C
Chris_W
Guest
Its in the past…and apparrently a misunderstanding on both our parts. Perhaps we’ll bump into each other around here again sometime and be surprised at how nice we both are.
Thanks,
Chris W
- Status
Thanks,
Chris W
C
Chris_W
Guest
This is very interesting, davidford. She brings out a couple of very good points.
When evolution is used to disprove God, or when intelligent design is used to try to prove God, then both will fail in the scientific world. This makes sense, and is what evolutionists here in these forums have been arguing for some time. Therefore the distinction between scientific discussions and apologetic discussions really need to be defined at the onset of a discussion: either the discussion is going to be apologetic in nature, or it will be scientific in nature, but should not be both at the same time. A difficult task to acheive though, as most people do have hte tendency to use evolution and ID respectively to prove the non-exitsence or existence of God.
The other really interesting thing she brought out is that ID is discuredited as useless in the scientific world, but it sounds like she is pretty effective in showing ID can and does infact lead to hypothesis and experiements that further research and understaing and as such is in fact usefull in science.
Interesting.
Thx,
Chris W
D
davidford
Guest
“I’m one of those Christians who believes that biological evolution is a very strongly supported concept in science”
Meaning of “evolution”?
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Meanings of “evolution”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Meaning of “evolution”?
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Meanings of “evolution”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
D
davidford
Guest
“either the discussion is going to be apologetic in nature, or it will be scientific in nature”
I ask, What’s true/ correct? What’s most likely to be true, given what I now know?
Feynman on uncertainty; Lyttleton’s bead-on-a-wire illustration
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990601090737.1777A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“Scientific” is a useless word.
About the only place I use it is in the phrase ‘peer-reviewed scientific literature,’ or when I’m being silly/ [Limbaugh]“illustrating absurdity by being absurd,” e.g.:
Belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.
google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
“prove the non-exitsence or existence of God”
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
“it sounds like she [Julie] is pretty effective in showing ID can and does infact lead to hypothesis and experiements that further research and understaing and as such is in fact usefull in science”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
I ask, What’s true/ correct? What’s most likely to be true, given what I now know?
Feynman on uncertainty; Lyttleton’s bead-on-a-wire illustration
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990601090737.1777A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“Scientific” is a useless word.
About the only place I use it is in the phrase ‘peer-reviewed scientific literature,’ or when I’m being silly/ [Limbaugh]“illustrating absurdity by being absurd,” e.g.:
Belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.
google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
“prove the non-exitsence or existence of God”
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
“it sounds like she [Julie] is pretty effective in showing ID can and does infact lead to hypothesis and experiements that further research and understaing and as such is in fact usefull in science”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Who is Julie Thomas and why on earth should we give a damn what she thinks? Behe is a busted flush.
Utterly irrelevant. The bible has no authority when it comes to matters of science. And Behe remains a busted flush and Intelligent Design a scurrilous politico-religious movement that has nothing to contribute to science.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
D
davidford
Guest
“why on earth should we give a damn what she [Julie] thinks?”
You, sir, shouldn’t.
“Who is Julie Thomas”
Someone of no consequence.
Who knows 100 times more biology than you will ever know.
“Intelligent Design [is] a scurrilous politico-religious movement that has nothing to contribute to science”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Extract from
Simpson, Eldredge in Synthese, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse, Patterson, Raup, Stanley
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Patterson’s remarks about the aftermath, and some additional thoughts of his on the theory of evolution:
"‘I really put my foot in it,’ Patterson told me that day I first met him nearly two years ago. We were in a restaurant on Columbus Avenue near the Museum of Natural History, and he was recalling the talk he had given eighteen months earlier to the systematics discussion group. 'I compared evolution and creation and made a case that the two were equivalent. I was all fired up, and I said what I thought. I went through merry hell for about a year. Almost everybody except the people at the museum
objected. Lots of academics wrote. Deluges of mail. ‘Here we are trying to combat a political argument,’ they said, ‘and you give them ammunition!’’ He ordered something from the menu and said: ‘One has to live with one’s colleagues. They hold the theory very dear. I found out that what you say will be taken in ‘political’ rather than rational terms.’ Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as ‘often unnecessary’ in biology. ‘In fact,’ he said, ‘they could do perfectly well without it.’ Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were ‘the unified field theory of biology,’ holding the whole subject together–and binding the profession to it. ‘Once something has that status,’ he said, ‘it becomes like religion.’"[Harper’s (Feb. 1985), 52.]
