Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is derived from the Latin word scientia, which translates to knowledge. Unlike the arts, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. It is not meant to prove theories, but rule out alternative explanations until a likely conclusion is reached.

The scientific method

When conducting research, scientists observe the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.

Ask questions about the observations and gather information.

Form a hypothesis " a tentative description of whats been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

Research must involve deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion.

An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).

An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
Scientific theories and laws

The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven. A few theories do become scientific laws (such as the law of gravity) and laws are generally considered to be without exception " though in fact even some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is just a theory is a lay persons term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-scienc ... ethod.html

One can add to the steps: Publish methodology and conclusions for others to evaluate.

Thus, no pronouncement is entitled to call itself science unless it adheres to the Scientific Method " and conjecture based on unverifiable tales and offering nothing that can be tested does NOT qualify as a science.

Questions for debate:

1) Does Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") meet ANY of the requirements of science?

2) Is claiming to be science while not meeting the criteria a case of fraud (or at least false) claim?

[Enoch2021]

Questions for debate:

1) Does Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") meet ANY of the requirements of science?

Yes. It's based on our repeated and uniform experience of INFORMATION (CODE---Software, which are Mutually Inclusive Terms). It's TESTABLE: (Source: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29)....


Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.

Testable hypotheses about FSC: {Functional Sequence Complexity}
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:

Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.

Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.

We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Writing Their Own Software....?

cont...

[Danmark]

In my opinion creationism is not scientific but would say ID is. Now I don't agree with either but ID has at least some logical stand point. Also ID doesn't go against any measurable or observational facts so no real contradiction there. Yet also in saying that we cannot test the theory of ID but it does make sense, in means that in time we (humans) could potentially through our expanding understanding of the universe may be able to create such a thing like the universe as well.

The courts, for very good reasons, have repeatedly held that ID is creationism and is religion. ID, the name itself, is a dishonest attempt to hide its religious nature. The whole ID movement was dishonest in its inception, a transparently deceitful effort to rebrand creationism under a thin veil of "science." This was exposed in the Dover case and at least nine other court cases.

Calling either creationism or "intelligent design" science is dishonest as a matter of law.
Holding:
"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
__ Hon. John E. Jones III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

Anyone with any reservations on this would be well served to read the full opinion and some of the transcripts, arguments and motions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html

This argument is over and settled and is a gigantic and tiresom waste of time to pursue further, except as a religious notion that has been refuted by science.

[Enoch2021]

2) Is claiming to be science while not meeting the criteria a case of fraud (or at least false) claim?

Yes, it surely is...and "evolution" is guilty as charged:

The "theory of evolution" is neither "Scientific" or a "theory"; as evidenced by....

Lets take a Look what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century (Ernst Mayr, the worlds greatest living evolutionary biologist"---Stephen Jay Gould)....

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

So....

Professor Mayr: "Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry". If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.

Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place"

Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.

Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."

Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?

Say Goodbye to: Step 1 (Observe a Phenomenon), Step 3 (Hypothesis), Step 4 (Experiment). KaBooM!

By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacy) and "Just So" Stories.

And then of course, there's this Which echoes Professor Mayr's assessment above...

Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

How in the world are you gonna form a "Valid" Hypothesis if you can make ZERO predictions?

So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).

Thanks for your attention.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 23 by Enoch2021]

This recycled quote mined rubbish from creationist blogs has made the rounds here before. It's not worth making additional refutations.
Let's see now, on the one hand we have you and religionist, non science blogs opining about science, and on the other we have virtually the entire scientific community and a petition signed by 72 U. S. Nobel Prize winners, plus ten court decisions.

These claims by the losing side are worse than the shouts from the disembodied head of the Black Knight.

[Enoch2021]

Calling either creationism or "intelligent design" science is dishonest as a matter of law.
Holding:
"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
__ Hon. John E. Jones III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

The Courts are no place to adjudicate matters of Science...who's next MADD? I'm sure Judge Jones levied his vast "Scientific" experience from his days as head of the PA State Liquor Control Board.

The Dover Trial, eh? Lets have a look....

the end of a Trail a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.

Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:

ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."

JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".

So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".

ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence in TOTO.

ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.

JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".

If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

This argument is over and settled and is a gigantic and tiresom waste of time to pursue further, except as a religious notion that has been refuted by science.

Please, Go ahead...

Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

regards

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 23 by Enoch2021]

This recycled quote mined rubbish from creationist blogs has made the rounds here before. It's not worth making additional refutations.
Let's see now, on the one hand we have you and religionist, non science blogs opining about science, and on the other we have virtually the entire scientific community and a petition signed by 72 U. S. Nobel Prize winners, plus ten court decisions.

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Genetic Fallacy --- "from Creationist Blogs", and Argument to Popularity (Fallacy) x 3.

To support a charge of "Quote Mining", please show Specifically where a quote(s) were taken out of context to mean something different...?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 23 by Enoch2021]

This recycled quote mined rubbish from creationist blogs has made the rounds here before. It's not worth making additional refutations.
Let's see now, on the one hand we have you and religionist, non science blogs opining about science, and on the other we have virtually the entire scientific community and a petition signed by 72 U. S. Nobel Prize winners, plus ten court decisions.

