| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2004 04:12:54 PM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin — the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance — is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith — atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 08:54:53 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin - the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance - is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith - atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
I find it interesting that the ones clammering for "honest debate" are the
ones that lie the most. Strange that.
Alan Jeffery
J. Spaceman
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.719 / Virus Database: 475 - Release Date: 12/07/2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 12:29:17 AM |
|
|
In article <lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds.
This guy blows his argument right here. Science doesn't deal with
truth, it deals with facts and evidence. Over a hundred and fifty
years of scientific evidence clearly supports evolution.
There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ~ the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ~ is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
Mistake two, Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or origin of
life. It is a different subject. And who are these extraordinary
scientists anyway? What are their credentials, what are their fields
of studies and have they published any of their 'evidence' against
evolution in peer reviewed scientific journals?
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ~ atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists.
They just don't get it. Atheism is not a religion. I wouldn't say that
all of those who disagree with the evidence for evolution are bad,
many are just ignorant.
There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design.
ID is just camouflaged creationism.
Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
Nonsense. There is no controversy over evolution in mainstream science.
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
If this character has his way, he would have the geocentric system of
the universe given equal time in astronomy class.
J. Spaceman
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
11 Jul 2004 05:24:56 PM |
|
|
In article <lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ~ the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ~ is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ~ atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------
*
From: http://www.ccojubilee.org/minexfolder/BorgerArchive.html
The author Byron Borger is an alumnus and associate staff member
of the CCO and owner with his wife, Beth, of Hearts & Minds
Bookstore in Dallastown, Pennsylvania. Contact Byron for more
information on these resources or to help you find exactly what you
need for your ministry.
(The CCO is the Coalition for Christian Outreach.)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 09:46:47 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
In article <lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ~ the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ~ is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ~ atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------
*
From: http://www.ccojubilee.org/minexfolder/BorgerArchive.html
The author Byron Borger is an alumnus and associate staff member
of the CCO and owner with his wife, Beth, of Hearts & Minds
Bookstore in Dallastown, Pennsylvania.
A most unfortunate phrase. It brings up images that I am sure were not
intended.
For children (and young adults) from the Vietnam era, the phrase "Hearts
& Minds" usually brings to mind the programs used to try to "Win the
hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people. As often happens, such
programs, instituted with naive blindness (because of true belief in
one's cause) to the *real* (rather than imagined) compelling reasons why
people might not want to be won over to a foreign 'truth',
quasi-coercive methods started intruding, followed by brutally coercive
methods for the recalcitrant ones. The programs started by building
hospitals and ended up with torture chambers and summary executions.
All with the best interests of 'the people' in mind. Same old story, in
old Spain, Vietnam, or Iraq.
As the program degenerated in Vietnam, the phrase "win hearts and minds"
became "Grab 'em by the balls; their hearts and minds will follow."
Contact Byron for more
information on these resources or to help you find exactly what you
need for your ministry.
(The CCO is the Coalition for Christian Outreach.)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
11 Jul 2004 05:12:23 PM |
|
|
In article <lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ~ the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ~ is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one...
[clip]
*
In my opinion, you are succumbing to the universal desire for
symmetry. If A says it must be white and B says it must be black,
then the truth must be gray.
Frequently the truth is white and not gray.
When you say there are extraordinary scientists who disagree with
the foundational claims of Darwin -- I must say you are right.
These 'scientists' are indeed extraordinary -- in fact, they are
totally out of the mainstream of modern scientific thought.
Lack of belief in evolutionary theory is based on fundamentalist
religion. Evolution attacks your deep-down beliefs in your 'God'.
earle
*
"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it
becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or
curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975)
(American Biology Teacher, 25:125-129, p. 129)
(Stephen Jay Gould has referred to Dobzhansky as "the
greatest evolutionary geneticist of our times".)
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian OBlivion" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
11 Jul 2004 11:23:55 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
<snip>
J. Spaceman
Of course there are many scientists who disagree with
"Darwinist evolution". Compared to what is understood today,
"Darwinist evolution" is crude. As a matter of fact, I'm
unaware of any scientist who does agree with "Darwinist
evolution".
You are trying to create debate where none exists.
--
=====================================
"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in
the video arena - the Videodrome."
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
11 Jul 2004 11:34:02 PM |
|
|
"Brian O'Blivion" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:8soIc.25245$Rf.12681@edtnps84...
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
<snip>
J. Spaceman
Of course there are many scientists who disagree with
"Darwinist evolution". Compared to what is understood today,
"Darwinist evolution" is crude. As a matter of fact, I'm
unaware of any scientist who does agree with "Darwinist
evolution".
