| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 05:29:17 AM |
| Object: |
God and Darwin |
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
Creationism
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d1f8c35b1798931f
Intelligent design
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9bffa0938bd2f64f
God Darwin
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=God+Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God%20Darwin&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=God+Darwin&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Charles Darwin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/769eb1482469eb87
.
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 05:46:04 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:42:59 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
Please! There's a kid in my nephew & nieces's school that's SO highly
allergic to peanuts, that none of the kids in her class can ever have peanut
butter sandwiches for lunch EVER - Whatever forbid, if this kid comes in
contact with a crumb, it can kill her. Can you believe that? It totally
sucks for one of my SILs because one of the few things her son would eat for
lunch was a peanut butter sandwich :P
Is the kid allergic to peanuts or to nuts in general?
Is the kid allergic to just peanuts or LEGUMES in general?
Klaus
Filbert butter is delicious, as is sunflower seed butter or pumpkin
seed butter (substitute your favorite nut or seed), and they only take
a few seconds to whip up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:59:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1106603506.948265.292330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a
"theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a
matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a
fact.
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Bravo! Now, what can we learn about the creator from the evidence?
One thing that is plain to see, is that life always comes from life.
Every organism living today comes from a parent organism; we can even
observe the birthing process. This intelligent creator doesn't seem to
be doing any creating anymore. Obviously, he is dead.
So now we must figure out when and how the creator died. Any
suggestions?
--Billy
"Towing Jehovah," by James Morrow.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156002108/qid=1106611130
- Felix
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 01:46:38 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
God and Darwin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31521-2005Jan23.html
Page A14
WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a
"theory"
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to
prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by
casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument
that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural
process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no
experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.
No need to do experiments, nature is one big experiment. It's just a
matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a
fact.
Science isn't based on assertions. So why aren't you publishing it in
peer reviewed science journals?
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Your opinions are worthless in science.
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing
that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned
its own
truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a
theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
Don't be stupid.
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/White/
_The Creationists_ by Ronald L. Numbers
"The best young-earthers can do in response to this book is to call the
author an "apostate" (just see their materials, full of name-calling
and the like). Do most Christians realize that young-earthism traces
its history to cults like Seventh-day Adventists and New Age beliefs
(i.e., no death of life before adam)? Let's rid YEC psuedoscience from
Christianity."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520083938/
_Science and Earth History : The Evolution/Creation Controversy_ by
Arthur N. Strahler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879754141/
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
_God's Own Scientists : Creationists in a Secular World_ by Christopher
P. Toumey
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813520444/
_Summer for the Gods : The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate
over Science and Religion_ by Edward J. Larson (Preface)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674854292/
_Fundamentalism and American Culture_ by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195030834/
_Creationist Movement in Modern America (Social Movements Past and
Present Series)_ by Raymond A. Eve, Francis B. Harrold
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805797416/
_Tower of Babel : The Evidence Against the New Creationism_ by Robert
T. Pennock
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/
_Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between
God and Evolution_ by Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060175931/
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public
school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting
opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the amicus curiae
brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution
also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil,
anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a
fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause
evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution
is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Science in Simple Steps
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=91.4 -
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers - Paperback -
288 pages 3rd edition (July 1999) Open Univ Pr; ISBN: 0335201091
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution Page
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
Statements from Educational Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9438_statements_from_educational_o_8_8_2003.asp
Statements from Religious Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1028_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
Table Of Contents:
American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981)
Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/344_statements_from_scientific_an_12_19_2002.asp
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the
stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he
holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive
and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in
Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and
laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:56:14 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
"Although I will try to refute [reader of philosophy at Oxford and an
editor of _The Washington Monthly_ Thomas] Bethall [writing in
"Darwin's Mistake," _Harper's Magazine_ (Feb 1976), 70-75], I also
deplore the unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the
logical structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary
theory is as vacuous as Bethall claims. Many great theories are held
together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethall has
correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary
theory."[Gould's article in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983),
ed. Laurie R. Godfrey, 141.]
David Raup
Paleontologist with the Field Museum of Natural History.
Coauthored _Principles of Paleontology_ (1971, 1978) with Steven
Stanley. Wrote _Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?_ (1991).
In an essay in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed.
Laurie R. Godfrey, 156, Raup writes:
We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition
than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old
examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more
detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional
forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates.
