| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2004 05:49:07 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: Unintelligent design |
From the article:
--------------------------------------
At www.geocentricity.com you can read the Biblical Astronomer, a "scientific"
publication with subscribers in 26 countries that claims the Earth is at the
center of the universe, the sun and stars go around it and the Earth is about
6,000 years old.
The group is based in Ohio (draw your own political conclusions) and claims in
its mission statement that "the only absolutely trustworthy information" about
the universe comes from the Bible.
The statement continues: "All scientific endeavor which does not accept this
revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical or
whatever, we reject as already condemned."
In other words, all of us ringing in the new year tonight are laboring under a
cruel secularist hoax whipped up by that dirty heretic, Copernicus. Even the
Darwin-haters don't go that far.
At least not yet.
---------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/266949p-228673c.html or
http://tinyurl.com/49nlo
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "tim gueguen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
31 Dec 2004 05:13:42 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:0audncGzRbvQ3EjcRVn-qg@rogers.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------
At www.geocentricity.com you can read the Biblical Astronomer, a
"scientific"
publication with subscribers in 26 countries that claims the Earth is at
the
center of the universe, the sun and stars go around it and the Earth is
about
6,000 years old.
The group is based in Ohio (draw your own political conclusions) and
claims in
its mission statement that "the only absolutely trustworthy information"
about
the universe comes from the Bible.
The statement continues: "All scientific endeavor which does not accept
this
revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical
or
whatever, we reject as already condemned."
In other words they worship the Bible, not God.
tim gueguen 101867
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
31 Dec 2004 07:55:18 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:0audncGzRbvQ3EjcRVn-qg@rogers.com:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
At www.geocentricity.com you can read the Biblical Astronomer, a
"scientific" publication with subscribers in 26 countries that claims
the Earth is at the center of the universe, the sun and stars go
around it and the Earth is about 6,000 years old.
The group is based in Ohio (draw your own political conclusions) and
claims in its mission statement that "the only absolutely trustworthy
information" about the universe comes from the Bible.
The statement continues: "All scientific endeavor which does not
accept this revelation from on high without any reservations,
literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject as already condemned."
In other words, all of us ringing in the new year tonight are laboring
under a cruel secularist hoax whipped up by that dirty heretic,
Copernicus. Even the Darwin-haters don't go that far.
At least not yet.
---------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/266949p-228673c.ht
ml or http://tinyurl.com/49nlo
At this point, it might be good to mention that the person who wrote
the Kansas "science" standard of 1999 which stripped out any
indication that the world is older than 10,000 years old.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
31 Dec 2004 06:59:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:49:07 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
At www.geocentricity.com you can read the Biblical Astronomer, a "scientific"
publication with subscribers in 26 countries that claims the Earth is at the
center of the universe, the sun and stars go around it and the Earth is about
6,000 years old.
The group is based in Ohio (draw your own political conclusions) and claims in
its mission statement that "the only absolutely trustworthy information" about
the universe comes from the Bible.
The statement continues: "All scientific endeavor which does not accept this
revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical or
whatever, we reject as already condemned."
In other words, all of us ringing in the new year tonight are laboring under a
cruel secularist hoax whipped up by that dirty heretic, Copernicus. Even the
Darwin-haters don't go that far.
At least not yet.
---------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/266949p-228673c.html or
http://tinyurl.com/49nlo
I have long believed that it is a big mistake to separate evolution
from abiogenesis or geological and cosmological evolution. It is
common on this (talk.origins) group to criticize people for
commingling these ideas, for example ridiculing someone who argues
against "evolution" by pointing out the real difficulties in
explaining abiogenesis.
The fact is that all sciences are closely linked. Evolution is
closely tied to all aspects of biology and to geology and chemistry
and physics and astronomy. Many creationists, although they express
their greatest hostility towards "Darwinism", are really railing
against a materialistic, Godless explanation for the way everything
works. The materialistic explanation of life, especially human life,
is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think we would do better with school boards not by constantly having
to justify and validate evolution alone, but to tie it even closer to
all science and by demonstrating that the anti-evolution position
(which all too many citizens are likely to allow) is really a totally
anti-science position denying physics and chemistry and geology (which
no school board will be willing to accept).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
02 Jan 2005 12:08:44 AM |
|
|
You're farming some free-range truth, there. It would help if we
didn't have all these crazy physicists and chemists making bizarre
claims about cosmogenesis and intelligent design that they can't
possibly support with evidence.
