| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2005 01:43:52 PM |
| Object: |
Doubting Darwin |
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, pa., looks
out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across
the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been
taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the
sixth day with the making of man in his image. Inside the school, he is
taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a series
of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back
to the origins of life. The apparent contradiction between that message
and the one he hopes someday to spread as a Christian missionary
doesn't trouble him. The entire subject of evolution by natural
selection is covered in two lessons in high-school biology. What kind
of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of
exposure to Darwin?
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 03:05:33 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107092632.765977.186510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
What a joke this is. It's not a theory. Theories make predictions that can be
tested and validated. "Intelligent design" is nothing more than an irrational
conclusion based on religious convictions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 09:12:14 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107092632.765977.186510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
Which, if true, would destroy science completely, along with the very
concept of knowledge.
Since one cannot place controls upon the supernatural, all scientific
observations would immediately be rendered suspect, and no conclusions could
be drawn from them. After all, any particular observation could merely be
the whim of a supernatural being. Any and all current scientific laws could
be different tomorrow at the whim of the supernatural.
In that situation, nothing can be considered consistent, and so nothing can
be considered knowledge.
Everything would be reduced to second-guessing the whims of the
supernatural.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 09:32:12 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107092632.765977.186510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
Which, if true, would destroy science completely, along with the very
concept of knowledge.
Since one cannot place controls upon the supernatural, all scientific
observations would immediately be rendered suspect, and no conclusions could
be drawn from them. After all, any particular observation could merely be
the whim of a supernatural being. Any and all current scientific laws could
be different tomorrow at the whim of the supernatural.
In that situation, nothing can be considered consistent, and so nothing can
be considered knowledge.
Everything would be reduced to second-guessing the whims of the
supernatural.
Sounds very much like the dark ages.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 11:54:38 PM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107092632.765977.186510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
Which, if true, would destroy science completely, along with the very
concept of knowledge.
Since one cannot place controls upon the supernatural, all scientific
observations would immediately be rendered suspect, and no conclusions could
be drawn from them. After all, any particular observation could merely be
the whim of a supernatural being. Any and all current scientific laws could
be different tomorrow at the whim of the supernatural.
In that situation, nothing can be considered consistent, and so nothing can
be considered knowledge.
Everything would be reduced to second-guessing the whims of the
supernatural.
Sounds very much like the dark ages.
Well not exactly. Even during that period there was a strong commitment
amongst scholars to explanations in terms of the natures of things -
even natural law was itself a naturalistiuc explanation (the moral world
was real, in other words).
What ID would reduce us to is the time before any kind of scientific
exploration began - when reality was indeed subjected to the whims of
the gods. Why was there disease? Because a city had offended a god. Why
was there an earthquake? Because a king had done something against
Athena or Poseidon. And so forth. Without natures, things are
frightening and arbitrary.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 05:25:06 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in news:1gr91ua.1ywjwy7kbt6cxN%
:
What ID would reduce us to is the time before any kind of scientific
exploration began - when reality was indeed subjected to the whims of
the gods. Why was there disease? Because a city had offended a god. Why
was there an earthquake? Because a king had done something against
Athena or Poseidon. And so forth. Without natures, things are
frightening and arbitrary.
--
Like The Current Administration. BA-ZING!
--
"Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun."
Ash.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 09:21:04 AM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107092632.765977.186510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A
controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural
agent was
at work.
Which, if true, would destroy science completely, along with the
very
concept of knowledge.
Since one cannot place controls upon the supernatural, all
scientific
observations would immediately be rendered suspect, and no
conclusions could
be drawn from them. After all, any particular observation could
merely be
the whim of a supernatural being. Any and all current scientific
laws could
be different tomorrow at the whim of the supernatural.
In that situation, nothing can be considered consistent, and so
nothing can
be considered knowledge.
Everything would be reduced to second-guessing the whims of the
supernatural.
Sounds very much like the dark ages.
Well not exactly. Even during that period there was a strong
commitment
amongst scholars to explanations in terms of the natures of things -
even natural law was itself a naturalistiuc explanation (the moral
world
was real, in other words).
What ID would reduce us to is the time before any kind of scientific
exploration began - when reality was indeed subjected to the whims of
the gods. Why was there disease? Because a city had offended a god.