You are trying to create debate where none exists.
--
=====================================
"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in
the video arena - the Videodrome."
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
Another Professor!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian OBlivion" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 12:27:44 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in
news:glennsheldon-OBoIc.30$D_3.43691@news.uswest.net:
"Brian O'Blivion" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:8soIc.25245$Rf.12681@edtnps84...
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote
in news:lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
<snip>
J. Spaceman
Of course there are many scientists who disagree with
"Darwinist evolution". Compared to what is understood
today, "Darwinist evolution" is crude. As a matter of
fact, I'm unaware of any scientist who does agree with
"Darwinist evolution".
You are trying to create debate where none exists.
--
=====================================
"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought
in the video arena - the Videodrome."
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
Another Professor!
Well it was either O'Blivion or Zoidburg.
--
=====================================
"After all, there is nothing real outside our perception of
reality, is there?"
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 10:10:07 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-OBoIc.30$D_3.43691@news.uswest.net>...
"Brian O'Blivion" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:8soIc.25245$Rf.12681@edtnps84...
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
<snip>
J. Spaceman
Of course there are many scientists who disagree with
"Darwinist evolution". Compared to what is understood today,
"Darwinist evolution" is crude. As a matter of fact, I'm
unaware of any scientist who does agree with "Darwinist
evolution".
You are trying to create debate where none exists.
--
=====================================
"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in
the video arena - the Videodrome."
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
Another Professor!
/creationist mode on
Yes.. damn them! They get in everywhere, spreading their hated
scientific facts and knowledge to us "good", ignorant, Bible-thumping
Christian fundamentalists... clouding our "minds" with useless
scientific reasoning and logic. Where will it all end?
/creationist mode off
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We believe God has raised up ICR to spear-head Biblical
Christianity's defense against the godless dogma of evolutionary
humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution,
while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in
"the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every
high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II
Corinthians 10:4,5)." – Institute for Creation Research Webpage
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 11:39:10 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true.
[BB]"around this topic, much is said that is not true"
Raup's letter to _Science_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ? the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ? is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
[BB]"notion that the beginning of life happened... by chance"
how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990812214926.974808E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ? atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
[BB]"Darwinist claims are under attack from all sorts of quarters"
1999 Leigh: "creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com
[BB]"There are many scientists... who try to make a good case for
Darwinist evolution"
And fail miserably.
"Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution"
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SD Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 03:33:46 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ? the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ? is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ? atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
J. Spaceman
The problem with this is that the author does not distinguish the
relative merits of those 'assaults' on Darwinism. The plain fact is
that Darwinist evolution is well established by evidence and
anti-Darwinists are often outright frauds and just as often guilty of
argument by wishful thinking when they themselves are not liars. In
science as well as law, circumstantial evidence is evidence, and what
can be infered from that evidence is a legitimate conclusion.
It takes evidence to earn 'equal time'. Evidence SUPPORTING your
premise.
This is a crucial area where the anti-evolutionists fail to
comprehend a pretty basic fact. Evidence against another premise is
NOT evidence for your own. Lack of evidence in an area for that other
premises is not evidence for your side either. Only evidence that
supports your premise is evidence for your side.
The creationists consistantly come up shooting blanks when it comes
to showing evidence of a Creator's activity. Think Poker. No ante,
no betting later on. Creationists can't meet the minimum evidence to
achieve an ante.
Without that evidence it isn't science.
And just for the record, when given the opportunity to meet not the
scientific standard but just the lower standard of proof required for
a civil law suit, they failed. They failed all the way to the Supreme
Court of the US. It's been settled conclusively that the Creationist
case is merely the Biblical account of Genesis in drag, dressed up
like a genuine scientific theory when it's merely religious
prosletyinzing trying to take public tax dollars for 'creationist text
books' instead of say needed text books.
The smarter huckst ah creationists have moved on to Intelligent
Design, a de-Genesized Creationist premise that desperately tries to
squeeze a creator's existence into otherwise legitimate texts. No
evidence for a creator that meets scientific standards, just
unsupported maybes put there basically to give their snake oil sales
men a better chance of getting converts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 01:22:35 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ? the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ? is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ? atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
J. Spaceman
Ya know, I'd be fine with honest debate, if the rules were the same
for both sides. Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to ask the
creationists for evidence of their god. God is not a proven fact, but
they don't want to debate that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 01:22:38 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com>...
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BORGER
Sunday, July 11, 2004
As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues,
there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and
civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is
said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the
discussion fruitful.
