First of all, thanks to freezbie for addressing T-bird's reply to my message so appropriately. I'll just add a few comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird
There is no serious debate in science if evolution takes place. the work in progress is about the mechanisms involved. Evolutionary biologist do not work to advance arguments to defend evolution against creationist, they are working to advance science. Do you get my drift.
|
There may not be any serious debate among scientists, but there sure is among members posting here at Hypo and those around the world viewing these threads. I think the thread
Evolution is Fact is directed at creationists.
I do get your drift relative to science though and I agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by T-bird
The term "established theory" means a working model that scientist utilize in the past to further an understanding of natural process, that is all. If you start defending it as anything more than that you will be trapped by it. Natural process will always be more complex than the models used to describe them.
|
It is not my intention to defend "established theories" against anything but misinformation, misinterpretation, and distortion. It is in this type of defence that many feel science becomes "closed-minded." "Established theories" are always vulnerable to new evidence which may be contrary, or provide enhancement.
I agree with your last statement above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by T-bird
Our views of science are fundamentally at odds then. In my view attacking the integrity of established theory with a hypothesis based on new data is good science, as opposed to you're view that protecting the integrity of a model against a group who's views are of 0 importance in science.
|
I don't think we're fundamentally at odds in this regard. My implication was that established theories supported by empirical evidence should be protected from speculation and hypothetical interpretations that are
not supported by evidence. I think you have misrepresented my statement, which is an example of what I mean.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by T-bird
Where you and differ is you think attacking an evolutionary models is going to break it. I think attacking it will make it evolve into something better.
|
Sorry. This is not what I think. How about if I said that your need to "attack" the establishment has to do with something else other than the advancement of science, like some longstanding personal resistance to authority? Would it be appropriate for me to make such a claim? I don't think so.
I am all about the improvement of scientific knowledge. I resist attempts to use unsubstantiated claims to distort what we have come to understand so far. I also admit that because I am not a scientist, I will defer to scientific experts in their respective fields.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by T-bird
You are going to have to be specific about “data” you just cannot say show me data. When there hasn't been any specific claim that calls for data.
|
The freezed one already correctly responded to this. He is a man of vast wisdom and understanding.
I think you are still pissed about the.. you know.
. All is well my friend . 