Why
was there an earthquake? Because a king had done something against
Athena or Poseidon. And so forth. Without natures, things are
frightening and arbitrary.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner with the physical world
and the processes and principles which govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 03:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical, irrational
incapable of reason? This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*. This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
Dan Wood, DDS
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 05:07:31 PM |
|
|
"Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dLrLd.5942$BQ2.3090@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
Yes, something based on random events can be predictable. This is why
insurance companies employ actuaries and stay in business. This is why some
people are better at poker than others: they understand and adjust their
play to the probabilities. This is why, in short, an entire field of math
dedicated to probability exists. This is an illustration of the more
general principle that one can infer and use general rules without knowing
exactly how they play out in every particular case, and how not knowing
everything does not amount to knowing nothing at all.
Random mutations operate according to discoverable rules and limitations.
An intelligent designer who operates according to discoverable rules and
limitations can equally be the basis of a scientific theory. Offer an
account of the designer's goals and methods, and see what predictions this
entails for the things he designs, and see if various phenomena in the world
have those traits. As others have noted, assuming the Designer thinks more
or less like known designers, biology doesn't much resemble what we'd expect
from design. If, conversely, you insist that we are entitled to no
assumptions about how the Designer might design, or His motives or design
philosophy, then we cannot say whether anything looks "designed." At best,
we can (as ID proponents insist on doing) insist on calling entirely unknown
causes "design" and attributing "intelligence" to them, although we cannot
say how they serve the unknowable goals of the Designer.
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical, irrational
incapable of reason? This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
One could assume that a heated beaker turning into a blue whale is
irrational and blind only if one makes certain assumptions about the
intelligent designer's goals. If the Designer has some inscrutable motive
for wanting a whale to appear in the lab, and unlimited power at His
disposal, why not turn the beaker into a whale? That we can't *see* the
aim, reason, and mind behind an action doesn't mean there isn't one. It
does, of course, mean that science has no way to tell the actions of such a
designer from unknown mindless causes, or no causes at all.
Again, note that this is not mere quibbling about a position no one has
raised. All the major ID proponents have stated, over and over again, that
we are not entitled to make assumptions (e.g. that the Designer will be
efficient, as human engineers define "efficient," or that He will make some
effort to distinguish clearly between the results of intelligent design and
the undirected workings of natural processes) about the motives or methods
of the Designer. We can't assume efficiency or competence, on the one hand,
and we can't make assumptions about His goals that would let us tell whether
His designs were efficient or competent to achieve those goals. In short,
we can't reason about the Designer.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*. This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
Though it would appear that, in point of fact, God does play dice with the
universe. That's the trouble with testable theological propositions.
Dan Wood, DDS
RF
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 04:16:28 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
(snip)
I'm an engineer, so I take that as a compliment. However, the deeper
we get into the inner workings of life, the more chaotic and
undesigned it looks. Something like 90% of your DNA does not do
anything for you. It is just the baggage of past evolution. It also
allows evolution to continue much faster than if only needed DNA were
present in each of your cells.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 08:23:08 PM |
|
|
In article <41FE59DC.7C9B5B06@rica.net> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:
Dan Wood wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
(snip)
I'm an engineer, so I take that as a compliment. However, the deeper
we get into the inner workings of life, the more chaotic and
undesigned it looks. Something like 90% of your DNA does not do
anything for you. It is just the baggage of past evolution. It also
allows evolution to continue much faster than if only needed DNA were
present in each of your cells.
While I agree with your overall point, I'd suggest that --
to my great aesthetic relief -- there are starting to be
some suggestions that the non-coding 90 % of junk DNA
may be doing some very important things after all. It's
`non-coding' in the sense that it doesn't make proteins,
but it can make RNA, and in some cases that RNA has been shown
to interact with coding genes, providing a level of "software control"
over and above that provided by coding DNA.
There was an article on this in the October 2004 Scientific American
("The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms")
While our species famously does not have nearly so many genes as
some much "lower" species do, we're right up at the top in terms
of this maybe-not-so-useless DNA.
The author of this article points out that this phenomenon could
not arise in prokaryotic cells, since in prokaryotes, RNA
is translated into protein nearly as fast as it pops off the
DNA. But in eukaryotes, with the RNA has to be transcribed
through the wall of the nucleus before it's used to make protein,
you now have a situation wherein chains of RNA can arise, affect
other parts of the DNA, and then be broken back down and recycled.
