UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias

Dimensio »

Tue May 20, 2008 11:28 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Additionally, I will note that the ultimate origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. As such, an objection that life could not have originated through natural processes occurring on earth is not an objection to the theory of evolution. Even if Crick had maintained his position that abiogenesis on Earth was impossible throughout his life, that would not constitute an "objection" to the theory of evolution, which does not require that abiogenesis of any kind ever occurred. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the theory of evolution.

UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias

Dimensio »

Tue May 20, 2008 11:27 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"Francis Crick, discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, stated in his book "Life Itself" that life must have been "seeded" on Earth by unmanned spacecraft from other galaxies, as it could not have evolved from the primordial soup on Earth.

So, Watson must be counting his partner Crick as a fundamentalist minority, eh?"

This is unlikely, as Crick made that statement only as a result of belief that abiogenesis was not physically possible in light of existing knowledge at the time. He later revised his position, and stated outright that he was incorrect in his original assessment. Citing a position that Francis Crick later repudiated as though he held it throughout his life is not honest.

UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias

Dimensio »

Tue May 20, 2008 11:24 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

"If the government knows that the teaching of evolution bothers christians then they need to respect christians and not force the theory of evolution on them and their children."

This is an irrational suggestion. It is not reasonable to withhold teaching of established science merely because there exists a subset of the population who rejects observed reality in favor of specific interpretations of religious claims.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Sat May 17, 2008 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A."

I do not believe that your posting constitutes a rational argument.

UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias

Dimensio »

Sat May 17, 2008 5:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. "

Please justify this assertion with evidence.


"See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists."

I cannot consider the claims of an individual who incorrectly believes that the US Justice Department can legally settle a "wager" to be credible. Additionally, his assertion that those who simply have refused to accept the wager are now charged with a "default judgement" suggests that the website author suffers from delusions.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Thu May 15, 2008 8:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]

The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9)."

I am curious. Do you have any argument against the validity of the theory of evolution that is not an appeal to the logical fallacy of ridicule, or an appeal to the logical fallacy of question begging?

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Wed May 14, 2008 6:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists."

Please explain the "leaps of logic" to which you refer. Please identify the "anecdotal" evidence to which you refer, and identify the "billions" of biological relationships that have been ignored.


"Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.""

Spontaneous generation is a rejected biological concept. It is not a religion. Moreover, I do not understand why you reference it, as it has no direct relevance to the current topic of discussion.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Wed May 14, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you."

If you are unwilling to justify your assertions with evidence, then why should your claims be considered credible?

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Wed May 14, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics."

Please explain the specific physical processes involved in such a "design" mechanism, and cite the direct observed instances of these processer or explain the observed events that from which the processes of the "design" mechanism have been directly derived.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Wed May 14, 2008 11:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know?"

This is not an assumption. This is a conclusion derived from the complete lack of any evidence of any life other than single-celled life existing before a certain time in the planet's history. Bacterial fossil evidence extends to more than three biliion years in the past, however fossil evidence for multicellular life does not suggest the existence of any such life until approximately 1.2 billion years ago. As such, the premise that extant biodiversity emerged from single-celled organisms is a conclusion derived from evidence, not an "assumption" and any argument based upon the claim that such a premise is an "assumption" absent any evidence is fundamentally flawed.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Wed May 14, 2008 10:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Maybe they need to critically analyze what they were taught instead of accepting everything like mindless sheep."

Please demonstrate that they have not already done this.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"You are right.. I incorrectly stated that iller was an atheist.. however he is a philosophical antagonist and I stand by that."

Please explain and justify your assertion that Dr. Ken Miller is a "philosophical antagonist".

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"About Eugneics.. I am not shifting the burden.. I do not need to re-examine what is already part of the historical record on Nazism. "

You asserted, specifically, that the theory of evolution "is the factual foundation for the creation fo Nazism and the Final Solution". You have not demonstrated that claim to be true. You also claimed that "if you believe in Darwinsim than you should also support the removal of any deviancy in the species which would threaten the survival of the species.. for instance.. homosexuality", however you have offered no justification of this claim. Introducing the concept of eugenics, which is not a part of the theory of evolution, and then claiming that your assertions are a "part of history" does not demonstrate that your claims are correct.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 5:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"FOR DIMENSIO: Here is the link: A-Deistic: Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
Cell biologist, Kenneth Miller Ph. D. of Brown University gives a talk on The ... of Behe's claims for irreducible complexity of ID-selected systems. ...
a-deism.blogspot.com/2002/02/collapse-of-intelligent-design.html - 36k -

There is also a link:

endly Atheist » Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry
Nov 13, 2007 ... Ken Miller had already told many of those little stories in his talk at Case Western and managed to thoroughly trounce all of Behe’s typical ...
friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/13/michael-behe-on-point-of-inquiry/ - 45k -"

Neither of the blogs that you have referenced are owned or maintained by Ken Miller, nor do either of them support your assertion that Dr. Miller is an atheist.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 5:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"About Ken Miller.. As I said... while not "technically" considered an atheist he is what is referred to as an _A-Deistic Scientist...."

