| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
27 May 2007 11:03:01 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinism: Still improvable |
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
That was more than 30 years ago when he was already rising rapidly in
the pantheon of American science. In a startling act of defiance he
took on what seemed the whole upper hierarchy of the scientific world,
found himself denounced and castigated by the notables of that world,
battled them in the media for three years, decisively defeated them,
and was commissioned by the McMillan company to publish a book about
it.
But then, after he had spent a year writing it, McMillan suddenly
announced it would not publish it. Assailed by scientific officialdom
with lucrative textbook publishing contracts for acquiescent
publishers, McMillan had chickened out. Author Grose could only
withdraw temporarily from battle, bloodied if unbowed.
A stellar career followed in the field of industrial risk management
and aviation and marine safety. He was centrally involved in the
Gemini and Apollo programs. He addressed the Academy of Sciences in
Beijing, served on the National Transportation Safety Board, became a
senior consultant to NASA and has appeared as an expert on national
television on well over 100 occasions.
But perhaps the peak of his career, and long-delayed victory, came
this week. Introduced by former Attorney General Edwin Meese before
the prestigious Heritage Foundation in Washington, he told the story
of his battle with the luminaries of science back in the 1960s. In his
hand he held the book, "Science But Not Scientists," published at last
after a 30-year delay.
Ironically, it may now attract an audience far larger than anything it
could have won when first he wrote it, an irony he unabashedly
attributes to the grace of God. In fact, it was his rock-solid faith
that got Grose into trouble to begin with, for his book centers on the
origins of life, and in it he makes certain claims - one in particular
- most offensive to scientistic naturalism.
The Darwinian account of the origins of life, he insists, does not
begin to qualify as scientifically verifiable by the standards that
science itself demands. In a recent Pennsylvania case, for example,
the National Academy of Sciences spelled out these standards. "In
science," it said, "explanations are restricted to those that can be
confirmed from the confirmable data - the results obtained through
observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other
scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amendable to
scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon
empirical evidence are not part of science."
On these grounds the court ruled out intelligent design as scientific.
But on exactly the same grounds, Grose's book contends, Darwinian
theory should also be ruled out. "Pray tell," he demands, "where are
the specific, observable, testable, confirmable data - obtained
through observations and experiments - concerning [Darwin's view of]
origins? There are none. And there never will be."
This was the assertion that first vaulted him into the public eye in
October 1969, when the California State Board of Education came under
fire for refusing to present Darwinian theory as scientific fact.
Grose defended the board and in subsequent months found himself
denounced by 19 Nobel laureates who signed a petition against him,
while the National Academy broke its own rules by plunging into the
political affairs of a single state. News media around the world
portrayed him as advocating Genesis for public school textbooks.
Cartoons ridiculed him as a scientific ignoramus.
The California board backed him nevertheless, empowering him to edit
the state's science texts from which he excised 218 statements, many
of them sheer myth, to reclassify Darwinian theory from fact to dogma.
The Genesis explanation of origins is "a belief, not a fact," Grose
reiterates, "and so is Darwin's." In the end, the Board of Education
voted unanimously to uphold him, and even the Academy came around.
"The search for knowledge must be conducted under conditions of
intellectual freedom," it said, "without religious, political or
ideological restriction."
This inhibits the religious. It should, and perhaps one day will,
inhibit the irreligious as well. Grose's long-suppressed book may be
purchased at www.AuthorHouse.com.
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 02:03:44 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Darwinism: Still improvable
Improvable?
That means it can be improved, not that it's unprovable.
Nice to see you being honest, if only unintentionally.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 06:47:43 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 02:06:42 PM |
|
|
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 03:00:01 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
30 May 2007 02:13:25 AM |
|
|
On May 29, 4:00 pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/fa...
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
PDW
That too.
Hell, if I can understand some of this stuff, anyone can. But they
won't.
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
30 May 2007 04:01:34 AM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 00:13:25 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1180509205.569445.125800@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 29, 4:00 pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/fa...
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
PDW
That too.
Hell, if I can understand some of this stuff, anyone can. But they
won't.
Like that truly outrageous liar Mr. Robert Crowley, they are forbidden
from any form of conscious understanding of reality that might
threaten the power, comfort, and perks of the parasitic church
hierarchy.
