| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
11 May 2005 07:57:16 AM |
| Object: |
ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
When I hear such talk, I can't help but think of the distinguished members of
the scientific community who killed George Washington by using leeches to cure
him of what amounted to a bad case of the flu. Or the study that came out just
this week saying that a procedure performed a million times a year in this
country on women during childbirth not only doesn't help them but makes things
worse. Or the sad treatment of Galileo, a distinguished scientist who spent the
last years of his life under what amounted to house arrest because he'd been
convicted of heresy for asserting that the earth orbited the sun, rather than
the other way around.
In each of these cases, the scientists of the day assumed that they knew the
truth, that they had incontrovertible proof and that no instruments ever would
appear that could disprove their thinking. All those assumptions, of course,
proved to be wrong.
Now, with equal certainty, a similar group asserts that we can close the book on
the subject of the origin of life, even though none of us was there and what's
observable now ? or even during Darwin's time ? is only a small fraction of
what's been observable over the history of the earth.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brianmcnicoll/bm20050510.shtml
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 10:47:56 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:OpGdnVRBXvavnB_fRVn-uw@rogers.com...
-- [snip]
Read it at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brianmcnicoll/bm20050510.shtml
I started to write a reply to this (yesterday, when I first read it), and
gave up, at least temporarily. I think I was paralyzed, mentally, by the
prospect of dealing with the argument that evolutionary theory teaches that
two (presumably chimp-like) apes mated and produced a modern human, coupled
with the complaint that there are no transitional fossils ("missing links")
from this event. That, coupled with the bizarre (given the rest of the
column) concession that, "if Darwin was off the mark, he wasn't far off,"
and I have no idea what an appropriate response would be. Obviously,
pointing out that evolutionary theory is not actually about the "origin of
life" would seem to be a start -- but it would seem to be a start for
someone more inclined to be reasonable about the issues.
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent
to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 10:53:25 AM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:1184a9grib28c05@corp.supernews.com...
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:OpGdnVRBXvavnB_fRVn-uw@rogers.com...
-- [snip]
Read it at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brianmcnicoll/bm20050510.shtml
I started to write a reply to this (yesterday, when I first read it), and
gave up, at least temporarily. I think I was paralyzed, mentally, by the
prospect of dealing with the argument that evolutionary theory teaches
that
two (presumably chimp-like) apes mated and produced a modern human,
coupled
with the complaint that there are no transitional fossils ("missing
links")
from this event. That, coupled with the bizarre (given the rest of the
column) concession that, "if Darwin was off the mark, he wasn't far off,"
and I have no idea what an appropriate response would be. Obviously,
pointing out that evolutionary theory is not actually about the "origin of
life" would seem to be a start -- but it would seem to be a start for
someone more inclined to be reasonable about the issues.
"But the fact is, it is exactly that simple. Show me how this could've
occurred, shoe me the "missing link," and I'm foursquare on your side."
"shoe me"? Who's this moron's editor?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 08:34:44 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention. What is said is that the proceeding
are *rigged*, and thus a waste of time.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 09:47:33 AM |
|
|
"On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:34:44 -0700, in article
<oc2481pqe8vv0ukpbmqbpa0ogfjckv4753@4ax.com>, Stanley Friesen stated..."
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention. What is said is that the proceeding
are *rigged*, and thus a waste of time.
And, of course, nobody is saying that "all issues regarding"
anything in science is settled. Particularly about "the origin
of life". The anti-evolutionists are trying their best, and
apparently succeeding, in framing the terms of the "debate", as
if it were about "the origin of life".
And I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who refers to
people who accept the evidence for evolutionary biology as
"the Darwinists". Just as I would be suspicious of someone who
speaks of "the Wrightists" to distinguish those people who believe
that flight is a fact, not a theory.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McKendry" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 08:24:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:47:33 -0700, TomS wrote:
<snip>
And I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who refers to
people who accept the evidence for evolutionary biology as
"the Darwinists". Just as I would be suspicious of someone who
speaks of "the Wrightists" to distinguish those people who believe
that flight is a fact, not a theory.
Here's an idea: what if, instead of "YEC" and "ID theorist" or
"IDiot" or whatever, we adopted the practice of calling them
"Hovindists" and "Johnsonists" or "Dembskiists" or something?
I don't think it would even be dishonest. Creationists call
evolutionary biology "Darwinism" because they see the world
through authoritarian spectacles, after all, and their search
for truth seeks to answer not the question "what's right?", but
"who's right?" So it really seems only appropriate to label
their doctrines by author, not by content.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 08:32:36 PM |
|
|
John McKendry wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:47:33 -0700, TomS wrote:
<snip>
And I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who refers to
people who accept the evidence for evolutionary biology as
"the Darwinists". Just as I would be suspicious of someone who
speaks of "the Wrightists" to distinguish those people who believe
that flight is a fact, not a theory.
Here's an idea: what if, instead of "YEC" and "ID theorist" or
"IDiot" or whatever, we adopted the practice of calling them
"Hovindists" and "Johnsonists" or "Dembskiists" or something?
I don't think it would even be dishonest. Creationists call
evolutionary biology "Darwinism" because they see the world
through authoritarian spectacles, after all, and their search
for truth seeks to answer not the question "what's right?", but
"who's right?" So it really seems only appropriate to label
their doctrines by author, not by content.
