What a horrible system science has fallen prey too. The people need to regain control of this body of research because it's been hijacked by the wrong type of people.
He's right. There IS something wrong with the system: Religions ideologues have been working for CENTURIES to undermine scinece, because science shows that religion is wrong. Nowhere is the scientific community more defended than on the issue of evolution - and for good reason - evolution debunks religion more than any other theory AND it tells us who we are to boot. If you don't get this, then you have a HUGE blind spot as a scientist. I think his board did just fine.
Saying that evolution does not apply to biology is simply not true, and any graduate student in any field even remotely close to science as yours should know this fact. I think your professors just wanted to be sure that you fully understood the theory, the evidence behind it (pretty much all of biology), and not just blindly dismissing it.
I didn't say it doesn't apply; I said it works better applied to human organizations. We are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds, but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500 company.
Sure you are allowed to say anything, express any opinion, in academia and in all free societies. However, if you want to make a convincing argument in any field of science, you must provide evidence. If you do not have evidence, than you cannot make that argument and expect to not hear any objections. Evolution does not just say..., it is scientifically supported by an ever increasing body of evidence, for over the past 100+ years.
Yes, I was allowed to say anything I wanted, but if I wanted my PhD I had to say, "Thank you for explaining it to me." Academia is not a good example of "free society." My arguments were not objected to, because they were not allowed to be heard.
If you don't have EVIDENCE to support your claims in science, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously. Should they give you a degree if you believe the earth is flat? No.
Comparing living organisms to things that people design and build, as creatinists often do makes for an extremely poor analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves, and if they could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to evolution.
I would be glad to address your argument, if it was on the point. The point is that they would not hear me out. Unwillingness to hear another's argument is taking a position by faith without fact; and fits my definition of religion more than my definition of science.
It was your point to compare a cell to a fortune 500 company...
Your professors would not hear you on this issue because they were trying to help you graduate, since they know you had no evidence for such claims, and did not want your thesis to head in that direction. Science does not come about from unsubstantiated arguments and opinions; it is the data that is important. They knew you had no evidence, so they would not hear such false claims.
You clearly don't understand evolutionary theory. You need to go get a basic science education at a proper university...and I don't mean bible "school."
Make new video that explains what you told the professors. I wouldn't trust the universities in your area so I will send number of professors and see if they agree with your professors.
The subject never came up again, once I faked "understanding." What you mean by "wouldn't trust the universities in your area?" The problem is common in sociology. Christian sociologists told me not to show my faith until I was tenured. I had one professor in the very first lecture say, "There is no such (blank) thing as God!" As for my university, I do not name it, because I am proud of my university. It should not be singled out, because it is no worse than any other in terms of this problem.
Here is what I have always found odd. A religion with no support is a fact and a scientific theory with massive support is an item of mere faith. Any conclusion from debate is possible if debate is framed wrongly. Stating a faith is fact and a scientific theory is religion is framing debate wrongly. Any and all outcomes are invalid and without merit.
...Except he never said religion was fact...or really that Darwinism was faith. He expressed that survival of the fittest might have more --and better observable--application to social situations than to biological.
He presents his case through rhetorical questions. He is forced into this type of indirect communication because of theweakness of his position. He is FORCED into indirectness. First, with religion, no proof is needed. Women were created from men and not a shred of proof is needed for this "fact." Yet, on the other hand evolution is a religion...a mere theory of man. His underlining point of vivid and clear. A platform he agrees with requires no proof. One he does not requires mountains.
LOL. That's a stupid argument. It's called a strawman argument if you can't respond to any of the things somebody actually said. "Mind reading" is not an argument. Insinuation is not an argument.
First, my comments were general and addressing the title of the video. Second, my comments still stand as valid. The general trend is to accept religion as fact without any proof while attacking scientific theories, which have mountains of proof, as religions. This practice is intellectually deceitful. Moreover, to further obscure intellectual deceit, the man goes on for some time about his mental abilities.
You can't find "fact" in the title and there is no positive claims about in the clip. In fact what he *does* say at the end can only weaken the connection (and this is important) as the *doc* represents it, where he clearly links *belief* with *religion*, not *fact*.
>Evolutionists, your days are numbered.. you will be seen as the biggest charlatans and crackpots in scientific history.
Erm, no... the bigger charlatans will soon be seen to be the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists. The planet hasn't been warming for almost a decade, and the truth will soon be out!