And they are supplied with unlimited quantities of the cynical pabulum
that satifies their feeble mental needs, and rovides their blinkers
against the entirety of all that is real, and renders them docile
subservient obedient cows, to be milked of cash, labour and
choir-boys.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 07:54:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:00:01 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <eg1p539p08nlpqnur56pmv8qh03lti0450@4ax.com>
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
The ones who most need to read it, quite likely cannot read at all.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 11:20:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:24:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:00:01 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <eg1p539p08nlpqnur56pmv8qh03lti0450@4ax.com>
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
The ones who most need to read it, quite likely cannot read at all.
Not much beyond the level of Dr. Seuss, anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
30 May 2007 02:20:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 00:20:10 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <ujup53h3r7agre611242ll2au5h7am1sdf@4ax.com>
On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:24:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:00:01 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <eg1p539p08nlpqnur56pmv8qh03lti0450@4ax.com>
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
The ones who most need to read it, quite likely cannot read at all.
Not much beyond the level of Dr. Seuss, anyway.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
30 May 2007 02:22:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 00:20:10 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <ujup53h3r7agre611242ll2au5h7am1sdf@4ax.com>
On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:24:22 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:00:01 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <eg1p539p08nlpqnur56pmv8qh03lti0450@4ax.com>
On 29 May 2007 12:06:42 -0700, "Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 28, 7:47 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote in news:1180324981.364702.132100
@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fifteen answers to creationist nonsense:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Klazmon.
Wich they won't read, of course.
The ones who most need to read this won't.
The ones who most need to read this probably wouldn't understand most
of it if they did read it.
The ones who most need to read it, quite likely cannot read at all.
Not much beyond the level of Dr. Seuss, anyway.
Or "My Pet Goat"**, for that matter.
......
** Yes, I know that is not the real title of the book that the war
criminal Bush was struggling to read at 9/11.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 10:00:48 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
This story is funny because they have misused the term "improvable".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 01:00:52 AM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 21:03:01 -0700, J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Jon "I'm a fuckwit" Young: still a moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 02:14:42 AM |
|
|
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to
such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually
jot down new ones as they come to me.
First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I.
Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer
for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion.
Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with
political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl
Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left
him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite
imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading
men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more
than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent
on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. That's
faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their
reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this
footnote on this paragraph.
So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips":
The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth?
Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the
truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends'
opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More
than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!",
then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't
willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination
is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog.
Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically
observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is
continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, so the "scientific"
explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person
will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they
have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as
they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can
find the ultimate truth.
Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person
who can't conceive of God. To most, actions are morally neutral, and
results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical
procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is
a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to.
Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One
doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear
people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup
with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for
these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't
believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist
as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is,
they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist.
Don't argue about what God did or did not do! This is what you will
probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What
you are hearing is I don't like God. It is preposterous to argue about
what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's
actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least
the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions
from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions.
"Scientific" arguments
Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that
something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out
from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases
to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are
really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe?
There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of
sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an
inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is
non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves
them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there
"cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the
non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort
ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never
understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means
that one can't possibly have followed their arguments.
The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is
anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. I simply
wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from
which all other arguments must flow. This reduces their science to
philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense.
Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading
evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic").
Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. For
instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have
consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God
who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true
unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I
call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely
natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the
supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck.
(For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It
is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst
yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your
conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this
is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have
done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can
occur.)
Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go
on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a
"super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination
(evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science
itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by
chance", and so is making our position look better and better every day.
For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book
entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living
fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very
interesting.....
Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came
from nothing". This is simply not true. Click here for a very simple
overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can
tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space.
First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing"
is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing"
after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to
satisfy their base premise. There is obviously something there to begin
with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain
yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at
avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical,
non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is
irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are
untenable.
One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. One cannot
truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all
started. To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a
conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". The
theological equivalent would be an atheist.
Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make
obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic
physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being
disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. So, if one says that they
are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. There are
few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold,
immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly
mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense.
"How could they possibly have believed that?"
"But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue
that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God.
The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing
to do with the reality of these creatures. The inability to measure the
atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued
inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with
people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see
"evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has
ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material
witnessing of these rascals.
So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be
sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe?
How about the universe itself? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe
that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be
enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one
measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this
short essay.
Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim
that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and
repeatable", or some similar phrase. This is generally a false statement,
and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider
themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Then ask them
to prove it. They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole
mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. To
have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against
which to measure, and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although
some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) See my
essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this
tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable
knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god"..
