| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2004 10:03:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0406060142.74c5e4bb@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0406050703.c5ebda5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped to avoid bloat>
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
Yes, but not in science classes!
And what's more, if you read the quotation you supplied he also
advocates teaching various creation myths.
Including the molecules-to-man totally apart from the input of any
intelligence whatsoever creation myth. Yes, I noticed that, too.
The relevant part of the quotation you provided is
"I understand that there are Hindus who
believe that the world was created in a cosmic butter churn
and Nigerian peoples who believe that the world was created
by God from the excrement of ants. Surely these stories
have as much right to equal time as the Judeo-Christian myth
of Adam and Eve.
"
Where does he suggest
1) that 'molecules-to-man' is a myth?
Dawkins doesn't suggest that that story is a myth. I do.
2) that it should be taught on the same basis as cosmic butter churn
or any other myth?
I'm not sure what you mean by [RF]"on the same basis as."
Dawkins stated that within the context of his hypothetical
[Dawkins]"religious education classes," [Dawkins]"The children would
look at the spellbinding wonders of the living kingdoms and would
consider Darwinism alongside the creationist alternatives and make up
their own minds."
You have a problem of projecting your assumptions so that you read
them into texts which simply don't include them, Dave.
Are you seriously suggesting that Dawkins thinks that the evolutionary
theory should be taught as a myth alongside a variety of creation
theories?
Dawkins doesn't suggest that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is a myth.
I do.
Surely you're not that stupid.
I know I can be. And have been. And will be.
I might even be so stupid as to accept the Darwinian creation myth.
<more snipped>
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
06 Jun 2004 11:00:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:03:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dawkins doesn't suggest that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is a myth.
I do.
Isn't that being a little dishonest, David, as you yourself admit that
evolution happened? What is the purpose of this? Are you trying to be a
devil's advocate?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
08 Jun 2004 07:15:56 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncc7q3p.2hs.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:03:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dawkins doesn't suggest that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is a myth.
I do.
Isn't that being a little dishonest, David, as you yourself admit that
evolution happened?
I concede that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is vague; I should have
instead used my own words. I will rephrase:
The molecules-to-man totally apart from the input of any intelligence
whatsoever story is a creation/origins fable/myth.
What is the purpose of this? Are you trying to be a
devil's advocate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
08 Jun 2004 02:57:26 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0406080416.66a2e35b@posting.google.com>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncc7q3p.2hs.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:03:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
Dawkins doesn't suggest that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is a myth.
I do.
Isn't that being a little dishonest, David, as you yourself admit that
evolution happened?
I concede that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is vague; I should have
instead used my own words. I will rephrase:
The molecules-to-man totally apart from the input of any intelligence
whatsoever story is a creation/origins fable/myth.
And what grounds do you have for asserting this?
The involvement of an intelligence in the process moves it outside the
boundaries of the scientfic process. Why would we all abandon 400
years of development of the scientific process on the basis of your
assertion?
What is the purpose of this? Are you trying to be a
devil's advocate?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
08 Jun 2004 12:15:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:15:56 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncc7q3p.2hs.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:03:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dawkins doesn't suggest that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is a myth.
I do.
Isn't that being a little dishonest, David, as you yourself admit that
evolution happened?
I concede that [RF]"the evolutionary theory" is vague; I should have
instead used my own words. I will rephrase:
The molecules-to-man totally apart from the input of any intelligence
whatsoever story is a creation/origins fable/myth.
And yet, when asked to provide evidence of intelligence, you merely start
pointing us at self-referential posts. Provide some evidence that
intelligence is involved, David.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Mathers" |
|
| Title: Re: Book reviews - evolution vs creationism |
07 Jun 2004 11:25:54 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0406060142.74c5e4bb@posting.google.com>...
Surely you're not that stupid.
I know I can be. And have been. And will be.
I might even be so stupid as to accept the Darwinian creation myth.
How you conceptualize the Darwinian myth is orthogonal to the practice
and future of the biologically related sciences. Don Quixote would be
proud of you. All your thousands of detailed posts have not had and
will not have any effect on evolutionary theory. As emotionally
satisfying as these posts must be for you, you don't look stupid but
rather delusional. The failure of all your posts is clear evidence for
the problem being in your religiously held emotional convictions and not
in the theory of evolution.
<more snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
