| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 11:29:17 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experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.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: "Phil Osopher" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 04:45:59 PM |
|
|
"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experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals.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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 10:35:35 PM |
|
|
<SNIP>
<< 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. >><BR><BR>
ID is not a theory, it is an unscientific belief. ID can't be taken
seriously as it rests on faith of a designer rather than evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 08:40:21 PM |
|
|
"Phil Osopher" <phil@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
[...]
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.
Because unless you are proposing an interventionist designer who is
fiddling with life every second, Intelligent Design Creationism doesn't
replace the theory of evolution. All it claims is that life was started by
a designer. What happened after was all evolution. It doesn't help with
the origins of life either because it doesn't tell us where te designer
came from.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 08:02:53 AM |
|
|
In article <41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>,
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> 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.
There is no evidence for intelligent design or a designer.
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.
Science does question itself and that is why the theory of evolution has
stood the test of time. Evolution is a theory and as is gravity,
electricity, tectonics, planetary motion, etc. It is a well
substantiated theory well supported by fact. Creationism, and it's
pseudonym ID, have no factual evidence to support them. Two thousand
year old mythology books don't count.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 07:04:32 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid>
wrote:
No need to do experiments,
and that is creationism in a nutshell
nature is one big experiment. It's just a matter
of interpreting the experiment correctly, and recognize that ID is a fact.
and that is the logical conclusion. dont experiment. just start with
'god did it' and you come to the rather surprising conclusion that god
did it.
wow!
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
ID?
i'm a chemist. i dont care whether evolution is correct or not.
but i KNOW ID is NOT science. it says NOTHING about how it works. you
guys pretend that evidence 'against' evolution is evidence 'for'
design'
that is not how science works.
All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
no, it does not replace 'random processes' with intelligence.
evolution has a mechanism...differential reproduction.
we can MEASURE differences within populations. that is the raw
material of evolution
we can MEASURE the differential reproduction rates of organisms within
populations. that is the PROCESS of evolution
as a scientist, i look at that, and call that science
but creationists just say 'god did it, and we dont have to say how'.
you pretend there's NO mechanism for evolution. you are wrong.
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.
no moreso than any other group of villagers armed with torches and
pitchforks.
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.
scientists arent questioning evolution because there's nothing to
question. it's religious leaders, and right wing politicians...neither
of whom are noted for scientific acumen...who are trying to tell
scientists that we have to obey their religious beliefs.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 04:54:10 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid>
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.
So demonstrate it instead of assertiong it?
What's that? You can't because it is the same level of science as the
stork theory or obstetrics?
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
BTW do you honestly imagine that this kind of lie acieves anything?
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence. A
rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Except that it does no such thing. And you know it. Please try to be
less dishonest next time.
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.
No. It is both theory and fact. The theory of evolution explains the
facts that are labelled "evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:17:14 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ps9av0pdodc4f0poiegnl3fb708hek47ug@4ax.com:
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid>
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.
So demonstrate it instead of assertiong it?
What's that? You can't because it is the same level of science as the
stork theory or obstetrics?
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious
resistance to
BTW do you honestly imagine that this kind of lie acieves anything?
ID? All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
And that is EXACTLY the problem- ID is all about opinion, not evidence.
If there's evidence- hard evidence, in the form of real data- it would
not be difficult to get it published. But no one's even made the attempt
to collect any, have they?
Saying "Nature is one big experiment and it proves ID!" sounds great.
It sounds, as a matter of fact, like 4 grad students in a bar at closing
time.
It doesn't pay the rent, though.
Except that it does no such thing. And you know it. Please try to be
less dishonest next time.
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.
No. It is both theory and fact. The theory of evolution explains the
facts that are labelled "evolution.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 07:44:32 PM |
|
|
Chris Thompson wrote:
Saying "Nature is one big experiment and it proves ID!" sounds great.
It sounds, as a matter of fact, like 4 grad students in a bar at closing
time.
It doesn't pay the rent, though.
it does if you just bypass peer-reviewed scientific legitimacy and
publish a beautiful work of fiction as a book claiming to have all the
reasons not only why Darwin was wrong, but why our current president is
the better leader of our country because of it.
sorry...nothing more to see here, move along. i've got to get typing;
my landlord's getting mad at me again. :)
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 11:26:13 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> said
in alt.atheism:
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
ID?