When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all,
ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good
as pint was as good as a gallon. Few would make that mistake more than
once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what
they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. For
without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or
opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Since this is
their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. It doesn't
necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. By showing them
that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to
pull out one support.
And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of
people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast
majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a
supernatural, spiritual realm. Further, since many will want to localize
the morality to a given culture, the vast majority of human cultures
worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the
majority rules, there is a God, and that's that.
When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with
more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will
be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on
for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point
out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them
to admit it to themselves. For most, this is just an excuse to do what
they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge
to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders
and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God."
Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the
offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this
is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If
one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and
more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ!
All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that
there is such a thing as morality.
See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how
these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Countering the "Do you know how many people have died because of
religion?" argument: This is certainly true - many have. However, in the
last 50 years alone, there have been untold millions of people killed, not
in religious wars, but in purely political wars waged on a helpless
citizenry. And those waging the wars were almost solely atheists. The rest
weren't Christian except in some cultural, non-religious sense. Starting
with Hitler and going to Stalin and Mao and the Khmer Rouge, we can count
at least 60 million lost souls. Take into account Ethiopia (purely
political murder), Somalia, Rwanda (and on and on and on) and we can see
that these people were not Crusaders nor officers of the Inquisition. They
were folks who shared the central beliefs of all atheists: There is no God
and thus no morality beyond that in front of me.
Add to that the over 60,000,000 abortions each year worldwide and we have
another 1,200,000,000 humans killed in the last two decades. Plus we have
12,000,000 children dying due to politically induced starvation each year.
That certainly seems to give atheists the edge, wouldn't you agree?
Here is where the most resistance comes from:
The chances (however slim) that there may really be a God leaves one with
the inescapable conclusion that all that they have cherished and come to
rely upon is liable to change. Little do they know ;-), but this is a
tremendous fear to overcome. This leads me to...
Live the Gospel! The church is invisible to those who don't wish to see
it! The only sure way to show Christ to another is to be Christ to them!
We ought to be in the streets and in the news so often that they can't
escape us. And not just the Christian Coalition, either. I mean that when
the welfare is cut off, the church had better be there to take up the
slack.
I mean that the non-believers know more about the true nature of Christ
than many of us! They know that He loved unconditionally; they know that
He healed the sick and made the blind to see; they know that he fed the
hungry and clothed the poor. Are we? And if we are, then why do we have a
welfare state to dismantle? It should never have been necessary - it would
never have been necessary - if the church had been doing its job.
Don't lose heart - most of the time when you hear, "I don't believe in
God", what is really being said is, "I won't believe in God", and the two
are entirely different propositions. If one won't believe, then nothing
you can say or do is going to change their minds. When the Holy Spirit
tells you to stop, then stop, and pray, and go on with your life. I will
say that my own rule of thumb is that I will generally go along in a
debate or discussion until the atheist quits. They almost always will,
usually as soon as you have shown them that their morality is false and
devoid of value and truth. You may not "convince" them in the sense that
they agree, but it is easy to prove, and that will usually be the last you
hear from them. We can only pray that their minds will accept what their
egos cannot, and that they will start thinking again.
My second rule of thumb is that as soon as the debate or discussion
interferes with my family life, I back off and devote only as much
attention to the debate as is necessary to maintain the discussion. Trying
to argue every specious argument and willful misapplication of what you
are trying to say will take forever, so don't do it. Stick to a few points
and make them argue them - allowing the debate to wander will waste your
time.
I have found that CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer provide excellent works
for a seeking convert or atheist to ponder. Schaeffer's exposition on
"knowing" is excellent. To encapsulate it: An atheist can complain that we
"can never know enough to be absolutely sure", but this is a test which
applies to everything. We can't be sure that the sun will come up
tomorrow, but few atheists fail to plan for the eventuality! We can know
that which we can know. That is, just because we cannot know fully does
not mean that we can not have confidence in that which we do know. I don't
know everything about my wife, but I know enough to be able to gauge her
moods and opinions with very little input.
Most atheists don't resist the outlandish assumptions underlying the
mechanics of evolution, nor do they seriously question the lack of
contemporary or historical transitional forms. This does not prevent them
from "knowing" that evolution is a preferable theory to God. Don't let the
argument of "knowing" divert you from the reality that there is a true
knowledge of God. It is a given that we will never know all about Him, but
that doesn't mean that what we do know is worthless, or insufficient to
make a reasoned judgment that He exists. From there, one can get to
Christ.
