firstpusk

"So how could anybody that remotely calls themself a scientist use data from 1948?"

Simple, they call themselves creation scientists...

"How long ago was the Kinsey report done anyway..."

1948 for initial publication as I recall. More followed within a few years.

"Intelligent design is how the universe and humans within it were created. This is an undeniable truth. It does not depend on your understanding or concensus. Nor does it depend on disproving your theory. You must disprove it just as you demand with your theory."

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. You claim intelligent design is undeniable truth.

A scientific theory must explain our observations. Intelligent design simply says "God did it". End of story.

Tell me what are the particulars of your undeniable truth. When was the earth created, the rest of the universe, life? How was it carried out and by who? Provide me with some scientific evidence to support your assertions.

Intelligent design is a legal/social/theological construct used to dodge the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution.

You need to go read the links I provided as well as a few others. Please provide me a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Something that actually is based on scientific observation that provides some explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

ScoutParent,

Please try to provide some kind of rational basis for you opposition to evolution. Whether you like the theory or not, it is the only scientific explanation that I know of for the development of diversity on this earth. You have been unable to provide an alternative. Instead, you assert an ever growing list of evils that evolution is supposedly responsible for causing. Not one shread of credible evidence is supplied. When I respond to your argument, you ignore it and simply make more unfounded assertions.

"OGE to an evolutionist they are all the same...a behavior programmed in your genes and thus not within your control."

It is time that you actually gained some measure of understanding of what you oppose. Alcoholism is complicated. There are indeed inherited factors that appear to be involved. But to say these factors negate all human control and this is the belief of "evolutionists" is pure folly.

Again, I will speak to only one of your assertions. I know a little about alcoholism from the experience of a number of people that are and have been close to me. I accept evolution and I also accept that an alcoholic can find hope in sobriety. I have two very close to me that were hopeless alcoholics until they recognized something greater than themselves. Both are dead now, but both died after years of sobriety without ever returning to drink. Chuck, my classmate and friend, was a student of biology, literature and human nature. He was finished inpatient treatment before we completed our sophomore year of high school.

He accepted the theory of evolution but also believed that through a higher power and through his fellow alcoholics he could find the strength to live sober and help others. He died to young but it was not alcohol that took him from us. He did not think as you claim an "evolutionist" should and neither do I.

By the way, I am still waiting for that viable scientific alternative to evolution.

littlebillie,

I never doubted you were family once I got a look at your opposable thumb...now about your elbows on the table...

"I asked you questions concerning genetics and evolution and you chose to make assumptions and run with them, hardly a very scientific approach to any situation."

As I recall, I answered your question by indicating that it was not a valid question for the science of evolution. I made no assumptions. Instead, I indicated what is plain to even a casual observer, that such questions provide cover for vilest members of our society. I am sorry if you took offense at my statements, but it was your question itself that was offensive. The fact that you asked it more than once compounded the offense.

"The scouts and scouters that read these posts are intelligent enough to discern the facts regardless of the slurs you are so fond of."

I asked you a question several times now. Can you give me a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution? You claimed I ran with assumptions. I disagree. It is you that have run away from a fair and direct question repeatedly. You respond in your frustration by accusing those who disagree with you of supporting crimes against humanity.

I have not assumed that you are a racist, nor have I said that are one. If you interpretted my remarks as such, I apologize.

However, I must point out that you have slurred many good people with careless and unfounded remarks. The basis of genocide is not science but ignorance, hatred and fear. We have seen this in recent years played out in Central America, the Balkans and Rwanda. It was not evolutionary biologists that inspired and carried out these murderers. It was people like you and me that gave into the basest part of their nature. These evils did not start with Darwin's book and those that study these questions do not support such acts.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

"And Firstpuck, you last statement - 'we are all brothers and we must work together regardless of our differences to make the world a better place.'"

