nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + +
→Human appendix: Evolutionists, ID, etc.
::::::::::I agree that sometimes scientists make unqualified statements when they shouldn't, but sometimes it is appropriate because there is no significant debate on the issue. Everyone agrees that the heart pumps the blood and the lungs oxygenate it and remove the carbon dioxide etc. The same cannot be said of the appendix, and on issues where reasonable people disagree it is best to acknowledge the controversy when writing an encyclopedia. I can recall many instances of my biology textbooks making it clear that the function of certain hormones and enzymes was still debatable despite good evidence supporting a function. One in particular said that the function of the hormone melatonin was unknown despite a large amount of evidence (hundreds of papers, not just a handful like for the appendix) advocating a role for melatonin in circadian rhythm regulation. Whenever I see scientists discuss a controversial issue, they almost always preface their statements with something like "the best available evidence suggests..."
::::::::::I agree that sometimes scientists make unqualified statements when they shouldn't, but sometimes it is appropriate because there is no significant debate on the issue. Everyone agrees that the heart pumps the blood and the lungs oxygenate it and remove the carbon dioxide etc. The same cannot be said of the appendix, and on issues where reasonable people disagree it is best to acknowledge the controversy when writing an encyclopedia. I can recall many instances of my biology textbooks making it clear that the function of certain hormones and enzymes was still debatable despite good evidence supporting a function. One in particular said that the function of the hormone melatonin was unknown despite a large amount of evidence (hundreds of papers, not just a handful like for the appendix) advocating a role for melatonin in circadian rhythm regulation. Whenever I see scientists discuss a controversial issue, they almost always preface their statements with something like "the best available evidence suggests..."
::::::::::As for ID, you can't really blame the journals for not wanting to publish something that is not testable and makes no predictions because without those things it's not really science at all. That is not to say that it's wrong, just that unless we figure out a way that it can be tested and come up with a clearer picture of what Intelligent Design predicts under a variety of circumstances, it doesn't really belong in the same realm as science that can be falsified. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::As for ID, you can't really blame the journals for not wanting to publish something that is not testable and makes no predictions because without those things it's not really science at all. That is not to say that it's wrong, just that unless we figure out a way that it can be tested and come up with a clearer picture of what Intelligent Design predicts under a variety of circumstances, it doesn't really belong in the same realm as science that can be falsified. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't trust those sources because they are creationists. At least in some cases, they didn't interpret, they directly quoted. Why can't you accept that they represented those sourced accurately? There might be reasonable people on both sides, but as I've said, a claim that there is function is not contradicted by claims that non-exhaustive searches couldn't find function.
:::::::::::I wasn't referring to statements such as the heart pumping the blood, but about things like evolution and millions of years being true. You say that such controversies should be acknowledged in writing an encyclopedia—so would you mind going to Wikipedia and convincing them of that? I've rarely seen evolutionists preface their statements about evolution with something like "the best available evidence suggests..."
:::::::::::Intelligent Design: Now we get down to it, don't we. Earlier you claim that the New England Medical Journal wouldn't be biased, and now you attempt to justify the bias of not publishing ID papers. So are you admitting that you knew all along that they wouldn't publish such papers? But to get to the point you are making, you are simply asserting your ''opinion'' in order to argue your case. ID proponents claim that ID is testable and makes predictions, and the same applies for creationists. Creationists have not only made testable predictions, they made ones that have been shown to be correct.
:::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)