Back to FGM Home
Wednesday, March 27, 2002
Quotes of Stephen Jay Gould in his book: Dinosaur in a Haystack in an
essay entitled The most unkindest cut of all.
* A scientistıs best defense against such misappropriation [of
evolutionary theory by people who would "misuse" it] lies in a combination
that may seem to mix two disparate traits, vigilance and humility:
vigilance in combating misuses. humility in recognizing that science
does not, and cannot in principle, find answers to moral questions
* Science can supply information as input to a moral decision, but the
ethical realm of "oughts" cannot be logically specified by the factual
"is" of the natural world - the only aspect of reality that science can
adjudicate.
* We are freighted by heritage, both both biological and cultural,
granting us capacity for both infinite sweetness and unspeakable evil.
What is morality but the struggle to harness the first and suppress the
second?
Amazingly, this was in an essay which spoke of the atrocities of Nazi
Germany, and how the jargon used to justify this horror was couched in
terms of Darwinism. This quote shows the inadequacy of evolutionary
science to deal with the kind of terror that it (itself) engenders with
its lack of a Creator. This leaves us with a lack of intrinsic worth in
each and every individual, which leads us to exactly that which Gould
seems to find so inexplicable and (though I can't imagine how he comes up
with the term) horrible.
It is a pathetic and weak answer to the horrors we see around us, Dr.
Gould, but it is, after all, the best that you can do..... Morality, sir,
is the application of an external and unchanging standard to our behavior.
This standard must necessarily be outside of us, and I submit that your
feelings of horror are exactly the right response to the Nazi barbarism as
measured against that standard - but only that standard. Without it (and
this according to your gospel) their actions were merely actions, and not
intrinsically evil or good - since these (as you admit) can never be
defined in an empirical, scientfic way. Your own conscience tells you that
both of those terms are meaningless outside the context of a standard
against which to measure them.
You mention "sweetness" and "evil" yet your whole philosophy denies that
there is a way to define these terms! Please sir, give up your pretensions
either to honesty or morality. I don't care which, but one has to go.
Footnote:
I recently received an email from a person who disagreed with the
statement that Sagan was a man of "faith". His argument was that Sagan
had some theoretical grounds to believe that the processes which created
life on this planet were the same in other parts of the Universe, and,
given the vast number of possible planets, it is not unreasonable to
assume that there may very likely be other planets harboring life. Some
of those, it can be further speculated, might have life which has
progressed to intelligence in a fashion similar to us. I agree that he
was acting upon theoretical grounds which were logically derived. I
disagree that those grounds are correct, but that is beside the point.
However, there is no EVIDENCE that life exists on other planets. Relying
on the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is assurance
of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." (as well as the
definitions found in most dictionaries) I continue to maintain that Sagan
was an exemplar of faith, and we would do well to stand up for our our
beliefs as strongly as he did. My correspondent, on the other hand,
argues that faith implies a lack of reasonable grounds for one's actions,
and thus maintains that Sagan was not acting in faith, but in a purely
rational manner. Thus, he believes that to call Sagan a man of faith is a
libel. I disagree, but did feel that my correspondent's claims were in
good faith and warranted a response. BW - 3/27/2002
Back to Text
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
30 May 2007 10:10:23 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-2805070014420001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
Mind your own business.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 05:58:28 AM |
|
|
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-2805070014420001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Okay.
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to
such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually
jot down new ones as they come to me.
First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I.
Anyone who hates God is not an atheist. One cannot hate that which one does
not believe exists.
This witlessing [sic] begins with a lie. Unsurprisingly, it continues in
the same vein.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 01:32:40 PM |
|
|
"Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote in message
news:oBy6i.5512$wH4.597@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-2805070014420001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Okay.
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
Ayn Randi? Isn't that the name attached to an important educational
foundation which has for years been offering a million-dollar prize to
anyone who can demonstrate the existence of a right-wing policy that
actually works in practice...?
L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 06:34:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:58:28 GMT, "Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote:
- Refer: <oBy6i.5512$wH4.597@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-2805070014420001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Okay.
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to
such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually
jot down new ones as they come to me.
First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I.
Anyone who hates God is not an atheist. One cannot hate that which one does
not believe exists.
This witlessing [sic] begins with a lie. Unsurprisingly, it continues in
the same vein.
Jason is a compulsive fucking liar.
That is an unshakable scientific fact.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keypet nospam@invalid" |
|
| Title: AW: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 06:03:19 AM |
|
|
Jason:
Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that
something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug
out
from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it
ceases
to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else).