@SayNoToIslamofascism ego is the only reason anyone in this day and age denies evolution
blazereef 1 year ago
What a horrible system science has fallen prey too. The people need to regain control of this body of research because it's been hijacked by the wrong type of people.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
He's right. There IS something wrong with the system: Religions ideologues have been working for CENTURIES to undermine scinece, because science shows that religion is wrong. Nowhere is the scientific community more defended than on the issue of evolution - and for good reason - evolution debunks religion more than any other theory AND it tells us who we are to boot. If you don't get this, then you have a HUGE blind spot as a scientist. I think his board did just fine.
psusac 2 years ago 4
Thank you for illustrating my point. I could not have stated their position better myself.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
because you are blinded by your faith
nghitani 3 years ago
Unless the truth is scientific and the falsehood is religious, then somehow the falsehood will persist, as it has in the USA
nghitani 3 years ago
Saying that evolution does not apply to biology is simply not true, and any graduate student in any field even remotely close to science as yours should know this fact. I think your professors just wanted to be sure that you fully understood the theory, the evidence behind it (pretty much all of biology), and not just blindly dismissing it.
nghitani 3 years ago
I didn't say it doesn't apply; I said it works better applied to human organizations. We are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds, but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500 company.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
Sure you are allowed to say anything, express any opinion, in academia and in all free societies. However, if you want to make a convincing argument in any field of science, you must provide evidence. If you do not have evidence, than you cannot make that argument and expect to not hear any objections. Evolution does not just say..., it is scientifically supported by an ever increasing body of evidence, for over the past 100+ years.
nghitani 3 years ago
Yes, I was allowed to say anything I wanted, but if I wanted my PhD I had to say, "Thank you for explaining it to me." Academia is not a good example of "free society." My arguments were not objected to, because they were not allowed to be heard.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
If you don't have EVIDENCE to support your claims in science, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously. Should they give you a degree if you believe the earth is flat? No.
Jeremyguru 3 years ago
Comparing living organisms to things that people design and build, as creatinists often do makes for an extremely poor analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves, and if they could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to evolution.
nghitani 3 years ago
I would be glad to address your argument, if it was on the point. The point is that they would not hear me out. Unwillingness to hear another's argument is taking a position by faith without fact; and fits my definition of religion more than my definition of science.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
It was your point to compare a cell to a fortune 500 company...
Your professors would not hear you on this issue because they were trying to help you graduate, since they know you had no evidence for such claims, and did not want your thesis to head in that direction. Science does not come about from unsubstantiated arguments and opinions; it is the data that is important. They knew you had no evidence, so they would not hear such false claims.
nghitani 3 years ago
You clearly don't understand evolutionary theory. You need to go get a basic science education at a proper university...and I don't mean bible "school."
Jeremyguru 3 years ago
@DrDonMc because we know that an organization cant be formed without some being but we KNOW that animals evolve, evolution is a biological process
blazereef 1 year ago
Make new video that explains what you told the professors. I wouldn't trust the universities in your area so I will send number of professors and see if they agree with your professors.
gummi666 3 years ago
The subject never came up again, once I faked "understanding." What you mean by "wouldn't trust the universities in your area?" The problem is common in sociology. Christian sociologists told me not to show my faith until I was tenured. I had one professor in the very first lecture say, "There is no such (blank) thing as God!" As for my university, I do not name it, because I am proud of my university. It should not be singled out, because it is no worse than any other in terms of this problem.
DrDonMc 3 years ago
Here is what I have always found odd. A religion with no support is a fact and a scientific theory with massive support is an item of mere faith. Any conclusion from debate is possible if debate is framed wrongly. Stating a faith is fact and a scientific theory is religion is framing debate wrongly. Any and all outcomes are invalid and without merit.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
...Except he never said religion was fact...or really that Darwinism was faith. He expressed that survival of the fittest might have more --and better observable--application to social situations than to biological.
theaxemeister 4 years ago 2
He presents his case through rhetorical questions. He is forced into this type of indirect communication because of theweakness of his position. He is FORCED into indirectness. First, with religion, no proof is needed. Women were created from men and not a shred of proof is needed for this "fact." Yet, on the other hand evolution is a religion...a mere theory of man. His underlining point of vivid and clear. A platform he agrees with requires no proof. One he does not requires mountains.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
LOL. That's a stupid argument. It's called a strawman argument if you can't respond to any of the things somebody actually said. "Mind reading" is not an argument. Insinuation is not an argument.
theaxemeister 4 years ago 2
"His underlining point of vivid and clear." Yet without reference to any of that. I congratulate you on your mind reading, sir.
theaxemeister 4 years ago
First, my comments were general and addressing the title of the video. Second, my comments still stand as valid. The general trend is to accept religion as fact without any proof while attacking scientific theories, which have mountains of proof, as religions. This practice is intellectually deceitful. Moreover, to further obscure intellectual deceit, the man goes on for some time about his mental abilities.
awalkalongmingocreek 4 years ago
You can't find "fact" in the title and there is no positive claims about in the clip. In fact what he *does* say at the end can only weaken the connection (and this is important) as the *doc* represents it, where he clearly links *belief* with *religion*, not *fact*.
theaxemeister 4 years ago
>Evolutionists, your days are numbered.. you will be seen as the biggest charlatans and crackpots in scientific history.
Erm, no... the bigger charlatans will soon be seen to be the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists. The planet hasn't been warming for almost a decade, and the truth will soon be out!
y0utube000 4 years ago