This may allow for an additional layer of "pure software" which
could not arise in the prokaryotes.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 08:53:40 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
You're obviously not a believer in ID, since you've just disproved it.
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical, irrational
incapable of reason?
Have you met any human beings before?
This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*.
That was just Einstein's personal incredulity over the fact that, at the
quantum level, nature is probabilistic, not deterministic. Hence the
"dice" metaphor. He was wrong.
This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 03:33:24 PM |
|
|
Dan Wood wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal.
Which shows how little you know either of evolution or the nature of
randomness.
One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner,
Unlike natural systems then, which are illogical, unorderly and
inefficient. When herring spawn in the Pacific coast of Alaska and
Canada they cover a vast area of coastline with unbelievable numbers of
eggs. Very few of these hatch into adult herrings. Efficient? I think
not.
while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
Quite so.
In that case, how do you explain the illogical arrangement of our
digestive and respiratory systems? An intelligent designer wouldn't
design a system in which you can choke on the food you eat when by
locating the nose below the mouth the problem would be eliminated. What
about the structure of the human spine? It is so badly 'designed' that
a considerable proprotion of the human population have back problems.
Then there is the pain women suffer in childbirth. Designed? If so by a
sadistic *****.
with the
physical world and the processes and principles which
govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool
down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might
cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force, not the workings of an _intelligent_
designer. Why would anyone assume intelligence is illogical,
irrational
incapable of reason?
Well, as the intelligent designer posited by the ID crowd seems content
to design a bacterial flagellum, but ignore the structural deficiencies
of the human spine either he has an inordinate fondness for bacteria,
or he doesn't give a ***** about human suffering.
I can't see anything in nature which seems well-designed.
Well-engineered within the constraints imposed by ancestry perhaps, not
not well-designed. Which is the better design for flying? The wing of a
bird, the wing of a bat, or the wing of a pterosaur? They all perform
the same function in the same environment. An intelligent designer
would chose the best solution and refine that rather than developing
independently three different systems.
This by defination is the workings of aimless,
unreasoned and mindless forces. Not intelligent designers such as
engineers.
Yet engineers use this 'aimless, unreasoned and mindless' process to
generate more effient designs for electrical circuits, sails and any
number of other systems and structures.
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It
wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*. This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with the subject?
Einstein was not a proponent of intelligent design. And what aspect of
the 'laws' governing evolutionary processes don't you understand?
Dan Wood, DDS
RF
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
02 Feb 2005 06:30:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:02:51 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable? Give me
a break! This sounds like role reversal. One would certainy
expect an _intelligent_ designer, an engineer comes to mind, to
design using reason in a logical, orderly, and a highly efficent
manner, while _random_ occurances would be irrational,
illogical, mindlessly wondering about and highly unpredictable.
Designing an immune system that attacks itself?
Giving an octopus an eye without a blind spot, but man, his crowning
achievement, an eye WITH a blind spot?
Giving man the back of a quadruped, so he's guaranteed to have back
problems if he lives long enough?
Giving man a throat that can aspirate saliva and stomach acid, but
giving the "lesser apes" a better design - one that CAN'T aspirate
fluids?
Giving the cat a gene that can produce ascorbic acid, but giving man a
defective copy of that gene, so he's susceptible to scurvy?
Sure sounds like a designer to me - an incompetent designer.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
What this describes is the functions of an illogical, irrational and
wholy random, blind force
Which is what you claim mutation is - and it isn't. Ever see a
horse's genes mutate into a fish?
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
Einstein saw the universe as orderly with laws which are
understandable to man. *God does not play dice with
the universe*.
Do you know what the word "metaphor" means? Einstein said, many
times, that he didn't believe in a personal god.
This was Einstein's idea of God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he saw
the order and logic of the Universe as evidence of God.
He said, many times, that he didn't - that he saw "god" as the
workings of the universe.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 04:21:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:02:51 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1107163264.038125.290110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner
Really, evolution which is based upon *random* mutations is
predictable, while _intelligent_ design is unpredictable?
ID is, by definition, unpredictable. it depends on the whims of the
designer.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mick White" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 01:56:44 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
[snip]
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner with the physical world
and the processes and principles which govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
It might turn into wine, too...