That's a blatant lie. Give up trying to turn atheism (the non-belief in
invisible people sitting in the sky) into a belief system. Atheism
doesn't require beliefs of any sort. Of course atheists tend to trust
scientific research more than shamen and medicine men, but whatever they
may believe or not has nothing to do with their atheism.
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that "something came from nothing."
Why? Because I simply don't care where the things around me came from.
They're obviously there, god is obviously absent. Why should I have any
position on how the universe came into existence? I, like most other
people I know, can't even explain in detail how a laser printer works. A
theist with the same lack of knowledge would likely say "god puts the
letters onto the page". But I don't care as long as it does work. People
with limited knowledge don't have to understand everything and don't
need to have an explanation for everything; if they try, it usually
turns out to be superstitious garbage.
There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of
sentence.
Another lie. Sorry, but if you state it as a fact and not only make an
assumption, you're simply lying. I never resort in faith. Even when I
say "it looks like it could rain tomorrow", I only assume that it's more
likely than the alternative, without ruling out the probability that it
won't rain. But as soon as it does rain, I can't ignore the simple fact
any longer. That would be like denying that evolution is possible (which
is independent from the big bang theory, mind you), while all around you
bacteria mutate and develop resistances to antibiotica.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 12:50:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote:
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
First statement is a lie, the rest of the essay is based on that
lie. This religious nut doesn't understand atheism.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim F." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 10:59:41 AM |
|
|
"Robert" <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote in message
news:fg5m53tksrqrvtti9h2as9h6mren0bjh74@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote:
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
First statement is a lie, the rest of the essay is based on that
lie. This religious nut doesn't understand atheism.
And Carl Sagan was not a libertarian. He was politically
very much a left-leaning liberal.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 03:59:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:59:41 -0400, "Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"Robert" <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote in message
news:fg5m53tksrqrvtti9h2as9h6mren0bjh74@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote:
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
First statement is a lie, the rest of the essay is based on that
lie. This religious nut doesn't understand atheism.
And Carl Sagan was not a libertarian. He was politically
very much a left-leaning liberal.
Challenge to any one go through the essay, and find any truth at
all.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
28 May 2007 10:02:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote:
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
We would appreciate your not posting this horseshit to alt.atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 01:10:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:42 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <Jason-2805070014420001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>
wrote:
I would appreciate your comments about this article:
Witnessing to
Atheists
I have described my self as having once been an
"AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist".
A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to
such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually
jot down new ones as they come to me.
First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I.
Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer
for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion.
Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with
political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl
Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left
him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite
imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading
men of faith in the world.
Any evidence that he held any Randian or Objectivist views?
Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more
than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent
on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there.
That you don't know the science does not mean there was no science. If
you have references to something he said that was false present it.
That's
faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their
reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this
footnote on this paragraph.
Actually that is far less faith than most preachers: let's see their
calculations.
[snip]
Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically
observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is
continually uncovering evidence of design in nature,
Hey, I'd like the truth, so can you provide a definition of "design"
for me? Then provide some examples of the evidence *for* design?
so the "scientific"
explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person
will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they
have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as
they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can
find the ultimate truth.
Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person
who can't conceive of God.
It is orthogonal to science.
To most, actions are morally neutral, and
results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical
procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is
a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to.
Is this going to have something to do with evolution?
[snip]
"Scientific" arguments
Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that
something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out
from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases
to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are
really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe?
Funny how all those scientists do not know the rug being jerked. And
funny how you don't seem to notice your special pleading for claiming
that we don't need to explain the origin of g(G)od(s).
There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of
sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an
inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is
non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves
them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there
"cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the
non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort
ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never
understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means
that one can't possibly have followed their arguments.
I can explain the orbit of the Moon (gravity and momentum in case you
wondered) without needing to explain the origin of the Moon (or of the
Universe). Sorry, but I don't buy your argument against rationality.
[snip]
Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. For
instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have
consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God
who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true
unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I
call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely
natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the
supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck.
This is called special pleading. BTW, I am still waiting for something
about evolution.
[snip]
Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go
on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a
"super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination
(evolution)
Evolution is not a fiat act of human imagination, it is an observed
process in the world. BTW, yours is called a strawman argument:
attacking a non-existent argument and claiming you have refuted your
opponent.
because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science
itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by
chance",
Evolution is not "by chance", it works by the laws of chemistry and
physics.
and so is making our position look better and better every day.