Because it's religious *****, not science.
All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
There are no "random processes" in evolution TO replace, but where's
the scientific evidence of this "intelligence"?
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.
There's a difference between science questioning interpretations of
actual observations, and creationists claiming that their god created
everything with no actual evidence that any god exists.
Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
No, evolution is observed fact. The various theories ABOUT evolution
are theories.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 09:13:24 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> 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.
And the intelligence was designed by what, Exactly?
BTW, why do many evolutionists have such an almost religious resistance to
ID?
Something to do with the total absence of empiric evidence.
All the theory does is replace random processes with intelligence.
But it does not explain the source of the intelligence
A rather intelligent suggestion in itself. IMO.
Only if *thinking* gives you a head ache.
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.
Irrelevant.
However, you will note that science, unlike religion, *does* keep checking the
evidence. But then, "checking the evidence" would be a bit difficult for
religion: Wouldn't it?
Besides, evolution is not a truth, but a theory,
abd a "questionable" one, indeed.
All theories are questionable, to one degree or another, but the body of
evidence(facts to you) that they attempt to explain do not change, other than to
grow.
I suggest that you look up the meaning of "theory", as applied by scientists.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
24 Jan 2005 05:53:23 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk:
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.
All it does is replace an answer with a "just-so" story. And it leaves the
question unanswered: "Who created the creator?"
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.
ID explains nothing. "God-did-it" explains nothing.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 01:21:38 AM |
|
|
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in
news:Xns95E8649C2BAAA255229@130.133.1.4:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk:
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.
All it does is replace an answer with a "just-so" story. And it
leaves the question unanswered: "Who created the creator?"
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.
ID explains nothing. "God-did-it" explains nothing.
You forgot one. The bible explains nothing.
--
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: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 01:07:34 AM |
|
|
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk:
"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.
A rather inflated opinion that. If there was a theory of ID that was
backed by observable evidence, that was testable, that made predictions
and that was falsifiable, it would be taken seriously as an alternative.
It does none of the above, and until it does it can not call itself a
theory nor be taken as a serious alternative.
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.
Science does question it's own truths, that is why theories are not
static, not even evolution. You are equivocating and using theory in
more than one context. Brain up.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
25 Jan 2005 02:30:57 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk:
"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.
If ID were a "fact" we would have some of those intelligent designers
around to see and hear and touch.... Where are they?
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.
Whose "intelligence"? Why don't we have any evidence of these
"intelligent" experimenters?
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.
But then again, in science, a "theory" is considered valid until such
time as evidence is found that contradicts it or until a better theory is
provided that better fits the evidence and makes better predictions.
Where is you "better" theory that replaces evolution?
But I don't know why I bother writing this, fundamental xians don't care
about science.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "john howell" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 02:39:05 AM |
|
|
As regards "Theory of evolution" there are many theory's in science.
For instance there is the theory of gravity. Now if you think scientific
theory is just theory, nothing more or nothing less, you can test the theory
of gravity by jumping off a 10 story building using no aids. Now if you
survive the fall without any harm at all then maybe you are on to something.
St John the Atheist
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95E960A48E901wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote in
news:41f52646$0$189$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk:
"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.
If ID were a "fact" we would have some of those intelligent designers
around to see and hear and touch.... Where are they?
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.
Whose "intelligence"? Why don't we have any evidence of these
"intelligent" experimenters?
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.
But then again, in science, a "theory" is considered valid until such
time as evidence is found that contradicts it or until a better theory is
provided that better fits the evidence and makes better predictions.
Where is you "better" theory that replaces evolution?
But I don't know why I bother writing this, fundamental xians don't care
about science.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 03:47:55 PM |
|
|
john howell wrote:
As regards "Theory of evolution" there are many theory's in science.
For instance there is the theory of gravity. Now if you think scientific
theory is just theory, nothing more or nothing less, you can test the theory
of gravity by jumping off a 10 story building using no aids. Now if you
survive the fall without any harm at all then maybe you are on to something.
St John the Atheist
I just tossed Phil Osopher off a building. It looks like gravity passed
the test.
I'm not cleaning that up, BTW.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 10:07:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:47:55 -0600, Tukla Ratte wrote
(in article <35psdcF4orb8iU1@individual.net>):
john howell wrote:
As regards "Theory of evolution" there are many theory's in science.