Mick
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It wouldn't
make it very useful.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 02:49:48 PM |
|
|
Mick White wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
[snip]
The ID'ers posit the existence of an intelligent designer who
intervenes in a completely unpredictable manner with the physical
world
and the processes and principles which govern its operation.
So if I were to put a beaker of water over the flame of a bunsen
burner, anything might happen: it might warm up; it might cool
down; it
might turn into a blue whale and a bunch of petunias; it might
cause
the end of the Universe; it might turn into an abstract concept of
deity.
It might turn into wine, too...
Mick
Now if that result could be repeated reliably.....
RF
This may make the study of physics a rather interesting. It
wouldn't
make it very useful.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 08:19:20 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 05:43:52 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, pa., looks
out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across
the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been
taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the
sixth day with the making of man in his image.
ironic in that the UCC specifically does not hold to creationism
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Solnin" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 11:11:24 PM |
|
|
Uh...I have a question? If there was no sun in the beginning, what is a day?
--
Les
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41fd4125.55756844@usenet.ptd.net...
On 30 Jan 2005 05:43:52 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, pa., looks
out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across
the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been
taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the
sixth day with the making of man in his image.
ironic in that the UCC specifically does not hold to creationism
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 06:44:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:11:24 GMT, "Lester Solnin" <Lsolnin@nyc.rr.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Uh...I have a question? If there was no sun in the beginning, what is a day?
Old news. The bronze age goat herders who wrote the bible thought
that light caused the sun to rise, not the other way around.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhans
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "old hoodoo" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 05:33:07 AM |
|
|
The universe revolved around God. That was a day before the sun.
If one writes this down and chants it a thousand times in a row, one
will believe it and it will become religious fact and anyone who
doubts it will be burned at the stake. If it is not explained in the
Bible, those who have been touched by God will reveal the truth.
How do we know that they have been touched by God? They will tell us
and we will believe. Very simple.
Lester Solnin wrote:
Uh...I have a question? If there was no sun in the beginning, what is a day?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 06:16:34 AM |
|
|
old hoodoo wrote:
The universe revolved around God. That was a day before the sun.
If one writes this down and chants it a thousand times in a row, one
will believe it and it will become religious fact and anyone who
doubts it will be burned at the stake. If it is not explained in the
Bible, those who have been touched by God will reveal the truth.
How do we know that they have been touched by God? They will tell us
and we will believe. Very simple.
Lester Solnin wrote:
Uh...I have a question? If there was no sun in the beginning, what is a day?
ask darrow ('inherit the wind', scopes/mokey trial)
--
Sam
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 06:08:32 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable; Jerry Adler & John Carey's comment
about Balkan prime ministers; Richard Milner
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000800.22592B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, pa., looks
out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across
the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been
taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the
sixth day with the making of man in his image. Inside the school, he is
taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a series
of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back
to the origins of life. The apparent contradiction between that message
and the one he hopes someday to spread as a Christian missionary
doesn't trouble him. The entire subject of evolution by natural
selection is covered in two lessons in high-school biology. What kind
of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of
exposure to Darwin?
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
02 Feb 2005 06:31:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:08:32 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable
IF it's unfalsifiable it CAN'T be falsified.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 09:41:44 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A
controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent
was
at work.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
[...]
But it was found by the courts that Christian fascist aplogetics isn't
science. It's religion.
Court Decisions
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0519b030a8c193ea
Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, pa.,
looks
out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ
across
the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been
taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on
the
sixth day with the making of man in his image. Inside the school,
he is
taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a
series
of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching
back
to the origins of life. The apparent contradiction between that
message
and the one he hopes someday to spread as a Christian missionary
doesn't trouble him. The entire subject of evolution by natural
selection is covered in two lessons in high-school biology. What
kind
of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes
of
exposure to Darwin?
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 09:02:08 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial
new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was
at work.
They didn't even get through the blurb without making two mistakes. Sheesh.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 03:41:10 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Doubting Darwin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/
[...]
From the article:
<quote>
"I don't know what to believe," one parent told her.
"I just want my child to go to heaven."
"Well, so does the pope, but the Vatican has said it
finds no conflict between Christian faith and evolution.