Rooster7

As someone who grew up on the Iron Range of northern Minnesota and a die hard Golden Gopher hockey fan (2002 NCAA men's ice hockey champions), I proudly accept your heartfelt compliment.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

Rooster,

Never called her a racist. I would say however, that the notion of racial superiority is racist. The question she asked was at best insensitive. I wasn't impressed with her line of reasoning or yours. Accepting evolution does not mean you agree with everyone who has ever abused the theory for their own evil ends. And it certainly doesn't address whether or not it is true.

ScoutParent,

First and foremost I did not call you or anyone else racist. I did indicate that talking about superiority between the races and trying to use science to support it is racist. Eugenics, the Nazis, the holocaust, forced sterilization are all examples of the misuse, no, abuse of science to support personal prejudices. You seem to imply that anyone who accepts evolution supports such ideas. You could not be more wrong. Hitler and his henchmen also used religious arguments against the Jews to appeal to prejudices of German Catholics and Lutherans. Does that mean all Catholics and Lutherans agree with him?

I will only address one of your examples. The desecration of the remains of these aboriginal peoples is a shameful mark on the history of Australia and the western world. The display of these victims started long before Darwin published any of his ideas. The specific cases I could find of beheading occurred in the late 1700's and early 1800's. These people were killed not to document evolution but becase they got in the way of a colonial power.

I asked you a question, twice. You have not responded. I asked for only one viable scientific theory that can be considered an alternative to evolution. Instead, you have implied that those that accept evolution support a list of evils. This is utter foolishness. Are racism and cruelty new to the world since 1859? The ideas of Eugenics have been refuted by both science and people of conscience.

I addressed you initial question of superiority of the races with disdain for two reasons. First, it is a mean spirited misrepresentation of science and how it works, an argument with lots of heat and no light. Secondly, it doesn't have anything to do with whether evolution is a viable scientific theory that explains the world in which we find ourselves. When you posed the question, I was pretty sure what path you would walk down. You disappointed me as I expected you would. Now, can you give me that viable scientific theory that explains the world in which we find ourselves and the diversity of life on it?

"What a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The whole basis for evolution is for some traits to be more desirable than others. If it makes you uncomfortable to think about that idea in human terms then maybe you should give serious consideration to the theory of evolution. You are clearly out of bounds making such illfounded remarks about me."

You clearly don't understand evolution or how it works. Both Merlyn and I posted several resources that you could use to correct the problem. Mine were internet links. I think it would be helpful.

I am sorry you are offended by the implication of LV's remarks. However, what you said is considered quite offensive by many folks. I was quite direct because I also assumed that was where you were going. Evolution has been misrepresented by many in order to justify some pretty scary ideas. Stephen J. Gould dedicated a whole book to the subject, "The Mismeasure of Man". I will repeat my position again and I think littlebillie and LV are with me here - we are all brothers and we must work together regardless of our differences to make the world a better place.

"Merlyn, are the different groups of humans all in the same species and subspecies, scientifically speaking? What about the Australian Aboriginals? Where do they fit into the evolutionary tree?"

They are fully modern humans - homo sapiens sapiens just like you and me. They have been more isolated up until recent times but would not be viewed as anything other than humans just like us.

"Are you familiar with the idea that some humans have higher intelligence than others? What is the scientific explanation for the differing levels of intelligence? Do you agree that someone who has an iq of 170 has more reasoning ability than someone who has an iq of 100?"

Variation within a population is exactly what Natural Selection works on to produce evolutionary change. Why do we have variation in height, eye color and blood type? The differential in reproductive success among that varied population is what determines the evolutionary result.

"Merlyn what macroevolution have evolutionary scientists actually observed or recreated in the laboratory? What evidence beyond looking at old bones do they actually have on their side? Could you site specific evidence that evolution does occur in humans? What specific contributions have evolutionary scientists been attributed with in the areas of medicine and biology?"

TalkOrigins is a great site for getting the lowdown on the Theory of Evolution. I have given three links I think you will find helpful.