It's all rooted in the scientific method: without the naturalistic
explanation (that is, the THEORY) that links the hypothesis to
evidence, you don't have science. "Creation science" and "intelligent
design" want to omit that step, and jump straight from hypothesis to
assertion of fact.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
03 Jan 2005 02:50:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 06:08:44 +0000 (UTC), (Rick
Russell) wrote:
You're farming some free-range truth, there. It would help if we
didn't have all these crazy physicists and chemists making bizarre
claims about cosmogenesis and intelligent design that they can't
possibly support with evidence.
It's all rooted in the scientific method: without the naturalistic
explanation (that is, the THEORY) that links the hypothesis to
evidence, you don't have science. "Creation science" and "intelligent
design" want to omit that step, and jump straight from hypothesis to
assertion of fact.
"Fact" which fails under even a momentary gaze.
Rick R.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
31 Dec 2004 05:47:54 PM |
|
|
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
....
I have long believed that it is a big mistake to separate evolution
from abiogenesis or geological and cosmological evolution. It is
common on this (talk.origins) group to criticize people for
commingling these ideas, for example ridiculing someone who argues
against "evolution" by pointing out the real difficulties in
explaining abiogenesis.
The fact is that all sciences are closely linked. Evolution is
closely tied to all aspects of biology and to geology and chemistry
and physics and astronomy. Many creationists, although they express
their greatest hostility towards "Darwinism", are really railing
against a materialistic, Godless explanation for the way everything
works. The materialistic explanation of life, especially human life,
is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think we would do better with school boards not by constantly having
to justify and validate evolution alone, but to tie it even closer to
all science and by demonstrating that the anti-evolution position
(which all too many citizens are likely to allow) is really a totally
anti-science position denying physics and chemistry and geology (which
no school board will be willing to accept).
I think that we must distinguish between the interlocking of the
sciences - what Whewell called "consilience" - and the content of a
particular theory. Strictly, the theory[ies?] of evolution are
applicable to reproducing organisms. It is my oft-expressed opinion that
they are formally sufficient to explain also how reproducing organisms
came to be, although at some point you move from natural selection to
chemical selex-like processes to physics.
But is there any doubt that all the sciences depend ultimately on
physical properties, including the production of heavy elements in
third-generation stars? We should present the Grand Vision as well as
the Detailed Rebuttals.
[Damn. Now I can't diss the normans.]
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
31 Dec 2004 09:22:52 PM |
|
|
r norman wrote:
I have long believed that it is a big mistake to separate evolution
from abiogenesis or geological and cosmological evolution. It is
common on this (talk.origins) group to criticize people for
commingling these ideas, for example ridiculing someone who argues
against "evolution" by pointing out the real difficulties in
explaining abiogenesis.
It may appear to be a mistake but literally by defintion the
evolution of life is different from the origin of life. If you can
come up with a single theory (a Grand Theory of Everything Biological)
please do so. Obviously the two are inextricably related but no single
theory covers both.
The fact is that all sciences are closely linked. Evolution is
closely tied to all aspects of biology and to geology and chemistry
and physics and astronomy. Many creationists, although they express
their greatest hostility towards "Darwinism", are really railing
against a materialistic, Godless explanation for the way everything
works. The materialistic explanation of life, especially human life,
is just the tip of the iceberg.
As I reminding people, it was only the Descent of Man which upset the
believers. They had no problem with Origin of the Species. I would not
be surprised if Darwin had a problem producing the second book.
I think we would do better with school boards not by constantly having
to justify and validate evolution alone, but to tie it even closer to
all science and by demonstrating that the anti-evolution position
(which all too many citizens are likely to allow) is really a totally
anti-science position denying physics and chemistry and geology (which
no school board will be willing to accept).
I would find it intolerable if elected school boards were to meddle
in any subject to the extent they want to meddle in this one. The
actual cirriculae should be beyond school boards.
--
If leaving Iraq will encourage our enemies does staying
and killing Iraqis make them our friends?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3328
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
01 Jan 2005 01:48:53 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
As I reminding people, it was only the Descent of Man which upset the
believers. They had no problem with Origin of the Species. I would not
be surprised if Darwin had a problem producing the second book.
You have it exactly reversed. The Origin caused an enormous storm of
public reaction, particularly among the Church of England and the
evangelical protestant churches. The Descent came long after Lyell's and
Huxley's books on the topic, and in fact it caused very little real
storm additional to what had already been seen.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
01 Jan 2005 06:28:55 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
As I reminding people, it was only the Descent of Man which upset the
believers. They had no problem with Origin of the Species. I would not
be surprised if Darwin had a problem producing the second book.
You have it exactly reversed. The Origin caused an enormous storm of
public reaction, particularly among the Church of England and the
evangelical protestant churches. The Descent came long after Lyell's and
Huxley's books on the topic, and in fact it caused very little real
storm additional to what had already been seen.