But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still
have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or
transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.
Writing in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed. Laurie R.
Godfrey, 155-6, paleontologist David M. Raup observes,
Of all the [absolute (which contrasts with relative) dating]
methods, probably carbon 14 is the least dependable, and yet it is
the most interesting to many people because it is applied to the
most recent part of geologic history.
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 08:52:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:56:14 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
maff wrote:
[snips]
[more snips]
maff exists - we don't need another one.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 09:38:40 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:56:14 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
maff wrote:
[snips]
[more snips]
maff exists - we don't need another one.
Especially a poor-quality one.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 09:06:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:56:14 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
creationism is, of course, vaporware. a program without definition. a
concept without substance.
creationism is the theory of the future, and always will be.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 04:24:22 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
[...]
So why are the Courts finding Christian fascism isn't science?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. District Court decision in which "balanced treatment" for
creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classrooms
was ruled unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public
school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting
opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia are provided along with the amicus
curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Epperson v. Arkansas: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional
Arkansas's law forbidding the teaching of evolution in state-supported
schools.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
California public school teacher John Peloza sued his school district,
claiming he should not be required to teach evolution or refrain from
teaching about his religious beliefs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against him on the substantive portions of his claim.
Daniel v. Waters
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/daniel-v-waters.html
Biology teachers, parents, and National Association of Biology Teachers
sued in 1975 to overturn Tennessee's "balanced treatment" law. The U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring creationism to be
taught and requiring disclaimers about evolution violated the First
Amendment.
Wright v. Houston I.S.D.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wright-v-hisd1.html
Houston, Texas, students sued to prevent the school district from
teaching evolution, believing it infringed their First Amendment
rights. The federal courts dismissed the case for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be based.
Selman v. Cobb County School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
The decision of the district court stricking down a Cobb County,
Georgia requirement that a sticker with a disclaimer be placed on all
textbooks that discuss evolution. The amicus curiae brief filed by
several pro-science organizations is also included.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 03:35:06 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
[...]
So why're the courts finding christian fascist apologetics isn't
science?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. District Court decision in which "balanced treatment" for
creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classrooms
was ruled unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public
school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting
opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia are provided along with the amicus
curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Epperson v. Arkansas: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional
Arkansas's law forbidding the teaching of evolution in state-supported
schools.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
California public school teacher John Peloza sued his school district,
claiming he should not be required to teach evolution or refrain from
teaching about his religious beliefs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against him on the substantive portions of his claim.
Daniel v. Waters
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/daniel-v-waters.html
Biology teachers, parents, and National Association of Biology Teachers
sued in 1975 to overturn Tennessee's "balanced treatment" law. The U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring creationism to be
taught and requiring disclaimers about evolution violated the First
Amendment.
Wright v. Houston I.S.D.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wright-v-hisd1.html
Houston, Texas, students sued to prevent the school district from
teaching evolution, believing it infringed their First Amendment
rights. The federal courts dismissed the case for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be based.
Selman v. Cobb County School District
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
The decision of the district court stricking down a Cobb County,
Georgia requirement that a sticker with a disclaimer be placed on all
textbooks that discuss evolution. The amicus curiae brief filed by
several pro-science organizations is also included.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
29 Jan 2005 07:22:10 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
"Although I will try to refute [reader of philosophy at Oxford and an
editor of _The Washington Monthly_ Thomas] Bethall [writing in
"Darwin's Mistake," _Harper's Magazine_ (Feb 1976), 70-75], I also
deplore the unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the
logical structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary
theory is as vacuous as Bethall claims. Many great theories are held
together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethall has
correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary
theory."[Gould's article in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983),
ed. Laurie R. Godfrey, 141.]
Ah yes, the first piece I ever read about evolution, republished in Ever
Since Darwin, the first collection of Gould's Natural History magazine
essays.
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument. Bethell wrote
a piece in Harper's magazine, and that is what Gould is responding to.
I sometimes wonder what percentage of creationist arguments come down to
projection. You seem to assume, and I'm obviously speculating here, that
evolutionists all know deep down that their research and their science
is wrong, even dishonest, and that every once in a while they
accidentally burst forth with a confession, as if they justs can't take
the weight of the conspiracy any more.