Neither does Francis Collins, the director of the Human
Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health
and an outspoken evangelical. He wrote recently of his
view that God, "who created the universe, chose the
remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and
animals of all sorts." It may require some metaphysical
juggling, but if more people could take that view, there
would be fewer conflicts like the one in Dover. In the
debate over I.D., both sides acknowledge that most
scientists accept evolution, but they agree that
scientific disputes are not settled by majority vote.
School-board elections, however, are."
</quote>
Strange how some authoritative Christians seem to be
perfectly willing to admit significant portions of the
Bible are merely parable, fiction, non-literal -- and
yet these admissions are never made perfectly clear
and concrete. They seem more like dishonest tactical
retreats to be withdrawn and denied later.
I want to invent a better version of heaven and then
charge these fools a one-time $8.50 admission fee,
with a money-back guarantee if not perfectly satisfied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 05:45:01 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005, Dave wrote:
Strange how some authoritative Christians seem to be
perfectly willing to admit significant portions of the
Bible are merely parable, fiction, non-literal -- and
yet these admissions are never made perfectly clear
and concrete. They seem more like dishonest tactical
retreats to be withdrawn and denied later.
I want to invent a better version of heaven and then
charge these fools a one-time $8.50 admission fee,
with a money-back guarantee if not perfectly satisfied.
Position on the morality of the Bush administration of Robin Myers,
Minister, Mayflower Congregational Church, Oklahoma City, OK:
DAILY MOURNING NEWS
January 27, 2005
Ed Note: We all know where the Religious Right stands, kneels, prays,
lives, and breathes. But where the hell is the Religious Left?
Read onward Christian soldiers
From: Robin Meyers
As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in
Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in
northwest
Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University.
But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma
Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record
for the most number of angry letters to the editor.
Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as
the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak
for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.
We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung
the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral
values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about
exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking
about?
Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we
are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and
wrong, and moral is as moral does.
Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in
power who claim moral values are on their side:
-- When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your
deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your
critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us
who
have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that
this is not only not moral, but immoral.
-- When you live in a country that has established international rules for
waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce
them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest
of the world, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to
acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them
on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never
return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die
by the sword), you are doing something immoral.
-- When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as
the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are
doing something immoral.
-- When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the
patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you
are doing something immoral.
-- When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says
that
the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving
tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and
the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy
combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country
helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing
something immoral.
-- When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and
the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or
with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own
friends
and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping
us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a
war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous
deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our
children, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was
once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter
what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done
something immoral.
-- When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record
numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of
discrimination, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of
Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the
kingdom, you are doing something immoral.
-- When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the
earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought
you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children
breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done
something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.
-- When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our
killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the
enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy,
and the enemy is us.
-- When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a
"compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all
religious faith-compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who
disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help,
you are doing something immoral.
-- When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but
do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor,
even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something
immoral.
-- When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women
back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who
say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.
I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a
supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay
rights I must not be a person of faith.
I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the
war -- I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging.
We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong--the
only question is how many people are going to die before these
make-believe Christians are removed from power?
This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this
administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can
turn
things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to
wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back.
It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.
Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to
tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped
around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real
Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and
real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the
world
at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is
precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of
charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a
deluded man, not a man of faith.
And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the
greatest failure of faith.
There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is
it
good for? absolutely nothing.
And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more,
that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning
hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know
that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Maybe one day we will find out
Ed Note: Peace, brothers and sisters
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 01:58:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:45:01 -0600, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Position on the morality of the Bush administration of Robin Myers,
Minister, Mayflower Congregational Church, Oklahoma City, OK:
I sure hope she enjoys living in Gitmo.
--
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Enigmatic One" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 07:07:08 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:j44rv01mumrenk3smbambl7jbjq8sfg17o@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:45:01 -0600, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> said in alt.atheism:
Position on the morality of the Bush administration of Robin Myers,
Minister, Mayflower Congregational Church, Oklahoma City, OK:
I sure hope she enjoys living in Gitmo.
He.
And that was sort of tame, for him.
One of the few reasons not to give up on a hope for rationality in this
state.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Doubting Darwin |
30 Jan 2005 09:28:17 PM |
|
|
Scríobh Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>:
Ed Note: We all know where the Religious Right stands, kneels, prays,
lives, and breathes. But where the hell is the Religious Left?
Europe
--
"Ná sáruigther Seinglenn
aitreb na lec nime"
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
