RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

Essay talk:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Can you ask human to do a side-by-side with the original article?--PalMD-Talk 19:17, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Done. You're a gentleman and a scholar.-AmesG 19:21, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Nice work Ames! And fast, too. We did goood, hehe. humanbe in 23:33, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Team effort ftw!-AmesG 23:40, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I like it :) -Icewedge 00:46, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Wonderful stuff. The page for "Reparative Therapy" on CP seems to have been deleted and locked, though. --75.71.78.212 21:50, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

My comments[edit]

The theory of evolution is a compound theory , parts of which arguably are not scientific. Yet, secular fundementalists often want to obfuscate the issue, supress and/or marginalize reliable sources that get into detail on this. In any event, whether or not you agree with Popper, suppressing Popper's classification scheme, and its application, is no better than simply dismissing evolution as "materialistic" in the first sentence of an article. Comparying the compound theory of evolution with the much more quantified theory of gravity is not intellectually honest. HGHeartOfGold talk 01:03, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

What're the unscientific parts?-AmesG 22:11, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Evolution is probably the most tested and useful scientific theory that has ever been formulated. All of modern biology depends on it and, by virtue of it working, proves it. With or without poppers. humanbe in 23:40, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
If HeartofGold wants to start an essay on Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, go for it. --23:51, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


I'll have to postpone a good response (or article, or essay) on this. But the interference of common descent is, to use Ann Coulter's characterization, a conspiracy theory. (I don't use the term as negatively as Coulter; I give credence or serious consideration to many conspiracy theories, though most of them are not scientific.).
I just read an article on the human eye in my college physics book. It was a secular physics book. Whether or not the author is a creationist or intelligent designer, I do not know, but the tone of the article makes it clear to me that he is at least an intelligent designer. But I digress.
Forming a hypothesis to fit the facts is often scientific. Forming a hypothesis that is not testable or falsifiable is not, though it may be rationale.
Consider: If a self-replicating self-modifying computer virus is found "in the wild", and later, another self-replicating, self-modifying computer virus is found, and they are found to contain some duplicate sections of code, it might be rationale to infer, at least initially, that one evolved from the other. It is also rationale, depending on your world view, and lack of proof to the contrary, to infer that the same hacker wrote both computer virususes, using cut and paste functions, or that two different hackers copied a similar section of code from some underground website. The fact that living organisms have much in common genetically does make it reasonable to infer that they descended from a common anncestor, but the reasonableness of the inference does not establish scientific standing. It is also reasonable to infer that our Creator, my Heavenly Father, simply reused (cut and paste) what worked. Neither inference is scientific, however, if it is not stated as a falsifiable hypothosis.
Interesting thought experiment, however, the examples we have in nature have much clearer explanations supported by molecular genetics. A more valid example of the above would use an actual situation in life. Computer viruses are analagous to true viruses, but not equivalent; also viruses are not life, as such. DocSock 13:41, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Pre-cambrian rabbits is a canard, as it would not significantly affect the "common descent" component of the theory of evolution, it would only modify it. The premise would remain, as it is based on a world view. Likewise, the discovery of a hypothetical mutlti-eon and exquisitely fossilized graveyard completely filling out missing links would not significantly affect the Creator component of the Christian World View. Yes, both hypothetical discoveries would be deemed significant, but ultimately, neither the Theory of Evolution nor the world view of those who have faith that there is one true God would be shattered.
Pre-cambrian rabbits is not a canard, as it would significantly challenge or invalidate most of the underpinnings of evolutionary theory. The rabbit, who we think needed certain ancestors, all of a sudden appears without these ancestors, or any genetically-related forms. This would pose a very serious problem for evolution.DocSock 13:46, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Now, ultimately, if we disagree on my argument that the common descent component of the theory of evolution is not scientific, I belive it will be because I accept as reasonable Popper's criteria of what makes a theory or hypothosis scientific, and you accept an alternative criteria proposed by one or more of Popper's peers.
Based on inferences I made after watching a recent PBS documentary on M-theory, many physicists steer clear of that area of research on similar grounds, that is, it is not science, but metaphysics. Obviously, other physicists do not steer clear, either on philosophical grounds, or curiosity. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, and the sundry vocal proponents of it, it is also clear to me that the Theory of Evolution is viewed as a weapon in a greater war on the belief in the existence of God. Consequently, from T. Huxley (have the working men convinced they are descended from monkeys) to Dawkins (The God Delusion) to TalkOrgins to NCSE, secular fundementalists use Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) to promote an anti-God world view. HGHeartOfGold talk 23:53, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
While not complete yet the article The incontrovertible evidence of common descent address some of your points, much of the comparison of "code" such as shared errors, ERVs, ect. Discounts the "common designer" argument. That article also points to several areas of falsification, if for example the phylogenetic trees formed by comparing pseudogenes were different from that formed from ERVs or that formed by anatomical comparisons that would falsify much of common descent and the theory of evolution. Tmtoulouse 23:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Ok, that'll do for a start. Gentlemen, start your chainsaws! --Gulik 23:56, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


Strong work, Ames. I'd vote for ya. TK probably wouldn't tho.DocSock 09:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Should I revert…[edit]

this? ----Linus(plot evil tech) 19:44, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Naw, it's cool, at least until there is a cite. He didn't change the meaning, and if he is to be blamed for something, there should be a cite to a diff somewhere. humanbe in 20:38, 26 May 2007 (CDT)