When in reality it is you who know inside that you are lying. You feel
uncomfortable about that, and so you go to whatever lengths you can to
hide the truth from yourself. When a scientist criticizes other
scientists, you leap upon this like raw meat, brandishing your
quote-mine as proof that evolution is false.
What you are reflecting is your own desire to confess. You know you're
wrong, and the psychological pressure that creates in you is almost
intolerable, and so you are willing to go to any lengths to protect
yourself from the truth.
Anyway, that's my off the cuff speculation for the day. For anyone
interested in the mined quote above, Gould argues in in Natural History
article that natural selection is not a tautology, and that Bethell is
wrong in his criticisms. The statement quoted above was obviously a
point of great interest to Gould, one that he would return to many times
in his popular writings, and very interesting to read about, especially
if one reads his critics as well.
It should go without saying that Gould was strongly convinced of the
validity of natural selection as a driving force in evolution, and
discussed it at great length in all of his popular works.
<snip>
--
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
01 Feb 2005 06:36:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed
<ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Re: Ever Since Darwin
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument.
Either it is, or those LEAST likely to survive are the ones that do,
which is so self-contradictory that it hurts to think like that.
And I haven't read that one, but I'll look for it.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
02 Feb 2005 09:31:46 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed
<ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument.
Either it is, or those LEAST likely to survive are the ones that do,
which is so self-contradictory that it hurts to think like that.
On the Discworld, if you were to plot odds of survival vs.
actual survival, you'd see the expected drop-off, just as in our
world. But you'd also see a spike at probability of survival = 1e-6,
actual survival = 9e-1. Because million-to-one odds crop up nine times
out of ten.
That could explain such creatures as Nobby Nobbs.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
You can go home now, I can finish this without you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
02 Feb 2005 10:02:46 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in
news:ctqrp2$qp7$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
In talk.origins Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed
<ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument.
Either it is, or those LEAST likely to survive are the ones that do,
which is so self-contradictory that it hurts to think like that.
On the Discworld, if you were to plot odds of survival vs.
actual survival, you'd see the expected drop-off, just as in our
world. But you'd also see a spike at probability of survival = 1e-6,
actual survival = 9e-1. Because million-to-one odds crop up nine times
out of ten.
That could explain such creatures as Nobby Nobbs.
How about Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler?
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
03 Feb 2005 01:54:25 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in
news:ctqrp2$qp7$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
In talk.origins Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed
<ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument.
Either it is, or those LEAST likely to survive are the ones that do,
which is so self-contradictory that it hurts to think like that.
On the Discworld, if you were to plot odds of survival vs.
actual survival, you'd see the expected drop-off, just as in our
world. But you'd also see a spike at probability of survival = 1e-6,
actual survival = 9e-1. Because million-to-one odds crop up nine times
out of ten.
That could explain such creatures as Nobby Nobbs.
How about Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler?
He's due to Narrative Necessity, due to the pervasive influence of the
element Narrativium. The stories require him...
--
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: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
03 Feb 2005 10:18:27 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
How about Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler?
He's due to Narrative Necessity, due to the pervasive influence of the
element Narrativium. The stories require him...
And we have examples of convergent evolution, exemplified by
such specimens as Disembowel-Myself-Honorably Dibhala and
Cut-Me-Own-Hand-Off Dyblah.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. God is all-powerful.
Draw your own conclusions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
04 Feb 2005 01:10:35 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in
news:cttisi$4i1$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
How about Cut Me Own Throat Dibbler?
He's due to Narrative Necessity, due to the pervasive influence of
the element Narrativium. The stories require him...
And we have examples of convergent evolution, exemplified by
such specimens as Disembowel-Myself-Honorably Dibhala and
Cut-Me-Own-Hand-Off Dyblah.
Please, don't tell me that they are respresentative results of an ESS.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies theories to fit the observed evidence.
Creationists emotionally modify the evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
29 Jan 2005 12:30:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed <ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net>
wrote:
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
"Although I will try to refute [reader of philosophy at Oxford and an
editor of _The Washington Monthly_ Thomas] Bethall [writing in
"Darwin's Mistake," _Harper's Magazine_ (Feb 1976), 70-75], I also
deplore the unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the
logical structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary
theory is as vacuous as Bethall claims. Many great theories are held
together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethall has
correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary
theory."[Gould's article in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983),
ed. Laurie R. Godfrey, 141.]