You, sir, shouldn’t.
“Who is Julie Thomas”
Someone of no consequence.
Who knows 100 times more biology than you will ever know.
“Intelligent Design [is] a scurrilous politico-religious movement that has nothing to contribute to science”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Extract from
Simpson, Eldredge in Synthese, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse, Patterson, Raup, Stanley
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Patterson’s remarks about the aftermath, and some additional thoughts of his on the theory of evolution:
"‘I really put my foot in it,’ Patterson told me that day I first met him nearly two years ago. We were in a restaurant on Columbus Avenue near the Museum of Natural History, and he was recalling the talk he had given eighteen months earlier to the systematics discussion group. 'I compared evolution and creation and made a case that the two were equivalent. I was all fired up, and I said what I thought. I went through merry hell for about a year. Almost everybody except the people at the museum
objected. Lots of academics wrote. Deluges of mail. ‘Here we are trying to combat a political argument,’ they said, ‘and you give them ammunition!’’ He ordered something from the menu and said: ‘One has to live with one’s colleagues. They hold the theory very dear. I found out that what you say will be taken in ‘political’ rather than rational terms.’ Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as ‘often unnecessary’ in biology. ‘In fact,’ he said, ‘they could do perfectly well without it.’ Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were ‘the unified field theory of biology,’ holding the whole subject together–and binding the profession to it. ‘Once something has that status,’ he said, ‘it becomes like religion.’"[Harper’s (Feb. 1985), 52.]
P
PhilVaz
Guest
HECD << Who is Julie Thomas and why on earth should we give a damn what she thinks? Behe is a busted flush. >>
Hee hee, you make me laugh sometimes. I like your style. And I agree Behe doesn’t have any support among his fellow biochemists or biologists. And I can’t fully recommend Bonnette’s Origin of the Human Species since it gives credence to young earth creationist arguments, but his philosophy is interesting trying to reconcile Adam/Eve with modern science.
The only books I fully recommend that deal with evolution and religion are Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller (Catholic biologist), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk (evangelical biologist). Apart from a standard textbook on evolution, these are very informative and scientifically accurate books. They represent the mainstream science position with a Christian slant.
I don’t get the reference to 1 Corinthians 12 either, nor all the links to Google Groups. I guess he wants to save time typing all that out again.
Phil P
Hee hee, you make me laugh sometimes. I like your style. And I agree Behe doesn’t have any support among his fellow biochemists or biologists. And I can’t fully recommend Bonnette’s Origin of the Human Species since it gives credence to young earth creationist arguments, but his philosophy is interesting trying to reconcile Adam/Eve with modern science.
The only books I fully recommend that deal with evolution and religion are Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller (Catholic biologist), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk (evangelical biologist). Apart from a standard textbook on evolution, these are very informative and scientifically accurate books. They represent the mainstream science position with a Christian slant.
I don’t get the reference to 1 Corinthians 12 either, nor all the links to Google Groups. I guess he wants to save time typing all that out again.
Phil P
D
davidford
Guest
part 1 of 4
Reactions to
“Creationism Redux?
Alec MacAndrew
What is Intelligent Design?”
evolutionpages.com/Intelligent%20Design.htm
“Intelligent Design… claim that it is a scientific hypothesis”
I don’t claim that.
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
“Phillip Johnson… lacks any scientific credentials”
According to Raup, Johnson knows [Raup]“99 percent of evolutionary
biology.”
google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311130100280.1363-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
“without having contributed… any testable theoretical notions”
Julie Thomas on biological design
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
“ID is a religiously motivated movement”
Do you consider atheism a “religiously motivated movement”?