We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the
"true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and
anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who
disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms;
the foundational claim of Darwin ? the un-provable notion that the
beginning of life happened from nothing by chance ? is as much of a
metaphysical belief as is the biblical one.
One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature.
Choose your faith ? atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew
creation story (or yet something else) but don't imply that those who
don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many
scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make
a good case for Darwinist evolution, and there are those who try to
argue in a compelling way that the data necessarily leads to an
intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear
about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack
from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among
many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven
fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest at http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/32672/
J. Spaceman
Ya know, I'd be fine with honest debate, if the rules were the same
for both sides. Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to ask the
creationists for evidence of their god. God is not a proven fact, but
they don't want to debate that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 06:56:43 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature."
What definition would render a theory of origins "pre-scientific"?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
12 Jul 2004 07:37:10 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature."
What definition would render a theory of origins "pre-scientific"?
"Any view of origins that was developed before scientific enquiry
arose"?
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
13 Jul 2004 02:15:21 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
What definition would render a theory of origins "pre-scientific"?
"Any view of origins that was developed before scientific enquiry
arose"?
I see what you mean, but I took the original author to mean something
other than a chronological difference.
He wrote, "One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in
nature." To me this implies that the author believes a person's opinions
regarding origins *philosophically* precede any scientific discussion.
I could make little sense of his assertion, except to view as a
restatement of the Creationist canard that all beliefs about origins
rest on something eqivalent to Christian faith.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
13 Jul 2004 03:52:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:15:21 +0000 in episode
<MPG.1b5e00548ac7c5c998a4ce@netnews.comcast.net> we saw our hero "Brian E.
Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please>:
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
What definition would render a theory of origins "pre-scientific"?
"Any view of origins that was developed before scientific enquiry
arose"?
I see what you mean, but I took the original author to mean something
other than a chronological difference.
He wrote, "One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in
nature." To me this implies that the author believes a person's opinions
regarding origins *philosophically* precede any scientific discussion.
I could make little sense of his assertion, except to view as a
restatement of the Creationist canard that all beliefs about origins rest
on something eqivalent to Christian faith.
It's part of the Philip Johnson strategy to claim that everything is based
in "philosophy." Something he does so he can discard the need for actual
evidence...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
13 Jul 2004 06:03:58 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:15:21 +0000 in episode
<MPG.1b5e00548ac7c5c998a4ce@netnews.comcast.net> we saw our hero "Brian E.
Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please>:
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
What definition would render a theory of origins "pre-scientific"?
"Any view of origins that was developed before scientific enquiry
arose"?
I see what you mean, but I took the original author to mean something
other than a chronological difference.
He wrote, "One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in
nature." To me this implies that the author believes a person's opinions
regarding origins *philosophically* precede any scientific discussion.
I could make little sense of his assertion, except to view as a
restatement of the Creationist canard that all beliefs about origins rest
on something eqivalent to Christian faith.
It's part of the Philip Johnson strategy to claim that everything is based
in "philosophy." Something he does so he can discard the need for actual
evidence...
Sorry, I'm reading in small doses rather than in context these days, as
the prefrontal lobe storage gets fragmented.
Leibniz wrote that words like "species" were made by preliterate people
before science, and so we ought not to use them unless we can give them
a scientific meaning. I was thinking along those lines. Leibniz also
thought, in distinction to Locke, that this could be done, too...
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Honest debate needed on creationism, evolution |
11 Jul 2004 05:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:12:54 +0000 in episode
<lfb3f0hho92774tif6jpmb5nt5177j5sq4@4ax.com> we saw our hero Jason
Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
Let's be
honest about the debate
Tell him "you go first."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
In the News: UC Riverside Lecture Series Focuses on Debate Between Evolution and Creationism
In the News: DODDS parents, teachers debate evolution vs. creationism
Op-Ed: Evolution and creationism and the environment
Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism
Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism
Letter to the Editor: Evolution is fact, creationism isn't
What do you think? Creationism and Evolution
Evolution vs, Creationism: Depressing poll
| Discovery Institute: Local School Board Adopts Improved Policy Endorsing the Teaching of Evolution, Not Creationism
Columnist: Creationism vs. Evolution: Learn from your ancestors
Alabama: State Legislature Debates Evolution, Creationism
Re: Public schools can teach pros, cons of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.
Re: Public schools can teach pros, cons of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.
Creationism & Evolution Are BOTH WRONG
Re: Public schools can teach pros, cons of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.
|
|
|