For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book
entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living
fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very
interesting.....
None of which is at all meaningful. Behe has admitted that his work is
as scientific as astrology. And "living fossil" do not refute
evolution in the slightest.
Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came
from nothing". This is simply not true. Click here for a very simple
overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can
tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space.
First of all, we all know that space isn't empty.
We do?
Second, if the "nothing"
is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing"
after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to
satisfy their base premise.
Wow, so much for sub-atomic physics.
There is obviously something there to begin
with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain
yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at
avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical,
non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is
irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are
untenable.
Are you going to get around to discussing evolution?
[snip]
Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make
obsolete the widely held truths of today.
Do you know of any examples of a failed refuted demolished theory from
the past over-throwing the theory that replaced it?
Newtonian, purely mechanistic
physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics.
Something you objected to just above.
Evolution is being
disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists.
Assertion is not argument, not even if you repeat your assertions over
and over.
[snip]
"But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue
that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God.
The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing
to do with the reality of these creatures.
Of course we can see and measure them. What in the world are you
talking about?
The inability to measure the
atom
Which we can do.
has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued
inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with
people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see
"evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has
ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material
witnessing of these rascals.
No, cloud chambers don't show evidence of bosons. Your ignorance of
physics is pretty deep.
So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be
sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe?
How about the universe itself?
How about not. Saying "X created the Universe" is meaningless unless
you can show *with evidence* some other qualities of X. Saying that
"God" created the Universe tells me no more than saying "Snerbal
created the Universe". Show me something that connects this Universe
maker to some being that cares about my behavior.
As demonstrated above, all atheists believe
that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be
enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one
measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this
short essay.
IOW you have nothing real to say about anything.
[snip]
Most atheists don't resist the outlandish assumptions underlying the
mechanics of evolution,
There was nothing in this article about evolution.
nor do they seriously question the lack of
contemporary or historical transitional forms.
There is no significant lack of them. We have plenty enough to support
evolution. We would like more, but the Universe does not seem to
conform to what we would like. What we have is about as many as we
*expect* given that evolution has occurred.
This does not prevent them
from "knowing" that evolution is a preferable theory to God.
God is not a theory. That is, there are *no* predictions we can make
about the world based on God. I can make plenty of predictions based
on evolution.
Don't let the
[snip]
Amazingly, this was in an essay which spoke of the atrocities of Nazi
Germany, and how the jargon used to justify this horror was couched in
terms of Darwinism.
If Gould said that he was wrong. The Nazis did not use Darwinist ideas
or even Darwinist terms. They used plenty of Christian ideas and terms
and pre-Darwinian notions, but nothing from the actual biology.
[snip]
Oh, well, no evolution discussion after all. Maybe next time.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinism: Still improvable |
29 May 2007 01:17:19 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 21:03:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , J Young
<youngopinions@aol.com> in
<1180324981.364702.132100@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
That was more than 30 years ago when he was already rising rapidly in
the pantheon of American science. In a startling act of defiance he
took on what seemed the whole upper hierarchy of the scientific world,
found himself denounced and castigated by the notables of that world,
battled them in the media for three years, decisively defeated them,
and was commissioned by the McMillan company to publish a book about
it.
But then, after he had spent a year writing it, McMillan suddenly
announced it would not publish it. Assailed by scientific officialdom
with lucrative textbook publishing contracts for acquiescent
publishers, McMillan had chickened out. Author Grose could only
withdraw temporarily from battle, bloodied if unbowed.
A stellar career followed in the field of industrial risk management
and aviation and marine safety. He was centrally involved in the
Gemini and Apollo programs. He addressed the Academy of Sciences in
Beijing, served on the National Transportation Safety Board, became a
senior consultant to NASA and has appeared as an expert on national
television on well over 100 occasions.
But perhaps the peak of his career, and long-delayed victory, came
this week. Introduced by former Attorney General Edwin Meese before
the prestigious Heritage Foundation in Washington, he told the story
of his battle with the luminaries of science back in the 1960s. In his
hand he held the book, "Science But Not Scientists," published at last
after a 30-year delay.
Ironically, it may now attract an audience far larger than anything it
could have won when first he wrote it, an irony he unabashedly
attributes to the grace of God. In fact, it was his rock-solid faith
that got Grose into trouble to begin with, for his book centers on the
origins of life, and in it he makes certain claims - one in particular
- most offensive to scientistic naturalism.