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
“the ‘Wedge’ document
‘Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.’”
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
“'To see design theory application in specific fields,
including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology,
physics and cosmology”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Einstein: physics was designed
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
“No scientific research is being
done from ‘the perspective of design theory.’”
Julie Thomas on biological design
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
“concept that he called ‘Irreducible Complexity’ that proves
that certain aspects of biological systems could not have
evolved”
Meaning of “evolved”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
“Specified Information”
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
“ID proponents claim the imminent demise of neo-Darwinism at
a time when every discovery in biology and palaeontology
adds richness and weight”
1999 Leigh: “creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
“empirical data, new and old, that Evolutionary Biology
explains”
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“Paley’s long-refuted 18th century
argument from design”
Dawkins vs. an atheist philosopher
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180756.6c069f04%40posting.google.com
Reactions to
“Creationism Redux?
Alec MacAndrew
What is Intelligent Design?”
evolutionpages.com/Intelligent%20Design.htm
“Intelligent Design… claim that it is a scientific hypothesis”
I don’t claim that.
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
“Phillip Johnson… lacks any scientific credentials”
According to Raup, Johnson knows [Raup]“99 percent of evolutionary
biology.”
google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311130100280.1363-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
“without having contributed… any testable theoretical notions”
Julie Thomas on biological design
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
“ID is a religiously motivated movement”
Do you consider atheism a “religiously motivated movement”?
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
“the ‘Wedge’ document
‘Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.’”
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
“'To see design theory application in specific fields,
including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology,
physics and cosmology”
ID as a metaphysical research program
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Einstein: physics was designed
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
“No scientific research is being
done from ‘the perspective of design theory.’”
Julie Thomas on biological design
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
“concept that he called ‘Irreducible Complexity’ that proves
that certain aspects of biological systems could not have
evolved”
Meaning of “evolved”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
“Specified Information”
on “order” and varieties of “complexity”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
“ID proponents claim the imminent demise of neo-Darwinism at
a time when every discovery in biology and palaeontology
adds richness and weight”
1999 Leigh: “creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
“empirical data, new and old, that Evolutionary Biology
explains”
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“Paley’s long-refuted 18th century
argument from design”
Dawkins vs. an atheist philosopher
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180756.6c069f04%40posting.google.com
D
davidford
Guest
part 2 of 4
“amounts to no more than explanation by miracle”
Crick, Francis. 1981. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (NY:
Simon and Schuster), 192pp. Crick was a winner of the 1962 Nobel
Prize for Physiology or Medicine. On 88:
==
“role of religious and secular ethicists in forming society’s views on
what science should be permitted to do”
The atheism-adherent and Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has no
problem with infanticide, bestiality, or killing
severely-mentally-disabled individuals.
Suppose a committee of biologists and bioethicists headed up by the
materialism/ atheism-adherent Peter Singer were to tell you its
proposal for
a government-run plan [Hitler]“to improve the breed of the human race.”
What would you tell the committee?
“an attempt by some religious people to
foist their beliefs, masquerading as science, on others.”
Dawkins, Richard. 15 April 1982. “The necessity of Darwinism” New
Scientist, 130-2. On 130:
“Darwin’s theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. “How to Sink a Battleship” in Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design (Illinois: InterVarsity
Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
“Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe’s book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him…”
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
“ID is no more scientific than astrology or a belief in
the literal existence of Santa Claus”
Coyne and Feynman on Santa Claus groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981124234529.22878A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Coyne: classic peppered moth story “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com
“Every week there are dozens of papers that rely on
the Theory of Evolution for an explanation of a wide range of
biological phenomena.”
