| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 10:09:04 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------
Lyons' reference to creation science as a "19th century
misunderstanding" gives the impression that there are no legitimate
scientists who believe in it, but this is not so. The science section
of the local bookstore and various web sites (apologeticspress.com,
for one) contain material from qualified authors who believe that the
scientific evidence supports the account of creation in the book of
Genesis. This includes those who take the most literal interpretation
that the earth was created in six days and is basically six thousand
years old (the "young earth" position).
It's not that I agree with all the arguments these authors make, and I
recognize that I do not have the expertise to debate all the
sophisticated biological processes involved. But I know enough to know
that one's position on these issues is not simply a matter of academic
degrees or IQ scores. Brilliant, knowledgeable people believe in
intelligent design and creation science, and I would like to hear
their arguments when the issues are discussed.
Another concern is that Lyons makes no clear distinction between
intelligent design and creation science, and they should be
differentiated. I understand that he does this because he believes
that some Christians have used intelligent design as a "smokescreen
for teaching fundamentalist doctrine" in the schools, but this is a
classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; of ignoring
a truth because of the flaws in the messenger.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2005/01/16/news/opinion/opinioncameron.txt
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
17 Jan 2005 01:46:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:09:04 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
scientists who believe in it, but this is not so. The science section
of the local bookstore and various web sites (apologeticspress.com,
for one) contain material from qualified authors who believe that the
scientific evidence supports the account of creation in the book of
Genesis.
"Qualified" means that they believe in creationism?
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcamjr" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
17 Jan 2005 04:53:44 AM |
|
|
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
17 Jan 2005 11:50:37 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
18 Jan 2005 12:48:33 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
19 Jan 2005 04:29:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1gql246.mpks2l158q6maN%>,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
"jcamjr"'s sentence has an "should" in it, so is metafacutal and not
subject to being right or wrong.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
19 Jan 2005 08:23:31 PM |
|
|
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <1gql246.mpks2l158q6maN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>,
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
"jcamjr"'s sentence has an "should" in it, so is metafacutal and not
subject to being right or wrong.
Should I accept this as true?
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
20 Jan 2005 05:34:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1gqof3v.1n6ht5j11akkt8N%>,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <1gql246.mpks2l158q6maN% >,
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
"jcamjr"'s sentence has an "should" in it, so is metafacutal and not
subject to being right or wrong.
Should I accept this as true?
I believe it to be true. The decision to believe on the base of truth is
a moral decision. Some people believe that it is right indeed necessary
to believe on inadequate information.
I think I misidentified the should statement that should be Al Klein. If
you are defending an indefensible position eschewing obfuscation is
inutile. If jcamjr is trying to communicate (value), then he should
punctuate his post.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
20 Jan 2005 10:08:31 PM |
|
|
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <1gqof3v.1n6ht5j11akkt8N%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>,
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <1gql246.mpks2l158q6maN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>,
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are
pieces of the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for
creation and intelligent design simply does not exist there is
none we must understand the difference between a theory and a
belief a theory can be tested a belief or faith requires no
testing ,controls or repeatability and as such deserves no
mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
"jcamjr"'s sentence has an "should" in it, so is metafacutal and not
subject to being right or wrong.
Should I accept this as true?
I believe it to be true. The decision to believe on the base of truth is
a moral decision. Some people believe that it is right indeed necessary
to believe on inadequate information.
I think I misidentified the should statement that should be Al Klein. If
you are defending an indefensible position eschewing obfuscation is
inutile. If jcamjr is trying to communicate (value), then he should
punctuate his post.
I can see that the Irony tags got stripped somewhere...
A statement that has a prescriptive operator like "should" *can* be
right or wrong, or else all ethical claims are neither right or wrong. I
think you meant that such statements are not true or false. If you
didn't, then I don't know what you might mean. If it is a simple
operational claim - IF the goal is X THEN you should do Y to achieve X -
this can indeed be a matter of fact. In no case is this a theory,
however.
And a theory is not something one believes to be true, neither. But I
suspect you know all this and have just used much smaller Irony tags
than I can see on this screen.
Quit messin' wit me.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "jcamjr" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
25 Jan 2005 03:13:38 AM |
|
|
OK you win!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
25 Jan 2005 03:41:39 AM |
|
|
jcamjr <johncamjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK you win!
At least quote something I said so I can bask in the glow of glory and
kudos!
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
21 Feb 2005 07:51:08 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing
Such as?
on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
Physics has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
That's not a theory. That's a fact.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Jan 1987. "Darwinism Defined: The Difference
between Fact and Theory" _Discover_, 64-70. On 69, a paragraph:
I don't want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting "rally round
the flag boys," but biologists have reached a consensus, based on
these kinds of data, about the fact of evolution. When honest
critics like Irving Kristol misinterpret this agreement, they're
either confusing our fruitful consonance about the fact of
evolution with our vibrant dissonance about mechanisms of change,
or they've misinterpreted part of our admittedly arcane technical
literature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
21 Feb 2005 09:49:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:51:08 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
John Wilkins wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing
Such as?
on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist
Biology has the appearance of
Opinion, not evidence.
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium?
Evolution.
the first biological lifeform?
No DNA there.
Physics has the appearance of
Opinion, again, and soundly refuted many times. Depressions have the
appearance of having been designed to fit the puddles that are in
them, but they weren't.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Jan 1987. "Darwinism Defined: The Difference
between Fact and Theory" _Discover_, 64-70. On 69, a paragraph:
I don't want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting "rally round
the flag boys," but biologists have reached a consensus, based on
these kinds of data, about the fact of evolution. When honest
critics like Irving Kristol misinterpret this agreement, they're
either confusing our fruitful consonance about the fact of
evolution with our vibrant dissonance about mechanisms of change,
or they've misinterpreted part of our admittedly arcane technical
literature.
Yes, and?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
19 Jan 2005 06:45:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces
of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can
be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or
repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I have a theory that you should punctuate your posts.
The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcamjr" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
25 Jan 2005 03:11:04 AM |
|
|
I was not aware that we were debating punctuation my mistake
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
25 Jan 2005 03:41:50 AM |
|
|
jcamjr <johncamjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I was not aware that we were debating punctuation my mistake
Youpostedintalkoriginssoyouhavetoexpectthesethings
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
20 Jan 2005 03:09:32 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005 20:53:44 -0800, "jcamjr" <johncamjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
I see you'll be in the fourth grade next year. Congradulations.
--
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: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Creation, evolution and the schools |
17 Jan 2005 04:58:51 AM |
|
|
jcamjr wrote:
The data on evolution is incomplete its true! yes there are pieces of
the puzzle missing on the other hand the evidence for creation and
intelligent design simply does not exist there is none we must
understand the difference between a theory and a belief a theory can
be
tested a belief or faith requires no testing ,controls or
repeatability
and as such deserves no mention in intelligent debate
This is true for ALL branches of science. We never said we know
everything. I believe that it is possible we may never know everything.
That doesn't matter though. As a paranoid bigot once said "there are
known knowns, and unknown knowns..."
What we do know is still up for scientific discussion, as it ALWAYS
will be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
