Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its
British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory
around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will
prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll
conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the
theory of evolution.
Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a
Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and
denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose
legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced
Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning
and genetic engineering", the site stated.
The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a
typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious
lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".
Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was
astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of
Species was published.
"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.
"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere
else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is
about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all
year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up."
"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in
America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six
days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in
America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in
the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules."
"Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to
make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn't saying 'kill
all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for
people."
Creation was developed by BBC Films and the UK Film Council, and stars
Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's deeply
religious wife, Emma. It is based on the book, Annie's Box, by
Darwin's great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, and portrays the
naturalist as a family man tormented by the death in 1851 of Annie,
his favourite child. She is played in the film by 10-year-old newcomer
Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West.
Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said:
"It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned
the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."
Mr Thomas, whose previous films include The Last Emperor and Merry
Christmas Mr Lawrence, said he hoped the reviews would help to secure
a distributor. In the UK, special screenings have been set up for
Christian groups.
Derek Janssen
> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> year-old daughter, Annie.
Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
other "Science!" characters in general.
Derek Janssen (mean, you'd think, like, Einstein would get a neurotic
presumed-membership mention once in a while)
eja...@verizon.net
Rich
<classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> year-old daughter, Annie.
When there was a trial over his book, I wonder why this wasn't
mentioned as being a motive behind it? I'm no Creationalist, but in a
real court, it would come up.
Rich
news:56d34f6f-c778-42b6...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> year-old daughter, Annie.
>
I'm not a Creationalist, but in a court of law, such a state could be
considered grounds for questioning Darwin's conclusions.
nick
> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>
> > Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> > faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> > as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> > year-old daughter, Annie.
>
> Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
> Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
> other "Science!" characters in general.
>
typical movie character who loses his faith when his kid dies.
(didn't that happen to Nicholas Cage in Knowing, or was that his wife,
or am I thinking of Mel Gibson in Signs? Cinematic history is full of
people who lose their faith the minute they get hit with tragedy.).
"Darwin’s family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his
father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding
school were Church of England.[15] When going to Cambridge to become
an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
[20] He learnt John Herschel's science which, like William Paley’s
natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than
miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[22][23]
On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the
Bible as an authority on morality.[144] He looked for "centres of
creation" to explain distribution,[43] and related the antlion found
near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".[45]
By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered
why all religions should not be equally valid.[144] In the next few
years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of
species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this
with Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and
questioning.[78] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated
evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws
which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection
produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[145]
and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain
and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as
live food for its eggs.[122] He still viewed organisms as perfectly
adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views.
Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin
still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver."
moviePig
So, Darwin decided that making an omelette requires breaking eggs, and
kicked God upstairs. Still, I can't help but wonder if CREATION (the
movie, anyway) might actually be a bit dull (...Jennifer Connelly
notwithstanding). I base such (outright) speculation on my theory of
Natural Selection, which suggests (hopefully) that U.S. fundies
nowadays *don't* wield sufficient power to suppress a truly enjoyable
flick (...any more than they can wipe out, say, cocaine) ...and that
this producer is mostly just trying the time-honored and evolutionary
principle of Survival of the Loudest...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
nick
famously wouldn't show pro-evolution science documentaries. You
can't under-estimate the ferocity of the anti-evolution crowd in the
US. Those crazy tea party people on the news yesterday, they'll add
evolution to their list of grievances against the modern world in a
heartbeat.
But with Creation, didn't Paul Bettany already work this territory in
Master and Commander?
moviePig
Righteous ferocity, yes. But I figure it's able to stifle only
art ...not entertainment.
Yeah, iirc, Bettany was stomping around the Galapagos in M&C (a well
regarded but still underrated flick, imo). Probably segued into this
role, one way and another...
trotsky
> "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:56d34f6f-c778-42b6...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
>> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
>> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
>> year-old daughter, Annie.
>>
>
> I'm not a Creationalist,
What?
trotsky
> On Sep 13, 9:38 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 9:28 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 8:41 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 13, 1:48 am, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>>>>>> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
>>>>>> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
>>>>>> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
>>>>>> year-old daughter, Annie.