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
“amounts to no more than explanation by miracle”
Crick, Francis. 1981. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (NY:
Simon and Schuster), 192pp. Crick was a winner of the 1962 Nobel
Prize for Physiology or Medicine. On 88:
Code:
"Only if life was very easy to start, because there is in
fact some rather direct pathway through the maze of
possibilities, are we likely to be able to reproduce it in
laboratories, at least in the immediate future. An honest
man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at
the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to
get it going. ....at the present time we can only say that
we cannot decide whether the origin of life on earth was an
extremely unlikely event or almost a certainty or any
possibility in between these two extremes. If it was highly
likely, there is no problem. But if it turns out that it was
rather unlikely, then we are compelled to consider whether
it might have arisen in other places in the universe where
possibly, for one reason or another, conditions were more
favorable."“role of religious and secular ethicists in forming society’s views on
what science should be permitted to do”
The atheism-adherent and Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has no
problem with infanticide, bestiality, or killing
severely-mentally-disabled individuals.
Suppose a committee of biologists and bioethicists headed up by the
materialism/ atheism-adherent Peter Singer were to tell you its
proposal for
a government-run plan [Hitler]“to improve the breed of the human race.”
What would you tell the committee?
“an attempt by some religious people to
foist their beliefs, masquerading as science, on others.”
Dawkins, Richard. 15 April 1982. “The necessity of Darwinism” New
Scientist, 130-2. On 130:
“Darwin’s theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. “How to Sink a Battleship” in Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design (Illinois: InterVarsity
Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
“Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe’s book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him…”
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
“ID is no more scientific than astrology or a belief in
the literal existence of Santa Claus”
Coyne and Feynman on Santa Claus groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981124234529.22878A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Coyne: classic peppered moth story “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com
“Every week there are dozens of papers that rely on
the Theory of Evolution for an explanation of a wide range of
biological phenomena.”
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
D
davidford
Guest
part 3 of 4
“Dobzhansky’s statement is as true today as when he first
composed it 40 years ago: ‘Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of Evolution.’”
Evolution needed to make sense of biology?
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
“the detailed biological
Theory of Evolution, that combines zoology, botany, ecology,
palaeontology, genetics, genomics, protein science,
developmental biology, geology and so forth in a great
interlocking and explanatory net, that is self consistent,
illuminating and predictive.”
Raup’s letter to Science
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
French persons that rejected the theory of NS
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129861996.983559.40030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“phylogenetic structure of 5s, 5.8s, 16s,
18s, 23s and 28s ribosomes, evolution gives us a sensible
context for the evolution of different ribosomal structures”
“great evolutionary
divergence of unikonts (animals, fungi, and Choanozoa and
Amoebozoa) and bikonts (plants, chromists and other
protozoa) in the roots of the eukaryotic tree”
“hierarchy of myosin motor proteins”
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
==
“once we accept divine
intervention as an explanation for an important natural
phenomenon”
materialism
Lewontin, Richard. 9 January 1997. “Billions and Billions of Demons”
NY Times Book Reviews. At
csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm
A paragraph:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to an understanding of
the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck
used to say that anyone who could believe in God could
believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is
to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature
may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
“Dobzhansky’s statement is as true today as when he first
composed it 40 years ago: ‘Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of Evolution.’”
Evolution needed to make sense of biology?
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7nibqu%24o0l%241%40pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu
“the detailed biological
Theory of Evolution, that combines zoology, botany, ecology,
palaeontology, genetics, genomics, protein science,
developmental biology, geology and so forth in a great
interlocking and explanatory net, that is self consistent,
illuminating and predictive.”
Raup’s letter to Science
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
French persons that rejected the theory of NS
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129861996.983559.40030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
“phylogenetic structure of 5s, 5.8s, 16s,
18s, 23s and 28s ribosomes, evolution gives us a sensible
context for the evolution of different ribosomal structures”
“great evolutionary
divergence of unikonts (animals, fungi, and Choanozoa and
Amoebozoa) and bikonts (plants, chromists and other
protozoa) in the roots of the eukaryotic tree”
“hierarchy of myosin motor proteins”
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
==
“once we accept divine
intervention as an explanation for an important natural
phenomenon”
materialism
Lewontin, Richard. 9 January 1997. “Billions and Billions of Demons”
NY Times Book Reviews. At
csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm
A paragraph:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to an understanding of
the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck
used to say that anyone who could believe in God could
believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is
to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature
may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
D
davidford
Guest
Part 4 of 4
“IDers say: ‘I cannot personally understand how, say, the bacterial
flagellum could have evolved, so, an Intelligent Designer
must have done it.’”