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Genetic Fallacy --- "from Creationist Blogs", and Argument to Popularity (Fallacy) x 3.

To support a charge of "Quote Mining", please show Specifically where a quote(s) were taken out of context to mean something different...?

Did you forget you have made this rubbish claim before and your quote mining was explained to you?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 258#682258

The refutations of your rubbish do not evaporate because a few months have passed.

On October 17, 2014 you were informed, when you raised the same objection:

Enoch2021 wrote:

In order to SUPPORT a "Claim" of "Quote Mining".... "YOU" have to show "SPECIFICALLY" from inside the CITED Reference where he basically contradicts what he just said concerning the fate, and MECHANISM of that fate, with Drosophila.

"You continue to make the same claim. I referred you to the entire book and specifically to the first chapter. If you read that chapter, or even the entire chapter from which you quote one small passage, you would realize Myar is not contradicting himself at all. He is explaining that there are many different modalities at work in evolution and it is wrong to concentrate on just one, such as mutations. In the passage you quote he explains some of the problems with mutations as the sole instrument of biological evolution; that as every biologist has known for decades, that most mutations either do not provide survival advantages, or they actually provide disadvantage.
Mayr explains this in detail in the same book you refer to in chapter 1 which you can read at http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... ver&dq=goo...
I regret I cannot quote from this source because it is restricted, but you and everyone else can read it for themselves. In that initial chapter he explains exactly the error you are making, that pre Darwinian theories made the mistake of focusing on a single mechanism or even a false mechanism.

On page 2 of the very book you cite, he sets out on table 1.1 four major categories of evolutionary change, of which 2.(c) is "Mutational Limitations." The blog I've demonstrated you lifted this from focuses on the fact Mayr is honest enough to follow the scientific protocol and lists limitations of some of these various mechanisms. Unlike the blog you're using, Mayr is not out to 'prove or disprove' evolution. He is simply describing objectively.

It should also be noted that you and this blog keep trotting out a book published 44 years ago. So not only are you quote mining from it, you are not using the latest texts. This is typical of many creationist blogs.

If you really want to dispute any of this, than rather than repeat a blurb from what you've already written, how about reading that first chapter, quote from that, or at least reference table 1.1?

If you actually have access to the entire book, rather than just the small passage you quote, this should be easy for you to do. If you do not have such access, here again is the URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... ver&dq=goo..."

[Danmark]

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Genetic Fallacy --- "from Creationist Blogs", and Argument to Popularity (Fallacy) x 3.

To support a charge of "Quote Mining", please show Specifically where a quote(s) were taken out of context to mean something different...?

This nonsense was also answered very well by H. Sapiens:

"I am not going to be drawn into your Gish Gallop (look it up, that's not hard).

I am going to expose your complaint with respect to a single item and then infer that everything you post is fraudulent. I know that it is a reach, but I am confident that it is a reasonable one, and that, if I wanted to waste the time, I could do the same to everything that you have posted here and on other forums (you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Let us, therefor, deal with your quote mining of Ernst Mayr. I pick this issue because he a man whom I have met several times, heard speak many times, and whom I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for.

You quote Dr. Mayr having written, in an article in Scientific American, dated 24 November 2009 titled: "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought":

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Let's be clear what you stand accused of, that is: "Quote Mining" which you deny and is defined as: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize."

Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotles concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.

BTW: the entire article is here, free of charge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/ you need not use my home library.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

I would note that the same quote mining is done on these (and likely more) sites:

http://creationrevolution.com/naturalis ... %99t-work/

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot ... chive.html

http://creation.com/evolution-is-histor ... hysics-and...

I suggest that, despite your protestations, you "lifted" the quote mine and analysis from these (or other) sites, rather than they having lifted it from you, if only because their sites are dated a ways back.

So the accusation was been made: Enoch2021 stands accused of: "Intellectual Dishonesty, on the basis of quote mining and lifting the ideas and quotes wholesale from blogs that are, in and of themselves intellectually dishonest.

Enoch2021 denied the accusation.

I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

What does this fact and Enoch2021's denial of guilt say with respect to his truthfulness and knowledge base?

You tell me.

And ... it you bothered to read you know that I'm a retired oceanographer, not a pre-law student, just as I know that you're retired military living in a fly-over state."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 262#682262

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 23 by Enoch2021]

This recycled quote mined rubbish from creationist blogs has made the rounds here before. It's not worth making additional refutations.
Let's see now, on the one hand we have you and religionist, non science blogs opining about science, and on the other we have virtually the entire scientific community and a petition signed by 72 U. S. Nobel Prize winners, plus ten court decisions.

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Genetic Fallacy --- "from Creationist Blogs", and Argument to Popularity (Fallacy) x 3.

To support a charge of "Quote Mining", please show Specifically where a quote(s) were taken out of context to mean something different...?

Did you forget you have made this rubbish claim before and your quote mining was explained to you?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 258#682258

The refutations of your rubbish do not evaporate because a few months have passed.