>>>>> Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
>>>>> Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
>>>>> other "Science!" characters in general.
>>>> A quick glance at Wikipedia shows a more complex Darwin than the
>>>> typical movie character who loses his faith when his kid dies.
>>>> (didn't that happen to Nicholas Cage in Knowing, or was that his wife,
>>>> or am I thinking of Mel Gibson in Signs? Cinematic history is full of
>>>> people who lose their faith the minute they get hit with tragedy.).
>>>> father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding
>>>> school were Church of England.[15] When going to Cambridge to become
>>>> an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
That movie sucked ass. And I think it got critical acclaim. LOL.
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 9:38 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 9:28 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 13, 8:41 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 13, 1:48 am, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
> >>>>>> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> >>>>>> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> >>>>>> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> >>>>>> year-old daughter, Annie.
> >>>>> Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
> >>>>> Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
> >>>>> other "Science!" characters in general.
> >>>> A quick glance at Wikipedia shows a more complex Darwin than the
> >>>> typical movie character who loses his faith when his kid dies.
> >>>> (didn't that happen to Nicholas Cage in Knowing, or was that his wife,
> >>>> or am I thinking of Mel Gibson in Signs? Cinematic history is full of
> >>>> people who lose their faith the minute they get hit with tragedy.).
> >>>> father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding
> >>>> school were Church of England.[15] When going to Cambridge to become
> >>>> an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
Your mileage varies, then. (Also, your odometer's broken.) But yes,
I said it got critical acclaim (...which I thought it was even better
than).
tomcervo
counterpointing him with the devout Captain Beaufort. But that was
before the only barrier between society and the abyss was screaming
fanatics with enough literacy to read the Bible and not enough to
think about it.
Tom
The trial to which you refer is the Scopes Monkey Trial, right?
By 'real court,' do you mean a Canadian court? It was, of course,
tried in a real American court.
How do you know Darwin's loss of faith was not a factor in the trial?
If it wasn't, perhaps the judge in this unreal court, deemed it
irrelevant.
Please share your scholarship of the Scopes trial with the rest of us.
Tom
trotsky
> On Sep 13, 10:11 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 9:38 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 13, 9:28 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 13, 8:41 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 13, 1:48 am, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>>>>>>>> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
>>>>>>>> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
>>>>>>>> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
>>>>>>>> year-old daughter, Annie.
>>>>>>> Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
>>>>>>> Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
>>>>>>> other "Science!" characters in general.
>>>>>> A quick glance at Wikipedia shows a more complex Darwin than the
>>>>>> typical movie character who loses his faith when his kid dies.
>>>>>> (didn't that happen to Nicholas Cage in Knowing, or was that his wife,
>>>>>> or am I thinking of Mel Gibson in Signs? Cinematic history is full of
>>>>>> people who lose their faith the minute they get hit with tragedy.).
>>>>>> father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding
>>>>>> school were Church of England.[15] When going to Cambridge to become
>>>>>> an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
My feeling is that Russell Crowe has made a bunch of high profile movies
that vary from mediocre to appallingly bad. The best thing I can say
about M&C is that it wasn't as awful as "A Beautiful Mind". If I
remember correctly by biggest issue with the movie was that it depicted
a relationship between two men that was way, way, way too intimate. Not
that there's anything wrong with guys wanting to be latent homosexuals,
of course.
Arthur
> My feeling is that Russell Crowe has made a bunch of high profile movies
> that vary from mediocre to appallingly bad. The best thing I can say
> about M&C is that it wasn't as awful as "A Beautiful Mind".
Jennifer Connelly didn't save that movie either. Perhaps she should
stop playing the wives of brilliant people.
Invid Fan
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Naturally, which is why they have been questioned and tested for over a
century. He was wrong about some things, but the general idea holds up.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
calvin
of which have been politicized, and both think
they represent settled Truth.
Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
appeals to me because it leaves the question
open, which conforms to our current state of
knowledge.
moviePig
> moviePig wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 10:11 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> moviePig wrote:
> >>> On Sep 13, 9:38 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 13, 9:28 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 13, 8:41 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sep 13, 1:48 am, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> >>>>>>>> faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> >>>>>>>> as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> >>>>>>>> year-old daughter, Annie.
> >>>>>>> Huh...So even Darwin was Type A Athie [Dead Kid].
> >>>>>>> Figures--Wondered why they Athies all crowded around him instead of
> >>>>>>> other "Science!" characters in general.
> >>>>>> A quick glance at Wikipedia shows a more complex Darwin than the
> >>>>>> typical movie character who loses his faith when his kid dies.
> >>>>>> (didn't that happen to Nicholas Cage in Knowing, or was that his wife,
> >>>>>> or am I thinking of Mel Gibson in Signs? Cinematic history is full of
> >>>>>> people who lose their faith the minute they get hit with tragedy.).
> >>>>>> father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding
> >>>>>> school were Church of England.[15] When going to Cambridge to become
> >>>>>> an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.
(Wrapping my head around the concept of "wanting to be a latent
homosexual" will be my mental gymnastics for today...) Well, fwiw,
Crowe wasn't M&C's highlight for me. The only scene I even half-
remember of his reminded me of Robert Shaw's "old-salt raconteur"
scene in JAWS. Rather, I was taken with Peter Weir's reconstruction
of the feel of daily life aboard one of those now-incomprehensibly
oppressive voyages. Iirc, I called it a terrific time-travel movie...
nick
have you ever read William Hope Hodgson's "The Ghost Pirates"? I'm
about ready to start reading it after seeing it listed as one of the
21 all-time horror classics. I hadn't heard of it, but a story about
ghost pirates taking over a ship? It can't miss.
calvin
> a relationship between two men that was way, way, way too intimate. Not
> that there's anything wrong with guys wanting to be latent homosexuals,
> of course.
Aside from your usual homophobia (which your liberal friends
never call you on), logically, how can a relationship be
"way, way, way too intimate", and yet "not ... anything wrong
with" it?
I looked at the IMDb, but can't tell who it was that Crowe
supposedly had the (latent) hots for, which I failed to notice
when watching the DVD five years ago.
trotsky
> On Sep 13, 12:48 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> ... it [M&C] depicted
>> a relationship between two men that was way, way, way too intimate. Not
>> that there's anything wrong with guys wanting to be latent homosexuals,
>> of course.
>
> Aside from your usual homophobia (which your liberal friends
> never call you on), logically, how can a relationship be
> "way, way, way too intimate", and yet "not ... anything wrong
> with" it?
The latter part was a "Seinfeld" reference, calvin.
> I looked at the IMDb, but can't tell who it was that Crowe
> supposedly had the (latent) hots for, which I failed to notice
> when watching the DVD five years ago.
"Here is your throat back, thanks for the loan".
moviePig
Never heard of it ...and unfortunately my library doesn't carry it.
Coincidentally, I recently read 'The Horror Hall of Fame' short-story
anthology, which seems of about that same early 20th century vintage.
But its really good stories were classics I'd knew too well... and
nearly all required a-priori regression to a spookier era...
Rich
You've got to admit, the guy who played the religious ship's captain
was a great actor.
"THE BOOK OF GENESIS!"
Rich
> On Sep 13, 2:08 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 1:40 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>
> > <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between
> > > faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him
> > > as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-
> > > year-old daughter, Annie.
>
> > When there was a trial over his book, I wonder why this wasn't
> > mentioned as being a motive behind it? I'm no Creationalist, but in a
> > real court, it would come up.
>
> The trial to which you refer is the Scopes Monkey Trial, right?
>
> By 'real court,' do you mean a Canadian court? It was, of course,
> tried in a real American court.
No moron. The trial Darwin's work was put on after it was published.
The stupid geocentric Americans never cease to amaze me.
> How do you know Darwin's loss of faith was not a factor in the trial?
> If it wasn't, perhaps the judge in this unreal court, deemed it
> irrelevant.