29 Evidences of Macroevolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evidence for Evolution - an Ecclectic Survey

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Observed Instances of Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

On evolution in humans one only has to look at the evidence for hominids that differ from us over the last couple of million years. There is some debate among some academics as to whether evolution in the traditional sense still occurs within the human race. Some argue that cultural/technological evolution has replaced the Darwinian notion of Natural Selection with respect to people. I would say however, we still have diffentials in the survival rate with respect to disease and other causes of death so perhaps this idea is not correct.

In terms of science that is a result of evolutionary biology - you have the whole field of modern biology. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Gene splicing, the human genome, the understanding of infectious agents like HIV and better vaccines are all the result of applying evolutionary concepts.

This thinking will be at the heart of an intellectual revolution in the next century.

"In my life, it's almost always the case that when race and creationism raised in the same conversation or other proximity, the same folks who decry science in favor of Bible-based creationism will then TURN TO SCIENCE to 'prove' that the races are meaningfully different, and that there is a single superior race.

Why, I don't know - 's just an observation..."

I have observed the same thing. I was told very directly why by a couple creationists. They believed that the separation of the races was biblical and science added weight to their prejudice. I think that explains my rather vehement responses to some of the questions about racial superiority.

"Are these scientists "closet racists"?"

Nope. The article you quoted indicated they were comparing DNA base pairs and morphological charactaristics of individuals to determine how evolution works. Note that they mention mutation, genetic drift and isolation as well as natural selection. They are trying to measure which of these factors are more influential in the course of evolution.

Note also, that they do not mention that one race is superior to another although they did mention the degree of relatedness bettween races.

Morphological characteristics of one race or another may help them be better adapted to the specific environment in which they live. However, they do not make them "superior". Those that dwell on such ill-defined questions are often closet racists.

"What scientic basis do you have for believing you are my brother?"

We are members of the human race, the same species, same gene pool and same evolutionary history. Beyond that, I assume you are a scouter and share a belief in those values. If I am mistaken on either count, let me know the nature of my error.

"'The differences between the races genetically are miniscule....'there are at least 60 differences...what scientific measurement is miniscule equivalent to?"

I mean the variation within races is greater than the average difference between them. The notion of some difinitive racial superiority has been used to prop up many racist ideas and programs.

'...a worthless measure and a pointless discussion that provides cover for closet racists...'

This is my firm belief. I have been in too many discussions with people that start with that kind of statement that end up with them throwing out some pretty ugly racist ideas. If that is not where you are going, make it clear what you are trying to say.

"...nothing could be further from the truth. There was no basis for that comment when I asked a question on the basis on genetics only."

People have died as a result of such thinking. Whether you like it or not all humanity is in the same boat and you are there with us. We have to learn to work together. Race is a human construct and based on the most superficial understanding of that shared humanity. I have laid my cards on the table. Let's see where you are going.

"Since there are mini-marshmallows, I would say someone must have created a Stay Puff Marshmallow Woman. Simple logic."

Some anatomist will write a PhD. on "Sexual Dimorphism in Stay Puft Marshmellows".

"ummmm - a thot comes to me.

marshmallow - no bones, right? so regardless of Who made him, is there a Sta-Puft Marshmallow Wife???"

A problem for both evolution and creation. No bones, no fossil evidence. And no ribs, what's the Creator to do? Is Stay Puft one of a kind?

I would agree with Rooster that women that camp and mother their boys cause problems. However, I would say I have seen a good many dads do the same thing. I always encourage parents to let their boys work the system, i.e., go to patrol leaders first, then to ASPL or SPL and finally to the SM or designee. I try to work with the parents to ensure they have something to do, even if it is only playing cribbage and drinking coffee. (Assigning an SA to keep the parents out of trouble is always a good idea.) Teaching them aims and methods and scout skills is helpful. If you can assign it to one of the older scouts, they get the idea very quickly. I have a couple of veteran JLTC staffers that just knock the socks off of new parents.

Our troop encourages all parents to come out. They need to see the program in action to appreciate and support their boys. Blanket exemptions against women or non scoutmasters undermine that support.