Strawman.
“The gaps are getting narrower
and narrower.”
Is such the case in the area of the origin of life question?
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
“ID should not be taught as an
alternative ‘theory’ to explain the diversity of species”
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
“IDers say: ‘I cannot personally understand how, say, the bacterial
flagellum could have evolved, so, an Intelligent Designer
must have done it.’”
Strawman.
“The gaps are getting narrower
and narrower.”
Is such the case in the area of the origin of life question?
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
“ID should not be taught as an
alternative ‘theory’ to explain the diversity of species”
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
P
PhilVaz
Guest
My gosh David, I thought I was the King of Links in these evolution threads. You got me beat. :whacky: Maybe a little more commentary and less Google Group links. :yawn: And when you quote, put the name of the person you are quoting. Some people use the quote feature, or you can do NAME: << >> like I do. Too hard to follow your Google Group posts. 
David << According to Raup, Johnson knows [Raup] “99 percent of evolutionary biology.” >>
If Raup said that, he’s wrong. Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin’s God shows how little biology Johnson knows. You might want to check out Denis Lamoureux’s debate with Phillip Johnson, Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999). As one Amazon.com reviewer said:
=====
Johnson gets beat up like you wouldn’t believe it. First, Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments, and his books. He even uses Johnson’s own “baloney detector” (stolen from Sagan) to show why Johnson’s books are full of BS. Johnson answers by saying that he’s only interested in answering the main points, and then presents a rebuttal only 8 pages long, where he manages to completely evade all of Lamoureux’s points, and instead talk about how evil atheism is.
Lamoureux notes how disapointed he is with Johnson’s behaviour, and then repeats the many points of his that Johnson “forgot” to adress. Johnson’s response? To offer a transcript of a radio interview by Dobson, interviewing Johnson on his influence on evangelism!
It is hardly surprising that the IDists, supposed to comment on the debate, all refuse to actually talk about Lamoureux’s trashing of Johnson, but instead starts discussing the origin of life and Dembski’s filter. As icing on the cake, Denton (author of “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”) appologizes for confusing “Darwinism” with “evolution”, then proceeds to talk about biogeography and the molecular data, and how silly it makes “special creation” look.
=====
He has the book right. I have it. Lamoureux is an evolutionary creationist with Ph.D’s in biology and theology. Check out his QuickTime lecture “Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate.” Very well done.
Phil P
David << According to Raup, Johnson knows [Raup] “99 percent of evolutionary biology.” >>
If Raup said that, he’s wrong. Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin’s God shows how little biology Johnson knows. You might want to check out Denis Lamoureux’s debate with Phillip Johnson, Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999). As one Amazon.com reviewer said:
=====
Johnson gets beat up like you wouldn’t believe it. First, Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments, and his books. He even uses Johnson’s own “baloney detector” (stolen from Sagan) to show why Johnson’s books are full of BS. Johnson answers by saying that he’s only interested in answering the main points, and then presents a rebuttal only 8 pages long, where he manages to completely evade all of Lamoureux’s points, and instead talk about how evil atheism is.
Lamoureux notes how disapointed he is with Johnson’s behaviour, and then repeats the many points of his that Johnson “forgot” to adress. Johnson’s response? To offer a transcript of a radio interview by Dobson, interviewing Johnson on his influence on evangelism!
It is hardly surprising that the IDists, supposed to comment on the debate, all refuse to actually talk about Lamoureux’s trashing of Johnson, but instead starts discussing the origin of life and Dembski’s filter. As icing on the cake, Denton (author of “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”) appologizes for confusing “Darwinism” with “evolution”, then proceeds to talk about biogeography and the molecular data, and how silly it makes “special creation” look.