Ah yes, the first piece I ever read about evolution, republished in Ever
Since Darwin, the first collection of Gould's Natural History magazine
essays.
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument. Bethell wrote
a piece in Harper's magazine, and that is what Gould is responding to.
I sometimes wonder what percentage of creationist arguments come down to
projection. You seem to assume, and I'm obviously speculating here, that
evolutionists all know deep down that their research and their science
is wrong, even dishonest, and that every once in a while they
accidentally burst forth with a confession, as if they justs can't take
the weight of the conspiracy any more.
When in reality it is you who know inside that you are lying. You feel
uncomfortable about that, and so you go to whatever lengths you can to
hide the truth from yourself. When a scientist criticizes other
scientists, you leap upon this like raw meat, brandishing your
quote-mine as proof that evolution is false.
What you are reflecting is your own desire to confess. You know you're
wrong, and the psychological pressure that creates in you is almost
intolerable, and so you are willing to go to any lengths to protect
yourself from the truth.
Anyway, that's my off the cuff speculation for the day. For anyone
interested in the mined quote above, Gould argues in in Natural History
article that natural selection is not a tautology, and that Bethell is
wrong in his criticisms. The statement quoted above was obviously a
point of great interest to Gould, one that he would return to many times
in his popular writings, and very interesting to read about, especially
if one reads his critics as well.
It should go without saying that Gould was strongly convinced of the
validity of natural selection as a driving force in evolution, and
discussed it at great length in all of his popular works.
For ease in checking how David has selectively quoted Gould, here is the
article online:
"Darwin's Untimely Burial"
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html>
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
29 Jan 2005 02:11:23 PM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:22:10 -0500, Ed <ed.markell--nospam--@comcast.net>
wrote:
david ford wrote:
maff wrote:
[snips]
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
What are those things that pass for evolutionary theory that are, in
reality, vacuous hogwash?
"Although I will try to refute [reader of philosophy at Oxford and an
editor of _The Washington Monthly_ Thomas] Bethall [writing in
"Darwin's Mistake," _Harper's Magazine_ (Feb 1976), 70-75], I also
deplore the unwillingness of scientists to explore seriously the
logical structure of arguments. Much of what passes for evolutionary
theory is as vacuous as Bethall claims. Many great theories are held
together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethall has
correctly identified the hogwash surrounding evolutionary
theory."[Gould's article in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983),
ed. Laurie R. Godfrey, 141.]
Ah yes, the first piece I ever read about evolution, republished in Ever
Since Darwin, the first collection of Gould's Natural History magazine
essays.
You've read the rest of the piece, yes? You've digested the actual
arguments Gould put forward? For those who haven't read this article,
it's about the natural-selection-is-a-tautology argument. Bethell wrote
a piece in Harper's magazine, and that is what Gould is responding to.
I sometimes wonder what percentage of creationist arguments come down to
projection. You seem to assume, and I'm obviously speculating here, that
evolutionists all know deep down that their research and their science
is wrong, even dishonest, and that every once in a while they
accidentally burst forth with a confession, as if they justs can't take
the weight of the conspiracy any more.
When in reality it is you who know inside that you are lying. You feel
uncomfortable about that, and so you go to whatever lengths you can to
hide the truth from yourself. When a scientist criticizes other
scientists, you leap upon this like raw meat, brandishing your
quote-mine as proof that evolution is false.
What you are reflecting is your own desire to confess. You know you're
wrong, and the psychological pressure that creates in you is almost
intolerable, and so you are willing to go to any lengths to protect
yourself from the truth.
Anyway, that's my off the cuff speculation for the day. For anyone
interested in the mined quote above, Gould argues in in Natural History
article that natural selection is not a tautology, and that Bethell is
wrong in his criticisms. The statement quoted above was obviously a
point of great interest to Gould, one that he would return to many times
in his popular writings, and very interesting to read about, especially
if one reads his critics as well.
It should go without saying that Gould was strongly convinced of the
validity of natural selection as a driving force in evolution, and
discussed it at great length in all of his popular works.
For ease in checking how David has selectively quoted Gould, here is the
article online:
"Darwin's Untimely Burial"
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html>
Thanks for that. I wass trying to find my copy of the book, which seems
to be hiding right now...
--
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
31 Jan 2005 01:10:25 PM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
[...]
