Academic Freedom Day on Evolution, Feb. 12, 2009

survivability advantage other species lacked. All of our systems evolved along with this one, whereas you've described a system where one piece evolves fully and the others do not. I'd recommend studying evolution a bit more.

I would love to forever quote Mr. Bryan Ales as the poster child for misunderstanding!

Sooo...Given that in your opinion evidence exists to support your theory only, it's then acceptable to deny discussion which presents conflicting evidence? Could it be possible that yours is not the only "IS" in existence? And who decides? And why? hmmmm...interesting

Okay, Bryan. Creationism isn't science because it's not a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Your welcome.

Hey everybody! Let's play "we've got no connection with creationism"!

Cool...Anomalocaris knows how to use really big words...I'm impressed and taken with rapture by an impending state of awe. I shall bask in the supremacy of his estimable knowlede, and bathe in his acrimony. Bliss erupts tenfold. Jackass!

Hey Dave...Why so scared of a possible alternative? What~You're the only one authorized an 'opinion' on the topic...Nice free speech concept you have in that noggin of yours. "Hey Everybody!...Lets play 'wave your hands in the air reallly fast at the same time as your neighbor - and the time on your clock will change'." Expecting me to believe that... Read More mankind (or anything else for that matter) just magically 'poofed' into existence is irrational and flawed logically. You rely on carbon dating to justify a lllllot in science, but your date entered is based on 'best guess' technology for the initial start point of the test...thereby rigging your outcome to what you want it to be. If I ran scientific algorythms supposing that the color pink was in all actuallity the color blue, and I found 342 scientists to back up my claim...would you accept it as fact? NO...so why should I buy into your magical unicorn approach to existence. I didn't just morph here...I was created...as were all things.

Chuck, those are some excellent refutations of the straw man you've built. It's almost a shame that you're so clueless as to the workings of science. First off, you believe everything was just magically "poofed" into existence, not us. Secondly, radiometric dating isn't limited to Carbon and is quite accurate. And last, what other "possible ... Read Morealternative" is there? An unscientific idea (not a hypothesis, and definitely not a theory) that is tantamount to intellectual sloth? Perhaps you don't understand free speech either. Anyone can posit an explanation for the observed biodiversity on Earth, but until the evidence supports it, it will not be taught in a science classroom. Get the evidence, then we'll talk.

No, need to apologize, it is refreshing when someone know what they are talking about. We get none of this from the ID'ers and that makes me sad.

Sam, you're right: "the very fact that they're not ALL biologists says something." It says they're not knowledgeable because their position doesn't require them to be. And Mathematicians aren't any good unless they understand the process. I've seen some of the claims of statistical improbability, and they're outlandish because they seem to think... Read More it's all a game of random chance. It's kind of like not understanding a word problem and putting a multiplication symbol where the addition symbol should go: you have to understand the problem before you can get accurate numbers out of it.

I'm a biologist. Can't say I know anyone who's been blacklisted for questioning Darwin (Not that I know many biologists who question Darwin. We're biologists, after all, we kind of rely/build upon the Theory). Nor do I know anyone doing any blacklisting.

This all about seeking the "freedom" to teach lazy science. It's the kind of science that ... Read Moresays, "I don't understand, therefore it is not understandable." Why, pray tell, is that worth teaching? Shouldn't we be teaching students to work through and try to understand even the most difficult problems? What kind of academic defeatism is this?

Apparently merely disagreeing with pseudoscience is the same thing as censorship