The Darwinian account of the origins of life, he insists, does not
begin to qualify as scientifically verifiable by the standards that
science itself demands.
There is no Darwinian account of the origin of *life*. Darwin wrote
about the origin of the *diversity* of life. If Grose (such an ironic
name) made that fundamental an error I wonder what else he got wrong.
In a recent Pennsylvania case, for example,
the National Academy of Sciences spelled out these standards. "In
science," it said, "explanations are restricted to those that can be
confirmed from the confirmable data - the results obtained through
observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other
scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amendable to
scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon
empirical evidence are not part of science."
On these grounds the court ruled out intelligent design as scientific.
But on exactly the same grounds, Grose's book contends, Darwinian
theory should also be ruled out. "Pray tell," he demands, "where are
the specific, observable, testable, confirmable data - obtained
through observations and experiments - concerning [Darwin's view of]
origins? There are none. And there never will be."
Why not read the peer reviewed press. The specific mechanisms by which
*species* form, the concern of Darwin's work, has been a much studies
field. There are thousands of studies of this subject. I can point you
to discussions of the subject, but only if you are actually interested
in reading them.
This was the assertion that first vaulted him into the public eye in
October 1969, when the California State Board of Education came under
fire for refusing to present Darwinian theory as scientific fact.
So he refused to present something that he does not seem to
understand. I can appreciate and approve of that: he should have
resigned as incompetent to teach biology.
Grose defended the board and in subsequent months found himself
denounced by 19 Nobel laureates who signed a petition against him,
while the National Academy broke its own rules by plunging into the
political affairs of a single state.
It is a scientific issue, not a political one. Creationists keep
trying to make it a political issue, then they complain when others
fight back.
News media around the world
portrayed him as advocating Genesis for public school textbooks.
Cartoons ridiculed him as a scientific ignoramus.
The California board backed him nevertheless, empowering him to edit
the state's science texts from which he excised 218 statements, many
of them sheer myth, to reclassify Darwinian theory from fact to dogma.
It is too bad this article does provide any examples.
The Genesis explanation of origins is "a belief, not a fact," Grose
reiterates, "and so is Darwin's." In the end, the Board of Education
voted unanimously to uphold him, and even the Academy came around.
"The search for knowledge must be conducted under conditions of
intellectual freedom," it said, "without religious, political or
ideological restriction."
This inhibits the religious. It should, and perhaps one day will,
inhibit the irreligious as well. Grose's long-suppressed book may be
purchased at www.AuthorHouse.com.
And you can read some real science at www.talkorigins.org. Or you can
read his vanity press book.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young: still imbecile |
28 May 2007 12:26:38 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mai, 06:03, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
So, you're also a cretinist... uh... "creationist"?
Are you for real or are you a just a caricature?
Once again: why do American "christians" -as opposed to the christians
in the rest of the world- are the only ones having problems with
evolution?This debate seems to be striclty limited to the USA. I've
never ever witnessed any debate about this topic in any of the
christian countries in Europe. And even in Canada, this seems limited
to a bunch of lunatics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young: still imbecile |
28 May 2007 08:40:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1180329998.422540.149230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com says...
On 28 Mai, 06:03, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
So, you're also a cretinist... uh... "creationist"?
Are you for real or are you a just a caricature?
Once again: why do American "christians" -as opposed to the christians
in the rest of the world- are the only ones having problems with
evolution?This debate seems to be striclty limited to the USA. I've
never ever witnessed any debate about this topic in any of the
christian countries in Europe. And even in Canada, this seems limited
to a bunch of lunatics.
I think you will find the debate is unfortunately is world wide. Such
lunatics are not confined to the US
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim F." |
|
| Title: Re: J Young: still imbecile |
28 May 2007 09:38:58 AM |
|
|
"BernardZ" <DontBother@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20c586e4440740fc989e80@west.Usenet-News.net...
In article <1180329998.422540.149230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com says...
On 28 Mai, 06:03, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
So, you're also a cretinist... uh... "creationist"?
Are you for real or are you a just a caricature?
Once again: why do American "christians" -as opposed to the christians
in the rest of the world- are the only ones having problems with
evolution?This debate seems to be striclty limited to the USA. I've
never ever witnessed any debate about this topic in any of the
christian countries in Europe. And even in Canada, this seems limited
to a bunch of lunatics.