I would agree that it is not a southern thing. I know of several troops in my council that do not allow women to camp, period. At least one will not allow women on the committee. I got my old troop a couple of excellent women SA's as a result of that policy. Their boys stayed with the old troop and the camped with mine and did a great job.

Bob White is correct (as usual - what would I expect from a fellow Bobwhite), the CO chooses leaders. But often, they are not actively supporting the male only policies. In some cases, they are not aware they exist. So arguments that that is what the boys want may not actually indicate what is going on. Often, you have the old guard continuing what has been the tradition.

LDS troops run that way because the charter mandates it and I don't have an issue with that.

In the end, go back to Wood Badge traing and Know and Use Your Resources. Turn the problem parent into a resource in your unit.

That would make quite an impressive s'more.

Just trained merit badge counselors a few months ago - no time limit other than the 18th birthday.

"Merlyn and FirstPusk:

Which human race is genetically superior to the others?"

We are all brothers no matter the race. The differences between the races genetically are miniscule. It is a worthless measure and a pointless discussion that provides cover for closet racists.

Henry M. Morris has three degrees including a PhD from one of my alma maters. That didn't make him right when he misrepresented the work and words of real scientists. You paraphrased Asimov, so it is tough to judge exactly what he was trying to say. I am sure the same source has him supporting creationism, too. I can't give you an answer on his understanding. But I would say that both your understanding of the concept and your credibility are on par with Dr. Morris.

"We've observed the world and concluded that God made the world. That's science at its purest and as valid as an unprovable theory of evolution."

"Theories remain theories until they are proven for all cases. Gravity is still not understood. Nothing about evolution has been proven for all cases."

"I have degrees in Math, Physics and Mechanical Engineering."

From the above quotes I can only assume they were mail order. Your alma mater must be proud...

Sorry Zorn,

I am pretty sure that Einstein was not a theory but a man. I think that you are confusing the common understanding of theory with the scientific understanding. In common parlance, a theory is a guess, postulation or hypothothes. In science a theory is an idea that has moved well beyond this level of a guess. In other words, a theory is an idea that has been tested and confirmed by observations. Therefore, gravitation, relativity, plate techtonics, the expanding universe and evolution are all ideas that have been confirmed and elevated to the status of theory. A theory is testable and can be falsified (contradicted by observation).

It is precisely because creationism can not be falsified that it can not be considered a theory. Any objection brought up will be answered by, "...because God did it (that way)". A scientific theory explains the observations that have been made. Creationism and its "God did it" answer for every contingency simply tries to explain away the observations made.

ScoutParent,

I asked you on the other thread for a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Your inability to provide me with one should answer your question to Merlyn about the justification for the US Supreme Court decisions denying the constitutionality of teaching creationism as science.

To put it simply, the legislative intent of both the Arkansas and Louisianna statutes was to establish a specific form of Christianity - biblical literalism - in the public schools as a state sanctioned scientific theory. Although the proponents of both bills claimed earnestly that the intention was fairness for all scientific theories dealing with the cause of biological species, it was clear from the testimony in the trials that there was nothing scientific about creationism.

Knowing several science teachers that are required to cover this material in their classes, I find your claims about persecution quite ironic on several levels. One, most Christians throughout the world have no issue with evolution at all. Two, you fail to see that teaching these very specific religious views of yours (that have no scientific basis) do indeed establish your religion as favored by the state. Three, I know of a number of cases of harassment and even firing of teachers for teaching the biology curriculum as established. One teacher of my son told me that discussion of creationism was allowed because he was tired of being verbally abused by late night phone calls from concerned "Christians" using foul language. Another teacher I know says the word evolution will not be used in class until after her tenure is awarded because the kids tell parents and the parents pressure the school board and principal into firing untenured "evolutionists". A teacher claims he was fired in a small town in NW Minnesota because he would not soft pedal evolution and allow creationism to be discussed in the science classroom.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

Rooster7 and slontwovvy,

Your personal beliefs are cool with me. Any way you want to integrate your beliefs is fine. I would argue that your personal beliefs and scientific theory are still two different things.