You are now misrepresenting your own past statements. You expressly claimed that Dr. Kenneth Miller is an atheist. You stated "Miller is a stauch atheist and philosophical agitator...!!". You did not claim that he is not "technically" considered an atheist; you expressly declared that he is, in fact, an atheist.


"Notwithstanding his catholicsim, his faith plays little role in his approach as a scientist."

This is correct. This is a rational approach to science. It is irrational to employ religious faith when conducting science.


" While he tries to reconcile evolution with creationism his is devoutly an anti-reationist and tries to uise his cahtolic lable to give him crediblity in the religious community.. which he doesnt get."

You are now attempting to alter the subject of discussion. You originally claimed that Ken Miller is an atheist. You are simply incorrect regarding that assertion. Your assertion that he is attempting to gain credibility in the "religious community" is wholly unsupported; please justify your allegation of this motive.




"Fro dimensio: You sound like a Buddhist.. you pose questions for which you think there are no deifnitive answers."

To which specific questions do you refer? If I did not believe that my questions had definitive answers, I would not ask them.


" Obviously you have little understnading of things beyond 1+1 and Na+CL = NACL......If I have to spoon feed you the connection between evolution and eugenics and you try to present yourself as an intellect then you dont insult yourself and I wont consider your snobbery an insult...."

It would appear as though you are engaging in ad-hominem. This is not a logical justification of your position; insulting me is not logically equivalent to providing evidence in support of your claim.

It is not unreasonable to ask that an assertion regarding alleged implications of the theory of evolution be supported with evidence. It is unreasonable to refuse to support an assertion regarding the alleged implication of the theory of evolution with evidence after making the assertion.




"Tell you what tell me how you fail to make the connection between eugenics and evolution..."

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. If you are asserting a logical connection between eugenics and evolution, it is your responsibility to demonstrate this logical connection.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Immm..MIller is... are you dense? The post I provided from Miller came from his atheist blog...."

Please provide the URL of this blog. I am unable to locate any blog of Ken Miller. A Google-based search on the specific text that you provided yeileded a result for a blog titled "Religion is Man-Made", which on <a href="http://religionismanmade.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-08T12%3A33%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=12">May 7, 2008</a> posted a link to a number of videos, including one titled "The Effect of Abuse of Science on Democracy" (in which Dr. Miller does not appear), however there is no indication that Dr. Kenneth Miller is the owner or maintainer of this blog site. If you have evidence that the blog belongs to Dr. Miller, or if you have reference to another blog run by Dr. Miller wherein he claims to be an atheist, please provide that information.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 4:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"DIMENSIO: I have no desire to engage in a debate in whcih the roots of Nazism have been well established and Adolph H. Has well been known to believe..."

You are again providing no evidence in support of your claim. Declaring that your claim is "well established" is not logically equivalent to providing evidence in support of your assertion.



"While i won't embarrass you or insult your intelligence I'll share with you a simple euphemism that the 3rd Reich was associated with.. Eugenics...."

Eugenics is not evolution. Your previous assertion is still unsupported.


"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering."

I am not disputing the definition of eugenics. I do not understand what point you are attempting to make by providing this definition.


"Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils"

Demonstrating that Hitler's actions had a basis in eugenics does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution logically justifies or deems "correct" Hitler's actions. The above excerpt is a non-sequitur. Your previous assertions remain unsubstantiated.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 4:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"and by the way.. Catholics ( I am a former Catholic) are typically not Biblically centered people of faith..."

Even if your claim is true, Catholics are typically not atheists. Your previous assertion that Dr. Ken Miller is an atheist is false regardless of your opinion of Catholics in general.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 2:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Miller is a stauch atheist and philosophical agitator...!! "

Please explain how you have come to this incorrect understanding of Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is practicing Roman Catholic.

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

Dimensio »

Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"ABOUT DR. BEHE AND THE DOVER CASE: Dr. Behe is a porfessor at a local university here in Pa. We here in Pa. followed it closely... So let me share with you what was not reported. The judge in that matter disregarded the testimony."

Please explain and justify this assertion. State the specific testimony that was "disregarded", and explain how you know that it was disregarded.


"For Mr. Dimens: I dont have to validate it..."

If you are unwilling to justify your assertions with evidence, then why should your claims be considered factual?


"The History of the 3rd Reich and the final solution was very much rooted in Darwinism..."

Please show a demonstration of this "root". Merely asserting the above is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that the above is correct.


"Why dont you stop trying to act like a computer since you want to give the impression you are an intellect and go research it......"

You have made the specific assertion. It is therefore your responsibility to demonstrate that your assertion is supported by evidence. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, which is not an honest tactic. If it is your assertion that the actions of the Third Reich are a logical extension of the theory of evolution, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate the "logic" that has created such an extension.


" you arent impressing anyone."

It is not my intention to impress anyone. I am merely asking that you provide evidence in support of your allegations.


" OBviously you know someting about science books and little about the hisotry of the world"

You are engaging in a "poisoning the well" fallacy in attacking the knowledge of an individual who has questioned your claims, rather than providing evidence that your claims are correct. You are also engaging in the "begging the question" fallacy, as your statement assumes that your previously stated claims are correct, even though you have provided no evidence in support of them. These responses are not logically equivalent to demonstrating that your claim is factually correct.