I think you will find the debate is unfortunately is world wide. Such
lunatics are not confined to the US
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm
I think it's more accurate to say that while the US is
by far the leading stronghold of creationism,
there are some strong proponents of creationism
in Europe too, especially in eastern Europe where
there have been attempts to suspend the teaching
of evolution in state schools. Also, in Italy, Berlusconi
back when he was prime minister attempted to limit
the teaching of evolution in Italian schools, but he
was forced to retreat in the face of public protests.
And since we are posting in a Jewish newsgroup, it
should be noted that within the world of Orthodox
Judaism, you will find more than a few people who are sympathetic
towards creationism and intelligent design. In fact in Israel
some of the writings of American creationists like Duane Gish
and Henry Morris have been translated in Hebrew and given
circulation among ultra-Orthodox Jews there. There is
also strong opposition to Darwinism among many American
Orthodox Jews as well. (see:
<http://tinyurl.com/o459y> for a study of attitudes towards
evolution among Orthodox Jewish university students).
.
|
|
|
| User: "BernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young: still imbecile |
28 May 2007 09:59:39 AM |
|
|
In article <5c07s2F2ua2ljU1@mid.individual.net>, says...
"BernardZ" <DontBother@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20c586e4440740fc989e80@west.Usenet-News.net...
In article <1180329998.422540.149230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com says...
On 28 Mai, 06:03, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
So, you're also a cretinist... uh... "creationist"?
Are you for real or are you a just a caricature?
Once again: why do American "christians" -as opposed to the christians
in the rest of the world- are the only ones having problems with
evolution?This debate seems to be striclty limited to the USA. I've
never ever witnessed any debate about this topic in any of the
christian countries in Europe. And even in Canada, this seems limited
to a bunch of lunatics.
I think you will find the debate is unfortunately is world wide. Such
lunatics are not confined to the US
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm
I think it's more accurate to say that while the US is
by far the leading stronghold of creationism,
Only relatively as creationism is extremely powerful in Muslim
countries.
In other countries like teaching evolution in South Africa schools, I
have been told that it is outlawed.
there are some strong proponents of creationism
in Europe too, especially in eastern Europe where
there have been attempts to suspend the teaching
of evolution in state schools. Also, in Italy, Berlusconi
back when he was prime minister attempted to limit
the teaching of evolution in Italian schools, but he
was forced to retreat in the face of public protests.
And since we are posting in a Jewish newsgroup, it
should be noted that within the world of Orthodox
Judaism, you will find more than a few people who are sympathetic
towards creationism and intelligent design. In fact in Israel
some of the writings of American creationists like Duane Gish
and Henry Morris have been translated in Hebrew and given
circulation among ultra-Orthodox Jews there. There is
also strong opposition to Darwinism among many American
Orthodox Jews as well. (see:
<http://tinyurl.com/o459y> for a study of attitudes towards
evolution among Orthodox Jewish university students).
Somewhat although it has not affected Jewish schools or universities as
yet as far as I am aware.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: J Young: still imbecile |
28 May 2007 10:44:16 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mai, 15:40, BernardZ <DontBot...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
In article <1180329998.422540.149...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com says...
On 28 Mai, 06:03, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55882
by Ted Byfield
Dr. Vernon L. Grose describes himself as "almost a Canadian," and when
I met him last week in his offices overlooking the Pentagon in
Alexandria, Va., he cited some compelling facts to prove it. His
parents were born in Manitoba, his father served in the Canadian Army
during the First World War, and five cousins served in the Canadian
forces in the Second. But in one crucial respect, Vern Grose is by no
means typically Canadian. He once seriously challenged entrenched
authority - and won.
So, you're also a cretinist... uh... "creationist"?
Are you for real or are you a just a caricature?
Once again: why do American "christians" -as opposed to the christians
in the rest of the world- are the only ones having problems with
evolution?This debate seems to be striclty limited to the USA. I've
never ever witnessed any debate about this topic in any of the
christian countries in Europe. And even in Canada, this seems limited
to a bunch of lunatics.
I think you will find the debate is unfortunately is world wide. Such
lunatics are not confined to the US
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Unfortunately, it seems that this problem is mostly an American one.
I've been 11 years to a catholic school in my native Quebec, I've been
living for 15 years in very catholic and very conservative Austria, I
travel regularly to France, Germany and Italy -and read the press
regularly- and I've never heard ONCE anything similar in these
countries.
Sorry, but this IS an American problem.
.
|
|
| | |
