just watched it. That 'thing' is going to be Vice-president of the US?

Not only is he going to the VP, but he is now heading Trump's transition team and will choose all cabinet members and seniour staff, including at the Department of Education. There are rumours that creationists are asking him to impose a moratorium on the teaching of evolution within President Trump's first 100 days.

Wortfish's knowledge of real world events proves as accurate as usual.

Seems harsh. I'll bet that idea was floated by creationists. And Pence was involved in the choice of a pro-intelligent-design idiot as Education Secretary.

I clicked on the link expecting that the article would confirm the assertion that Pence was involved in choosing De Vos. No such luck. It wouldn't surprise me if he was, but the article doesn't say that. So I searched further and all the sources I've found described her as "Trump's pick," with no mention of Pence other than his tie-breaking vote in her US Senate confirmation hearing.

Pence was head of the transition team, whose job it was to put forward nominations for Secretary positions. There's no shortage of articles on his role working with Trump to pick the Cabinet.

But have one specific one referring to Pence's links to the deVos family:

Right now, she has 50 votes in the Senate, which means that Vice President Mike Pence, a friend of the ultra-wealthy, ultra-conservative DeVos family, will cast the deciding vote in her favor.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/140456/ ... etsy-devos

Pence and deVos have long been co-warriors in pursuing school voucher programs. Before Pence put her forward as Education Secretary, she had nice things to say about his selection as VP:
https://www.federationforchildren.org/a ... candidate/

Unsurprising, because she'd also been, through a American Federation for Children (an anti-public-education lobby group) a key funder of Pence in Indiana.
http://jonathanpelto.com/2016/07/14/bre ... ning-mate/

I think it is likely that Pence will soon propose executive action to enforce "academic freedom" in public schools nationwide. This means that teachers cannot be censured or fired if they discuss material "critical" of evolution, climate change and other scientific theories. Those schools that do not comply would be at risk of being defunded.

Wortfish wrote:I think it is likely that Pence will soon propose executive action to enforce "academic freedom" in public schools nationwide. This means that teachers cannot be censured or fired if they discuss material "critical" of evolution, climate change and other scientific theories. Those schools that do not comply would be at risk of being defunded.

Well, if it takes government enforcement to overcome science, then I guess that's what it takes. I don't know if that's a stable equilibrium or not. Have any theories about that, in light of creationism or natural selection? Other than the expected, of course.

This could really work out for you, Wortfish. If school systems leave most students ignorant of even basic science for the sake of Sunday morning sermons, that leaves them like fatted cattle for the smart ones who don't just want to be told soothing fairy stories. It's up to you, Worfish, and idiots like Pence. He knows how to work the system, and you don't, so you're depending on him not just to fix schools for you, but everything else as well, just so dumbshit kids of creotards don't have to feel offended by what they might have to hear when they emerge from the bosom of their families.

Even people who have no education at all and are smart enough can figure out that your fairy stories don't hold together. You have to want to believe that crap.

So Wortfish ....how do you deal with scientific fact......provide an alternative theory to explain them?? you do understand that a theory is only a sound as it explains scientific facts, which are verifiable, repeatable observations

material "critical" of evolution, climate change

got any sound alternatives ?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Even people who have no education at all and are smart enough can figure out that your fairy stories don't hold together. You have to want to believe that crap.

If Trump is impeached or resigns, Pence will take over..as president he may call for creationism to be taught alongside evolutionary theory.

In your wet dreams. The Dover judgement would prevent any such thing.

felltoearth wrote:In your wet dreams. The Dover judgement would prevent any such thing.

One judge in one court doesn't change anything. Creationism has been taught in American public schools before. At the very least, criticism of Neo-Darwinism will be made a mandatory component of the science class.

now what the hell is neo-Darwinism? Your choice of words suggests intellectual dishonesty.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:In your wet dreams. The Dover judgement would prevent any such thing.

One judge in one court doesn't change anything. Creationism has been taught in American public schools before. At the very least, criticism of Neo-Darwinism will be made a mandatory component of the science class.

Well it is all it took as the case was so solid they refused appeals. Behe's performance was embarrassing.
If you want to hitch your ride to that sorry lot, that really is your choice. The vapidity and intellectual dishonesty of ID couldn't be more clear.

Yabbut why are there still monkeys Mr. Smartypants Evolutionist? And how come bananas fit right in your hand? I sure aint' never seen no cat have puppies nor no crocoducks at the lake.

That really is the level of reasoned discourse you can expect.

Wortfish ...terminal case of wishful thinking.

Do you know why it is called Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? Because it has been placed under critical scrutinary and now incorporates findings from genetics. And, yes, it is still undergoing critical scrutinary. By trained biologists.