For instance there is the theory of gravity. Now if you think scientific
theory is just theory, nothing more or nothing less, you can test the
theory
of gravity by jumping off a 10 story building using no aids. Now if you
survive the fall without any harm at all then maybe you are on to
something.
St John the Atheist
I just tossed Phil Osopher off a building. It looks like gravity passed
the test.
I'm not cleaning that up, BTW.
< snip >
I thought you liked your meat tenderized before you ate it. Was I wrong?
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³(B)iological evolution is a team sport.³-Louis Friend
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 10:57:00 PM |
|
|
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:47:55 -0600, Tukla Ratte wrote
(in article <35psdcF4orb8iU1@individual.net>):
john howell wrote:
As regards "Theory of evolution" there are many theory's in science.
For instance there is the theory of gravity. Now if you think scientific
theory is just theory, nothing more or nothing less, you can test the
theory
of gravity by jumping off a 10 story building using no aids. Now if you
survive the fall without any harm at all then maybe you are on to
something.
St John the Atheist
I just tossed Phil Osopher off a building. It looks like gravity passed
the test.
I'm not cleaning that up, BTW.
< snip >
I thought you liked your meat tenderized before you ate it. Was I wrong?
There's no meat on Phil's arguments...
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: God and Darwin |
26 Jan 2005 11:21:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:47:55 -0600, Tukla Ratte wrote
(in article <35psdcF4orb8iU1@individual.net>):
john howell wrote:
As regards "Theory of evolution" there are many theory's in science.
For instance there is the theory of gravity. Now if you think scientific
theory is just theory, nothing more or nothing less, you can test the
theory
of gravity by jumping off a 10 story building using no aids. Now if you
survive the fall without any harm at all then maybe you are on to
something.
St John the Atheist
I just tossed Phil Osopher off a building. It looks like gravity passed
the test.
I'm not cleaning that up, BTW.
< snip >
I thought you liked your meat tenderized before you ate it. Was I wrong?
There's no meat on Phil's arguments...
Are you saying that Phil is his arguments? If so, I quite agree.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Damn. Someone's been pissing in my genepool again.³-Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 03:02:17 PM |
|
|
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is
a _fact_?
Danny
< snip >
I thought you liked your meat tenderized before you ate it. Was I wrong?
There's no meat on Phil's arguments...
Are you saying that Phil is his arguments? If so, I quite agree.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Damn. Someone's been pissing in my genepool again.³-Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 03:58:22 PM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes,
forms theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and
test, repeats the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof
claim that evolution is a _fact_?
Scientific THEORIES are not proven. They are disproven by observations
of FACT that are inconsistent with the theory. Evolution is both FACT
and THEORY. The FACT is that life has existed on this planet for a very
long time and has changed throughout that time. The theory (actually
theories) of evolution are the various scientific hypotheses about what
causes this change and how important the various factors are.
Unfortunately, it's this double usage of evolution that makes it so easy
to perpetrate an equivocation on it and sophists have been quick to take
advantage.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
27 Jan 2005 04:00:09 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that evolution
is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science. All theories are
considered provisional, no matter how well supported. Consider that Atomic
Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only to an extent. The model
has since been replaced by Quantum Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model
of the universe was superceded by the discovery of our home galaxy, the
Milky Way. And Newton's Theory of Gravity was replaced by General
Relativity. In any case, the scientific method is inductive, and is a way of
making increasingly accurate approximations that match observations to
predictive models we call theories.
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also refer
to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated, for all
intents and purposes, as fact. When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were essentially lying
because they had access to the same data.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there are many
component theories and refinements to the overall theory, including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact(was:Re: God and Darwin) |
26 Jan 2005 05:03:41 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only to
an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory of
Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the scientific
method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly accurate
approximations that match observations to predictive models we call
theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated, for
all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence, how does one
make predictions then test them? Can evolution be repeated?
Can evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were essentially
lying because they had access to the same data.