=====
He has the book right. I have it. Lamoureux is an evolutionary creationist with Ph.D’s in biology and theology. Check out his QuickTime lecture “Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate.” Very well done.
Phil P
C
CreosMary
Guest
Check out this website: www.kolbecenter.org/ for the Catholic perspective.
Whether one believes in Thiestic evolution (micro-evolution only) or the literal Genesis account is not neccesary for salavation, however as you will find on this site Darwinism is incompatable with Church teachings.
Almighty God bless and Mary, our Lady of the Passion protect you always
Whether one believes in Thiestic evolution (micro-evolution only) or the literal Genesis account is not neccesary for salavation, however as you will find on this site Darwinism is incompatable with Church teachings.
Almighty God bless and Mary, our Lady of the Passion protect you always
S
steveandersen
Guest
The problem I have with the Kolbe center (besides their habit of being fast and loose with their scientific facts) is that they appear to offer no alternative explanations other than stamping their feet and saying “no”
Sure some council 1200 years ago affirmed that we are all part of one human family…how does evolution affect that one way or another?
In fact what we now know scientifically just how closely related we are and we can bracket within tens of thousands of years where the origin took place.
Sure some council 1200 years ago affirmed that we are all part of one human family…how does evolution affect that one way or another?
In fact what we now know scientifically just how closely related we are and we can bracket within tens of thousands of years where the origin took place.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Our present Pope has an answer for you:
"Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so."
This is why he has no trouble with the conclusion:
"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."
The Church’s view of evolution is one that no reasonable Christian (nor any reasonable scientist) could criticize.
S
Shidoran
Guest
Let’s just say that evolution is only a theory, and darwinism is often mistaken for evolution but is in fact, seperate. I myself, am both an evolutionist, and a creationist. I feel that there is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest that evolutionary processes exist in nature, however, this does not mean we fully understand them. Remember, we are working with theories. I am a personal believer in creationism through evolution. It is not something that gets in the way of my faith in God, or in Christ, and I don’t believe a particularly detailed knowledge of this subject is essential to my salvation. However, I choose to keep an open mind about it, and see what science has to offer. For anyone to assume there isn’t any more knowledge out there than what is written in the bible is foolish in my opinion. I also don’t think it would be possible for you to “prove” creationism through science. You’d end up with something like these “new” intelligent design theories, which in my mind are valid, but are not science. You cannot prove the things of God with science, it’s the other way around.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
And in any case, how can an ecclesiastical body have anything worth saying about the conclusions of sciences which did not exist when it was held ? Churchmen are not qualified to pronounce on the sciences, unless they are themselves competent in that particular science. They can draw conclusions relating to matters which are within their competence; but science, as such, is none of their business. Being churchmen no more equips them to pronounce on science, than it equips them to write on Roman religion or French cooking or to design a kilt.
This chap is a priest & a scientist - but people like him are notable because they are rare. ##
D
davidford
Guest
[one Amazon.com reviewer, quoted by Phil]“Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments”
What are 2 of the Johnson arguments critiqued?
What are some flaws with those 2 arguments?
[Phil]“Lamoureux… his QuickTime lecture ‘Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate.’”
Meaning of “Evolution”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
[CreosMary]“micro-evolution”
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
[steveandersen]“Sure some council 1200 years ago affirmed that we are all part of one human family…how does evolution affect that one way or another?”