John
Most of them are Morrisites or Gishers. But how can you tell?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 09:34:03 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> wrote in
news:d5ubne$1al4$2@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
John McKendry wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:47:33 -0700, TomS wrote:
<snip>
And I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who refers to
people who accept the evidence for evolutionary biology as
"the Darwinists". Just as I would be suspicious of someone who
speaks of "the Wrightists" to distinguish those people who believe
that flight is a fact, not a theory.
Here's an idea: what if, instead of "YEC" and "ID theorist" or
"IDiot" or whatever, we adopted the practice of calling them
"Hovindists" and "Johnsonists" or "Dembskiists" or something?
I don't think it would even be dishonest. Creationists call
evolutionary biology "Darwinism" because they see the world
through authoritarian spectacles, after all, and their search
for truth seeks to answer not the question "what's right?", but
"who's right?" So it really seems only appropriate to label
their doctrines by author, not by content.
John
Most of them are Morrisites or Gishers. But how can you tell?
Well if they gish when you squeeze them they can't be Morrisites.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
12 May 2005 08:44:00 AM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
<oc2481pqe8vv0ukpbmqbpa0ogfjckv4753@4ax.com>, Stanley Friesen stated..."
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention. What is said is that the proceeding
are *rigged*, and thus a waste of time.
And, of course, nobody is saying that "all issues regarding"
anything in science is settled. Particularly about "the origin
of life". The anti-evolutionists are trying their best, and
apparently succeeding, in framing the terms of the "debate", as
if it were about "the origin of life".
Well, gosh, it's obvious that humans are the most important
lifeforms on Earth. So, why would you make a fuss about
the insignificant detail of "the origin of life" and "the
origin of human life"? Heck, I'm the most important living
thing on Earth, so it's really about MY birth, isn't it?
--Jeff
--
Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if
there be one, he must more approve
of the homage of reason, then that
of blindfolded fear.
--Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nantko Schanssema" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 09:28:09 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net>:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention.
That, or he's telling porkies.
What is said is that the proceeding are *rigged*, and thus a waste of time.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 09:29:42 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray, and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding, they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention.
That's saying it nicely. His statements that Galileo was persecuted by
"distinguished members of the scientific community" (and not by a
religious group) identify this editorial as a propaganda piece.
What is said is that the proceeding
are *rigged*, and thus a waste of time.
I'm sure the author knows. But admitting it doesn't make the ID side
look good. So a strawman is constructed, and then taken apart. With fake
evidence and misconceptions.
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 07:47:14 PM |
|
|
<j.m.1491@gmx.net> wrote in message news:3eej6eF2n1hhU1@individual.net...
Stanley Friesen wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is
taking
up the question of what students should be taught about the origin of
life. The
board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with witnesses and
representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only contingent and those
who
want other theories considered.
The Darwinists have a lawyer in the proceedings named Pedro Irigonegaray,
and he
cross-examined some opposing witnesses. But so far, the scientific
community of
Kansas and surrounding areas has refused to participate. This proceeding,
they
say, is beneath them because all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled.
This person is not paying attention.
That's saying it nicely. His statements that Galileo was persecuted by
"distinguished members of the scientific community" (and not by a
religious group) identify this editorial as a propaganda piece.
But if you believe ID is science, then the catholic church counts as
'members of the scientific community'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
11 May 2005 11:50:43 PM |
|
|
"j.m.1491@gmx.net" <j.m.1491@gmx.net> wrote:
This person is not paying attention.
That's saying it nicely. His statements that Galileo was persecuted by
"distinguished members of the scientific community" (and not by a
religious group) identify this editorial as a propaganda piece.
Eee, I missed that! I guess I sort of stopped paying attention at the
first error.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
12 May 2005 02:52:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:57:16 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
Now, with equal certainty, a similar group asserts that we can close the book on
the subject of the origin of life, even though none of us was there and what's
observable now ? or even during Darwin's time ? is only a small fraction of
what's been observable over the history of the earth.
-----------------------------------
Funny how creationists always claim that scientists can't possibly
know how life originated because nobody was there to see it happen,
yet practically in the same breath they'll insist that they *do* know,
despite the fact that....... yep, you guessed it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
12 May 2005 07:03:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:57:16 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------
They're at it again in Kansas.
For the third time in six years, the Kansas state board of education is
taking up the question of what students should be taught about the origin
of life. The board is holding a courtroom-style debate, complete with
witnesses and representatives of both "sides" ? the evolution-only
contingent and those who want other theories considered.
Is it just me, or is anyone else confused about why all the news reports
from Kansas talk about Evolution vs ID with regard to the origin of life??
The TOE isn't about the origin of life! Are they next going to debate
plate tectonics with regard to the origin of the earth? Are they really
so ignorant that they don't know what the hell they are even 'debating'?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ClownHall columnist: A little humility, please |
12 May 2005 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
Is it just me, or is anyone else confused about why all the news reports
from Kansas talk about Evolution vs ID with regard to the origin of life??
The TOE isn't about the origin of life!
I think for them it is: If you believe that a designer created every
form of life separately, you don't have one origin for all life, you
have a separate origin for every species (or "kind" to use god talk).
ToE put the ax to that old story, and this makes it dangerous for
theological dogma. Hence they fight it.
Are they next going to debate
plate tectonics with regard to the origin of the earth?
Don't give them any ideas...
Are they really
so ignorant that they don't know what the hell they are even 'debating'?
They are. And they like it that way. It's a good feeling to be saved.
But you knew this.
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