An analogy? Non-sequirur
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there are
many component theories and refinements to the overall theory, including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
Yes, but still unproven and still theory. I question whether calling
evolution
a _fact_ where absolute proof is absence is being totally honest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Daffer" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 05:57:15 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> writes:
"Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
wrote in message news:KMqdnb2HCNSn-mXcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
"Dan Wilson" <willy224@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uPYJd.34830$8W4.5547@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Harry F. Leopold" <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1D82370017F01BF02845B0@news.central.cox.net...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:57:00 -0600, John Wilkins wrote
(in article <1gr1kho.af9142sdcczjN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>):
{snip old stuff}
I just read that science does not offer proofs. Science observes, forms
theories to explain the observations, makes predictions and test, repeats
the test. If this is true how, can evolutionist proof claim that
evolution is
a _fact_?
<snip>
The use of the term "proof" is best avoided in science.
Then without _proof_ is it not best to also avoid the word "fact"?
The assertions of evolution are as 'fact'-like as are any other
assertions of science: they accord well with observation and the
theory itself is consistent.
If by 'fact' you mean 'mathematical fact' then you are asking for
the wrong sort of proof and you have no right to expect it, since
science itself doesn't expect that sort of proof.
But many assertions are considered 'facts' which do not admit of
mathematical 'proof.'
For instance, you would agree, I presume, that it's a 'fact' that
George Bush was elected President of the United States, yet that
'fact' admits of no more _certain proof_ (because its basis is
observational) than the 'fact' that evolution most certainly
happens.
It is in this sense that the word 'fact' is used. And it is entirely
appropriate to do so, for evolution is as much a *fact* as the claim
that nuclear fission occured at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
All theories are considered provisional, no matter how well supported.
Consider that Atomic Theory is a reasonable model of the atom, but only to
an extent.
Yes, current models show a "cloud" around the nucleus.
The model has since been replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. Or that the Heliocentric model of the universe was superceded
by the discovery of our home galaxy, the Milky Way. And Newton's Theory of
Gravity was replaced by General Relativity. In any case, the scientific
method is inductive, and is a way of making increasingly accurate
approximations that match observations to predictive models we call
theories.
This only confirms my position that without absolute proof, evolution is
still a theory. Calling evolution a _fact_ is just bluster!
Everything in science is only a theory. The question is, is it a
good theory? Does it accord with observation? The answer is: yes.
That someone calls it a fact is a synecdoche for saying that it's a
very well confirmed theory (or one which has many times successfully
avoided falsification, if you're a Popperian)
"Fact" can refer to a couple of different things. In science, it usually
refers to a specific data-point, a particular observation. It can also
refer to theories that are so well-supported that they can be treated, for
all intents and purposes, as fact.
But is it supported by an array of empirical evidence, how does one
make predictions then test them? Can evolution be repeated? Can
evolution be observed where change occurs at the higher
classifications ie: phylum, class, order, family?
Not all sciences are as experimental as physics: Astonomy, for
instannce, is more observational. Although one may do experiments to
lend weight to certain parts of the theory one can't create a sun
from scratch by experiment.
Same with paleontology, for instance. In fact, sciences that seek
to explain the past tend to be explanatory, rather than predictive,
its reasoning abductive.
However, that said, evolution is seen every day in biology. Examples
include, but certainly not limited to, are: increasing resistence of
bacteria to antibiotics, for instance; the increasing resistence of
insects to pesticides; the supplanting of domestic bees by
Africanized bees, the mutation of viruses, etc.
There's a fascinating book named _Darwin's Finches_ about a couple
from Harvard who've been going to the Gallopigos for 30 years and
tracking the birds there. In their work you see the clear action of
selection on the bird populations and their students have gone on to
show other examples of evolution in other live populations.
When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he was
speaking fact. Those who denied it and persecuted him were essentially
lying because they had access to the same data.
An analogy? Non-sequirur
Why is that a non-sequitur?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Concerning the biological Theory of Evolution, it starts with Darwin's
assertions of Common Descent and Natural Selection, but today there are
many component theories and refinements to the overall theory, including
Punctuated Equilibrium and Neutral Drift.
Yes, but still unproven and still theory. I question whether calling
evolution a _fact_ where absolute proof is absence is being totally
honest.
There is no such thing as absolute proof in science, so demanding it
as the sine qua non of truth misunderstands the nature of
contingency of empirical truth. To argue on the basis of such
misunderstanding is a strawman. In the physical sciences the only
test of 'fact'-ness is conformance of observation with
theory. Asserting such a conformance is imperfect, by the very
nature of all assertions about the empirical world,
That said, the conformance to of evolutionary theory with
observation is very good indeed. Were it not, we wouldn't be seeing
biotech firms, or Monsanto, for that matter.
whd
--
PRICE, n. Value, plus a reasonable sum for the wear and tear of
conscience in demanding it.
