"Oh, let's not go over that many-times-refuted argument again. You know from previous exchanges that such periods are easily explained as post-extinction periods when biological diversity explodes to fill ecological niches. Such periods were not inconsistent with Darwin, and he even anticipated them. Argumentum ad nauseam."
Thanks for making my point.
Everything is consistent with Darwinism.
That's the point.
"I doubt that you would qualify as a cognitive scientist,"
Well, I personally wouldn't assert it for myself, but don't you think its a little funny how the credentials of others 'don't matter' to you only when they agree with you? For example, as applied to yourself? You are not a geologist, a biologist, a physicist, but you still think you are perfectly competent to hold forth on all sorts of topics.
You can continue to try to frame the argument in terms of ridiculing the position because of the credentials or lack thereof of the person, suggesting that they 'don't understand,' but the more objective reader will detect that what's really going on is not a lack of understanding, but a simple matter of disagreement. The objective reader will be able to learn this, because
it is not impossible to find highly credentialed people who say many of the same things that I do. Simple inference shows that the full weight of your argument reduces only to people you agree with, and the rest 'don't understand.'
"As I've said before, this is about what science is, not who has credentials as a scientist."
But that is not in fact your real position. Your idea is that you are able to say what science is but the rest of us can't. Unless we agreed with you. Then we can.
Now, the funny thing is, I've said repeatedly that I don't give a pile of dung about what anyone thinks about 'science.' Unlike atheists, I understand that groups are allowed to define themselves. Atheists, of course, presume to define Christians and all their terms, and know more about their positions, etc, etc. That's not the way I operate. I think Christians should have latitude to define the things they are most familiar with for themselves, and then you can react to that. Since that is true, I naturally should extend the same courtesy to the scientists. If scientists wish to define science in a certain way, I hardly care. I distinguish my own view from theirs in order to make plain my point.
I call myself an experimentalist for a reason. That reason is that there are clearly differences in epistemological value for different sorts of methods for inquiry. My aim is to make it clear which sorts of methods I consider of value in what contexts. I don't really care if others don't want to engage in that manner of critical thinking.
But I do care that you sweep my distinction aside altogether so as to make it sound like I'm attacking 'science.'
"What is your point in going on about this? Are you trying to say that your anecdotal survey was scientific?"
Uh, no. But your objections were that it was flawed. Flawed how? Flawed from a scientific POV. How can it be flawed from an anecdotal POV? Did I ever offer it as anything more? You have conceded the point that that anecdotal survey was meant to convey, so its not worth dwelling on.
"I don't see the point of this line of argument."
Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to.
"Evolution informs scientists about every aspect of biological organisms, not just the Golgi complex. Why are you fixated on that?"
I'm not fixated on it at all. I have 100 more examples ready to go. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to insist that evolution informs scientists- I believe we were talking about doctors, though, right? people who really depend on the stuff- about biology. Well, the GA was just one example. I'm giving you an opportunity to show how evolution informs the biological understanding of GA. You seem to be unable to do this, or unwilling. My google search showed only 3 hits (and they weren't very good) suggesting any kind of way that evolutionary theory adds to our understanding of the GA.
What if I go through 100 aspects from biology without you being able to provide a single instance where evolution informs it in real life application in any meaningful way? For that matter, in most cases, it doesn't even inform the theoretical. It certainly did not for the GA. How many examples do I need to produce before you concede that perhaps evolution isn't really as necessary to understand biology as you think? 1,000?
I am confident that I could very easily produce 10,000 examples. Easily, but it would take some time, but easy.
"Is this something that is a theme in creationist attacks on evolution theory?"
I wouldn't know. I don't read creationist literature.
"I'm not sure why you are pursuing this issue."
Hopefully you understand a bit better now.
"Apparently, you have forgotten that there is a big difference between theoretical and applied science."
Not at all. There certainly is a direct connection between many aspects of research science and applied science. Just not
evolutionary research.
Every piece of biological data that I've come across can EASILY be understood outside the context of evolutionary theory. So easily, in fact, that people who really spend time applying biological facts in real life and death contexts can completely ignore it. A 'metaphysical research programme' if you will.
The only place where I've seen applied scientists actually appeal to evolutionary theory in any respect is ecology. And even that is usually of the 'be sure to take your full course of anti-biotics' stuff.
Or, to put it back into the context of the thread, even the medical community is asked to take evolution on faith. It informs practically nothing that they do. Oh yea, except for the antibiotics. Don't forget the antibiotics.