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you agree with any of this Futuyma?:
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 9-10, the first paragraph of the
section “The Impact of Darwinism”:
“The Darwinian view that evolution not only had occurred,
but was caused by the impersonal process of natural
selection met strong opposition in both scientific and
nonscientific circles, because of its perceived threat to
theological doctrine and to the unique position in nature
that humans would like to arrogate to themselves. The
view offered by Darwin-- of a purposeless universe in
which life changes, to no ultimate purpose, by the survival
of the fittest of random variations; a material world from
which we have arisen and with which we are one; a
universe that does not care about us and is not going to
save us from our follies-- such a vision is far less
reassuring and less flattering to the ego than the notion of a
world created to serve us, the apples of God’s eye. It is a
view distasteful not only to the theologically inclined, but
to the literary tradition that opposes materialism with more
transcendent values (see, e.g., Barzun 1958). Seldom are
the positive implications of Darwinism acknowledged: that
it forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of a static
world order, but as the masters of our fate; that our
salvation lies not in Providence, but in ourselves.”
Compare the Humanist Manifesto I extracts at the bottom of
Hitler opposed Christianity
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1117657689.616680.167840%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
[steveandersen]“we can bracket within tens of thousands of years where the origin took place”
Rana, Fazale with Hugh Ross. 2005. Who was Adam?: A Creation Model
Approach to the Origin of Man.
About the book:
reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=690&cat=0&page=1
[Shidoran]“I myself, am both an evolutionist, and a creationist.”
What’s “an evolutionist”?
What’s “a creationist”?
[Shidoran]“these ‘new’ intelligent design theories, which in my mind are valid”
What are 2 of these “valid” theories?
How do you know they’re “valid”?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
What are 2 of the Johnson arguments critiqued?
What are some flaws with those 2 arguments?
[Phil]“Lamoureux… his QuickTime lecture ‘Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate.’”
Meaning of “Evolution”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
[CreosMary]“micro-evolution”
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
[steveandersen]“Sure some council 1200 years ago affirmed that we are all part of one human family…how does evolution affect that one way or another?”
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you agree with any of this Futuyma?:
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 9-10, the first paragraph of the
section “The Impact of Darwinism”:
“The Darwinian view that evolution not only had occurred,
but was caused by the impersonal process of natural
selection met strong opposition in both scientific and
nonscientific circles, because of its perceived threat to
theological doctrine and to the unique position in nature
that humans would like to arrogate to themselves. The
view offered by Darwin-- of a purposeless universe in
which life changes, to no ultimate purpose, by the survival
of the fittest of random variations; a material world from
which we have arisen and with which we are one; a
universe that does not care about us and is not going to
save us from our follies-- such a vision is far less
reassuring and less flattering to the ego than the notion of a
world created to serve us, the apples of God’s eye. It is a
view distasteful not only to the theologically inclined, but
to the literary tradition that opposes materialism with more
transcendent values (see, e.g., Barzun 1958). Seldom are
the positive implications of Darwinism acknowledged: that
it forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of a static
world order, but as the masters of our fate; that our
salvation lies not in Providence, but in ourselves.”
Compare the Humanist Manifesto I extracts at the bottom of
Hitler opposed Christianity
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1117657689.616680.167840%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
[steveandersen]“we can bracket within tens of thousands of years where the origin took place”
Rana, Fazale with Hugh Ross. 2005. Who was Adam?: A Creation Model
Approach to the Origin of Man.
About the book:
reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=690&cat=0&page=1
[Shidoran]“I myself, am both an evolutionist, and a creationist.”
What’s “an evolutionist”?
What’s “a creationist”?
[Shidoran]“these ‘new’ intelligent design theories, which in my mind are valid”
What are 2 of these “valid” theories?
How do you know they’re “valid”?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Besides, there’s all that annoying evidence.
There’s a way to test that. Ask someone why he accepts evolution. If he says “because Darwin said so”, he’s doing it on faith. If he starts talking about evidence, he’s basing it on science.
There should be no religious tests for such things. All that counts in science is the evidence.
C
Chris_W
Guest
The Barbarian:
The Barbarian:
The Barbarian:
Why the sarcasm?Besides, there’s all that annoying evidence.
The Barbarian:
Looks like a test designed to produce the desired result. Is that how efficient testing and deductive reasoning work in evoutionary circles?
The Barbarian:
Is that so? It seems to me the debate rests primarily on the human, fallible, and perhaps wishful interpretation of the “evidence”.
- Status