8 ms·

These folks laugh when you talk about evolution as reality, and can only reason abstractly at the level of a grade schooler. Since you tossed this subject in,

by walkon 17y ago

These folks laugh when you talk about evolution as reality, and can only reason abstractly at the level of a grade schooler. Since you tossed this subject in, how about folks that disagree with (macro)evolution but have a Ph.D. from MIT and currently work as a Nuclear Research Manager for NASA? http://www.apologeticspress.org/staff/mh http://www.apologeticspress.org/staff/mh I've met this guy and he does not reason like a grade schooler. Also, he noted that many of his colleagues agree with his position regarding origin science.

tokenadult 17y ago
how about folks that disagree with (macro)evolution but have a Ph.D. from MIT and currently work as a Nuclear Research Manager for NASA? I followed the link you kindly provided. I see this man's higher education was not majoring in subjects most likely to expose him to the evidence for biological evolution. Nor does the link list any peer-reviewed papers of his on any subject related to the evidence for biological evolution. Macroevolution is a fact http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in the same sense that nuclear fission is a fact. Neither is routinely directly observed with understanding by laymen, but both sets of facts can be demonstrated by experiment and are consistent with broader bodies of verified scientific knowledge.
- walkon 17y ago
  I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." I was not trying to allege that he himself has done any research directly refuting origin evolution. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." Fair enough. And I brought up the evidence for macroevolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in relation to the main point of the thread-opening submission, to show that college-educated persons with normal curiosity, reading ability, and access to the Internet should be well convinced that macroevolution is a fact, in the same way that nuclear fission is a fact. Perhaps the problem of someone who doubts macroevolution (as, in fact, I was once taught to do) is not a problem of reasoning ability at all, in agreement with you. (I thought my reasoning ability was just fine, and some forms of school testing including the GRE suggested that it was, before I became convinced by the evidence for macroevolution. But I had a crucial lack of curiosity when I wasn't looking up the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ to use my reasoning ability to evaluate that evidence.) Now I'm curious about the puzzling pattern of upvotes and downvotes here. I think the concern about science education expressed in the thread-opening submission would be a general concern of HN participants, and I would think that a comment that posts a link to a source of reliable scientific conclusions in such a thread would not be considered a detriment to the quality of discussion on HN. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research. Demonstrating my curiosity in what I hope is a friendly way, what kind of theories do you have in mind? What would be a way to falsify a theory (from any point of view) about origin of species?

by walkon 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

how about folks that disagree with (macro)evolution but have a Ph.D. from MIT and currently work as a Nuclear Research Manager for NASA? I followed the link you kindly provided. I see this man's higher education was not majoring in subjects most likely to expose him to the evidence for biological evolution. Nor does the link list any peer-reviewed papers of his on any subject related to the evidence for biological evolution. Macroevolution is a fact http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in the same sense that nuclear fission is a fact. Neither is routinely directly observed with understanding by laymen, but both sets of facts can be demonstrated by experiment and are consistent with broader bodies of verified scientific knowledge.

walkon 17y ago
I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." I was not trying to allege that he himself has done any research directly refuting origin evolution. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  I brought him up as an example that there are certainly people out there that don't agree with macro evolution and can reason well beyond that of a "grade schooler." Fair enough. And I brought up the evidence for macroevolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ in relation to the main point of the thread-opening submission, to show that college-educated persons with normal curiosity, reading ability, and access to the Internet should be well convinced that macroevolution is a fact, in the same way that nuclear fission is a fact. Perhaps the problem of someone who doubts macroevolution (as, in fact, I was once taught to do) is not a problem of reasoning ability at all, in agreement with you. (I thought my reasoning ability was just fine, and some forms of school testing including the GRE suggested that it was, before I became convinced by the evidence for macroevolution. But I had a crucial lack of curiosity when I wasn't looking up the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ to use my reasoning ability to evaluate that evidence.) Now I'm curious about the puzzling pattern of upvotes and downvotes here. I think the concern about science education expressed in the thread-opening submission would be a general concern of HN participants, and I would think that a comment that posts a link to a source of reliable scientific conclusions in such a thread would not be considered a detriment to the quality of discussion on HN. Perhaps if origin evolution could come up with scientific theories that are falsifiable, we'd see more refuting research. Demonstrating my curiosity in what I hope is a friendly way, what kind of theories do you have in mind? What would be a way to falsify a theory (from any point of view) about origin of species?