-- Ambrose Bierce: _The Devil's Dictionary_
.
|
|
|
| User: "PennyLane" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 06:21:05 AM |
|
|
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 10:00:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:21:05 -0700, PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>
wrote:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Powerful man in what sense?
Can he write great music? Does he have the power to
inspire us like Mozart or Beethoven?
Can he inspire in any way shape or form that gives
him power over our thoughts like Shakespeare still
does?
Is he a powerful teacher?
Does he have the power of intelligence and eloquence
to persuade us.A powerful leader of thought?
Or does he just have the biggest nuclear arsenal in
history and more guns and weapons than everybody
else? I say the man is impotant and weak as all he
can do is threaten and destroy.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 10:12:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:00:05 +0000 in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell (Les
Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:21:05 -0700, PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>
wrote:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Powerful man in what sense?
Can he write great music? Does he have the power to
inspire us like Mozart or Beethoven?
Can he inspire in any way shape or form that gives
him power over our thoughts like Shakespeare still
does?
Is he a powerful teacher?
Does he have the power of intelligence and eloquence
to persuade us.A powerful leader of thought?
Or does he just have the biggest nuclear arsenal in
history and more guns and weapons than everybody
else? I say the man is impotant and weak as all he
can do is threaten and destroy.
True, but sometimes that can be a persuasive argument. Though that
said, I wonder what the 250 billion that'll be spent on Iraq would
have achieved if they spent it on more humanitarian and development
projects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 12:19:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:12:31 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:00:05 +0000 in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell (Les
Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:21:05 -0700, PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>
wrote:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Powerful man in what sense?
Can he write great music? Does he have the power to
inspire us like Mozart or Beethoven?
Can he inspire in any way shape or form that gives
him power over our thoughts like Shakespeare still
does?
Is he a powerful teacher?
Does he have the power of intelligence and eloquence
to persuade us.A powerful leader of thought?
Or does he just have the biggest nuclear arsenal in
history and more guns and weapons than everybody
else? I say the man is impotant and weak as all he
can do is threaten and destroy.
True, but sometimes that can be a persuasive argument. Though that
said, I wonder what the 250 billion that'll be spent on Iraq would
have achieved if they spent it on more humanitarian and development
projects.
It is said the that the pen is mightier than the sword and I agree but
this requires intelligence, the ability to understand and persuade
and eloquence to carry it out, qualities that are totally lacking in
Bush. He cannot even persuade half his own country let alone
the world. He was elected at a time when we needed most such
a person
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 12:26:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:19:33 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
It is said the that the pen is mightier than the sword and I agree but
this requires intelligence, the ability to understand and persuade
and eloquence to carry it out, qualities that are totally lacking in
Bush. He cannot even persuade half his own country let alone
the world. He was elected at a time when we needed most such
a person
Did we? That's news to me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: How can Evolution be Called a Fact |
27 Jan 2005 07:16:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:19:33 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:12:31 +0000, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:00:05 +0000 in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell (Les
Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:21:05 -0700, PennyLane <meanwhileback@no.com>
wrote:
Millions of years of evolution and the most
powerful man on the earth is George W Bush?
Powerful man in what sense?
Can he write great music? Does he have the power to
inspire us like Mozart or Beethoven?
Can he inspire in any way shape or form that gives
him power over our thoughts like Shakespeare still
does?
Is he a powerful teacher?
Does he have the power of intelligence and eloquence
to persuade us.A powerful leader of thought?
Or does he just have the biggest nuclear arsenal in
history and more guns and weapons than everybody
else? I say the man is impotant and weak as all he
can do is threaten and destroy.
True, but sometimes that can be a persuasive argument. Though that
said, I wonder what the 250 billion that'll be spent on Iraq would
have achieved if they spent it on more humanitarian and development
projects.
It is said the that the pen is mightier than the sword and I agree but
this requires intelligence, the ability to understand and persuade
and eloquence to carry it out, qualities that are totally lacking in
Bush. He cannot even persuade half his own country let alone
the world. He was elected at a time when we needed most such
a person
He was again appointed at a time when the world most didn't need him.
--
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