I can only say that is contrary to what I have read on the subject. I
no longer remember details but there was churchly speculation on a
mechanism other than the six day Genesis account. The relationships
described by Linnaeus was accepted and suggested a more complex
variation of creation.
--
The prisoners are in Guantanamo because the people
holding them would be imprisoned if they did it in
the United States. Their actions are crimes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3307
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Unintelligent design |
01 Jan 2005 08:30:05 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote:
As I reminding people, it was only the Descent of Man which upset the
believers. They had no problem with Origin of the Species. I would not
be surprised if Darwin had a problem producing the second book.
You have it exactly reversed. The Origin caused an enormous storm of
public reaction, particularly among the Church of England and the
evangelical protestant churches. The Descent came long after Lyell's and
Huxley's books on the topic, and in fact it caused very little real
storm additional to what had already been seen.
I can only say that is contrary to what I have read on the subject. I
no longer remember details but there was churchly speculation on a
mechanism other than the six day Genesis account. The relationships
described by Linnaeus was accepted and suggested a more complex
variation of creation.
There had been ideas of continuous creation for some time by 1859. In
1813, Cuvier published his influential _Revolutions on the Sruface of
the Globe_ in which he claimed that there had to have been at least
(memory tells me) six catastrophes wiping out existing fauna and after
which God created new ones. Also, he thought that there were four
_embranchements_, or "phyla" (his term) on the basis of which God
created new species.
Transmutation had been around since Linnaeus' time. He himself thought
that some new species could arise anturally (through hybridisation).
Lamarck's ideas were not rejected because they were irreligious, as even
Cuvier did not think that was a good criticism of a scientific idea, but
because his brand of evolution (a progressive kind) predicted what the
fossil record did not show. Cuvier destroyed Lamarck's reputation in his
funeral oration for Lamarck (the _Eloge_) by pointing out that there was
no clear evidence of progress as Lamarck [but not Darwin] predicted.
The religious reaction to transmutation was more a political objection.
During the 1830s, in times of social unrest in England, radicals had
adopted Lamarckian (actually, Geoffroyan) evolution as a challenge to
the special creationism (that is, creation if species by direct act, not
6-day creationism, which was dead from the 1820s or so) favoured by the
conservatives. Even so, Richard Owen toyed with transmutation in the
1850s until he was told to pull his head in by the Oxford dignitaries of
the Church of England. Later he tried to claim credit for it.
So when Darwin, a highly respected inner member of the scientific
gentlemanly elite, offered a complete theory of transmutation, and one
which was entirely without recourse to divine action and hence
providence, in the Origin, the church reaction was swift and sharp,
particularly in the columns of the _Atheneaum_, a literary journal of
the said elite.
But, by the time Darwin published the Descent, in 1871, the debate was
largely over. Within ten years around 9 of ten scientists had adopted
common descent (the branching tree model), transmutation, and adaptation
as a mechanism (but rarely *the* mechanism) of evolution. And a great
many church leaders, such as Baden Powell, Frederick Temple, and Charles
Kingsley, argued for evolution being consistent with theism.
You can find out more from chapter 6 of _Evolution: The History of an
Idea_, by Peter Bowler, third edition.
Bowler, Peter J. 2003. Evolution: the history of an idea. 3rd,
completely rev. and expanded ed. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Also see these references:
Bowler, Peter J. 1986. Theories of human evolution: a century of debate,
1844-1944. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Desmond, Adrian J. 1975. The hot-blooded dinosaurs: a revolution in
palaeontology. London: Blond and Briggs.
---. 1984. Archetypes and ancestors: palaeontology in Victorian London,
1850-1875. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
---. 1989. The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine, and reform
in radical London, Science and its conceptual foundations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
---. 1994. Huxley: the devil's disciple. London, New York, N.Y. USA: M.
Joseph; Viking Penguin.
Ellegard, Alvar, ed. 1990. Darwin and the general reader: the reception
of Darwin's theory of evolution in the British periodical press,
1859-1872. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Original edition, 1958
as volume VIII of the series, Gothenburg studies in English.
Hull, David L., ed. 1973. Darwin and his critics; the reception of
Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
On the "evolution" (ahem) of geology from Flood geology to more modern
uniformitarian geology, see these:
Cutler, Alan. 2003. The seashell on the mountaintop: A story of science,
sainthood, and the humble genius who discovered a new history of the
earth. London: Heinemann. [On Bishop Steno]
Gillispie, Charles Coulston. 1959. Genesis and geology: a study in the
relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in
Great Britain, 1790-1850. New York: Harper Torchbooks / The Cloister
Library. Original edition, 1951.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