For ease in checking how David has selectively quoted Gould, here is
the
article online:
"Darwin's Untimely Burial"
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html>
Thank you for the link. i
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 03:50:31 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing
that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned
its own
truths over and over again.
Does religion ever question its own truths?
Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
If evolution is not true, then perhaps you can help me with a couple of
questions:
1. What was Adam & Eve's skin color?
2. Where did all the other races come from?
(Remebmer, they couldn't come from Adam and Eve, because everything
only reproduces according to its own kind: Caucasians from caucasians,
blacks from blacks, Asians from Asians, etc. If they all came from Adam
and Eve, i.e. common descent, that would be evolution.)
--Billy
Isaiah 34:7
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the
bulls..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mick White" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 04:28:15 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
[snip]
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned its own
truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
I'm quite ready to abandon Darwin's theory, now what is your theory
again? How does it work?
Mick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 07:29:36 PM |
|
|
Mick White <mwhite13BOGUS@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
news:3EeJd.168613$AL5.24961@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
Phil Osopher wrote:
[snip]
Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that
children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had
widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.
I don't know where science would have been if it hadn't questioned
its own truths over and over again. Besides, evolution is not a
truth, but a theory, abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
I'm quite ready to abandon Darwin's theory, now what is your theory
again? How does it work?
Mick
Very simple. The longer you beat a dead horse, the farther it will
travel opposite the direction of the beating.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies theories to fit the observed evidence.
Creationists emotionally modify the evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 08:51:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:28:15 GMT, Mick White
<mwhite13BOGUS@rochester.rr.com> said in alt.atheism:
I'm quite ready to abandon Darwin's theory, now what is your theory
again? How does it work?
"Designing Intelligence" didit.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 11:43:35 AM |
|
|
on 24 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Phil Osopher dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Intelligence isn't properly illustrated with wishful thinking. We resist
ID because it is entirely subjective. There is no objective evidence for
ID at all. None. Nothing.
Evolution, OTOH, can be observed if you know where to look.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 10:25:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:43:35 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 24 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Phil Osopher dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Intelligence isn't properly illustrated with wishful thinking. We resist
ID because it is entirely subjective. There is no objective evidence for
ID at all. None. Nothing.
Evolution, OTOH, can be observed if you know where to look.
First, one must have a clue as to what evolution is.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 03:45:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:02 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:43:35 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 24 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Phil Osopher dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Intelligence isn't properly illustrated with wishful thinking. We resist
ID because it is entirely subjective. There is no objective evidence for
ID at all. None. Nothing.
Evolution, OTOH, can be observed if you know where to look.
First, one must have a clue as to what evolution is.
A pity that the same don't seem to apply to ID
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
27 Jan 2005 12:11:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:45:34 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:02 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:43:35 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 24 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Phil Osopher dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with
intelligence. A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Intelligence isn't properly illustrated with wishful thinking. We resist
ID because it is entirely subjective. There is no objective evidence for
ID at all. None. Nothing.
Evolution, OTOH, can be observed if you know where to look.
First, one must have a clue as to what evolution is.
A pity that the same don't seem to apply to ID
Honesty isn't Christian policy.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 11:58:52 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Evolution, OTOH, can be observed if you know where to look.
Like to the small changes within each generation. No child is
exactly the same as either parent. That's a proven fact, and one
which proves that evolution within each generation happens.
But the creationists create some make-believe barrier between
"small changes" and "evolution of new species" for some reason
which they refuse to define in any meaningful terms.
The question "What would it take for you to consider some animal
a new species or a new kind?" is dodged like the plague when it comes
to the answers that the proponents of ID are willing to give.
Instead, they prefer to make up strawmen arguments like wanting
to see a cat give birth to a dog, or a chimp or gorilla give birth to
a human...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:29:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:58:52 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> said in alt.atheism:
Instead, they prefer to make up strawmen arguments like wanting
to see a cat give birth to a dog, or a chimp or gorilla give birth to
a human...
Or a horse give birth to a mule?
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:56:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:29:14 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:58:52 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> said in alt.atheism:
Instead, they prefer to make up strawmen arguments like wanting
to see a cat give birth to a dog, or a chimp or gorilla give birth to
a human...
Or a horse give birth to a mule?
I'd be more impressed seeing a mule give birth to a horse.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