You didn't refute anything.

On October 17, 2014 you were informed, when you raised the same objection:

Enoch2021 wrote:

In order to SUPPORT a "Claim" of "Quote Mining".... "YOU" have to show "SPECIFICALLY" from inside the CITED Reference where he basically contradicts what he just said concerning the fate, and MECHANISM of that fate, with Drosophila.

Ahhh, I didn't quote anything concerning Drosophila here, so what are you talking about? And btw, you didn't refute Drosophila either.

"You continue to make the same claim. I referred you to the entire book and specifically to the first chapter. If you read that chapter, or even the entire chapter from which you quote one small passage, you would realize Myar is not contradicting himself at all. He is explaining that there are many different modalities at work in evolution and it is wrong to concentrate on just one, such as mutations. In the passage you quote he explains some of the problems with mutations as the sole instrument of biological evolution; that as every biologist has known for decades, that most mutations either do not provide survival advantages, or they actually provide disadvantage.

Book??? I have the Paper right in front of me....

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

To SUPPORT your Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) charge of "Quote Mining" sir, you have to show In THE ABOVE ARTICLE where the Quote was taken out of context. Best wishes.

Mayr explains this in detail in the same book you refer to in chapter 1 which you can read at http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... ver&dq=goo...
I regret I cannot quote from this source because it is restricted, but you and everyone else can read it for themselves. In that initial chapter he explains exactly the error you are making, that pre Darwinian theories made the mistake of focusing on a single mechanism or even a false mechanism.

It's Irrelevant anyway.

On page 2 of the very book you cite, he sets out on table 1.1 four major categories of evolutionary change, of which 2.(c) is "Mutational Limitations." The blog I've demonstrated you lifted this from focuses on the fact Mayr is honest enough to follow the scientific protocol and lists limitations of some of these various mechanisms. Unlike the blog you're using, Mayr is not out to 'prove or disprove' evolution. He is simply describing objectively.

You've demonstrated nothing. And what is this "BLOG" you keep referring too?

It should also be noted that you and this blog keep trotting out a book published 44 years ago. So not only are you quote mining from it, you are not using the latest texts

.

Does this look like 44 Years ago...

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009. ????

This is typical of many creationist blogs.

Genetic Fallacy and Irrelevant

If you really want to dispute any of this, than rather than repeat a blurb from what you've already written, how about reading that first chapter, quote from that, or at least reference table 1.1?

When I get time, maybe. What's the Purpose?

If you actually have access to the entire book, rather than just the small passage you quote, this should be easy for you to do. If you do not have such access, here again is the URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=STEXku ... ver&dq=goo..."

I have it right here: Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009


Do you have a substantive cogent argument?

Regards

[Enoch2021]

Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Genetic Fallacy --- "from Creationist Blogs", and Argument to Popularity (Fallacy) x 3.

To support a charge of "Quote Mining", please show Specifically where a quote(s) were taken out of context to mean something different...?

I am going to expose your complaint with respect to a single item and then infer that everything you post is fraudulent. I know that it is a reach, but I am confident that it is a reasonable one, and that, if I wanted to waste the time, I could do the same to everything that you have posted here and on other forums (you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Let us, therefor, deal with your quote mining of Ernst Mayr. I pick this issue because he a man whom I have met several times, heard speak many times, and whom I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for.

You quote Dr. Mayr having written, in an article in Scientific American, dated 24 November 2009 titled: "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought":

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Let's be clear what you stand accused of, that is: "Quote Mining" which you deny and is defined as: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize."

Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean- Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotles concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent"by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.

BTW: the entire article is here, free of charge: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-thought/ you need not use my home library.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

I would note that the same quote mining is done on these (and likely more) sites:

http://creationrevolution.com/naturalis ... %99t-work/

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot ... chive.html

http://creation.com/evolution-is-histor ... hysics-and...

I suggest that, despite your protestations, you "lifted" the quote mine and analysis from these (or other) sites, rather than they having lifted it from you, if only because their sites are dated a ways back.

So the accusation was been made: Enoch2021 stands accused of: "Intellectual Dishonesty, on the basis of quote mining and lifting the ideas and quotes wholesale from blogs that are, in and of themselves intellectually dishonest.

Enoch2021 denied the accusation.

I have proven the charge, here, beyond any reasonable doubt.

What does this fact and Enoch2021's denial of guilt say with respect to his truthfulness and knowledge base?

You tell me.

And ... it you bothered to read you know that I'm a retired oceanographer, not a pre-law student, just as I know that you're retired military living in a fly-over state."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 262#682262

You sure like to divert.

What have you "proven"?? Where was this Quote Taken Out of Context???....

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

What on Earth do DINO's or anything else you posted have to do with this Quote, pray tell?...other than Validating My Point...."Historical". What is the Independent Variable of the TESTS/Experiments with the Extinction of Dino's...?

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwins founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science

From the article above. This is consistent with my Quote Sir......Philosophy, "Just So" Stories. Does Philosophy follow the Scientific Method?

Do you have a substantive Argument?

regards