>
> Please share your scholarship of the Scopes trial with the rest of us.
The trial was just, the guy did break the law, despite the fact the
law was stupid.
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 12:48 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> ... it [M&C] depicted
> >> a relationship between two men that was way, way, way too intimate. Not
> >> that there's anything wrong with guys wanting to be latent homosexuals,
> >> of course.
>
> > Aside from your usual homophobia (which your liberal friends
> > never call you on), logically, how can a relationship be
> > "way, way, way too intimate", and yet "not ... anything wrong
> > with" it?
>
> The latter part was a "Seinfeld" reference, calvin.
I'm aware of that, but the Seinfeld quote is not usually
preceded by something like "way, way, way too intimate".
berk
Bruce Banner, the guy from 'Dark City'* ; you might be on to something
here...
berk
*not that his genius was _cerebral_.
berk
> Rich wrote:
> > I'm not a Creationalist,
>
> What?
A Citizen of Creational. natch.
berk
Padmar Mushkin
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>I'm neither a Creationist nor a Darwinian, both
>of which have been politicized, and both think
>they represent settled Truth.
It's creationists who politicized the issue. Scientists are happy to
continue their work out of the public eye for the most part. And
evolution is not "settled Truth", but it is one of the most successful
and well supported theories in the history of science. And don't say
"it's still just a theory". Learn what theory means in science.
>Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
>science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
>appeals to me because it leaves the question
>open, which conforms to our current state of
>knowledge.
Google "cdesign proponentsists", then try to say with a straight face
that intelligent design is not creationism with a new name.
Invid Fan
<x@y.z> wrote:
Which is the problem. ID certainly is an idea that's worth looking
into, but not only doesn't the evidence now support it but its
proponents don't seem to take the idea seriously. If they think they've
proven the theory, then where's the research that takes that knowledge
and goes beyond it? If humans were engineered, then we can be reverse
engineered and that I would think would open lots of paths of research.
moviePig
> In article <gdksa5h07mqpg12t5vl6nfmv0ahbth7...@4ax.com>, Padmar Mushkin
>
> <x...@y.z> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> > <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
> > >science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
> > >appeals to me because it leaves the question
> > >open, which conforms to our current state of
> > >knowledge.
>
> > Google "cdesign proponentsists", then try to say with a straight face
> > that intelligent design is not creationism with a new name.
>
> Which is the problem. ID certainly is an idea that's worth looking
> into, but not only doesn't the evidence now support it but its
> proponents don't seem to take the idea seriously. If they think they've
> proven the theory, then where's the research that takes that knowledge
> and goes beyond it? If humans were engineered, then we can be reverse
> engineered and that I would think would open lots of paths of research.
On another level, though, ID is actually the poster-child of ideas
*not* worth looking into. I.e., given that a fool can (and will) ask
more questions than a wise man can answer, the wise man's triage might
well begin by discarding the questions that arise from such a plainly
external agenda as ID does. (And, of course, don't suppose that
answering any such question will even slightly dent its underlying
agenda...)
calvin
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> > <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
> > >science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
> > >appeals to me because it leaves the question
> > >open, which conforms to our current state of
> > >knowledge.
>
> > Google "cdesign proponentsists", then try to say with a straight face
> > that intelligent design is not creationism with a new name.
For some it may be, but not for everyone who finds it interesting.
> Which is the problem. ID certainly is an idea that's worth looking
> into, but not only doesn't the evidence now support it but its
> proponents don't seem to take the idea seriously. If they think they've
> proven the theory, then where's the research that takes that knowledge
> and goes beyond it? If humans were engineered, then we can be reverse
> engineered and that I would think would open lots of paths of research.
There's nothing settled about intelligent design. It is philosophical
inquiry, which should never end. No one thinks it is a proven
theory. That is a straw man. People who lump intelligent design
with creationism miss the point of ID entirely.
calvin
There is no underlying agenda to intelligent design, the
way I look at it. Whether others have agenda is for you
to speak to *them* about. I look at it, as I've told you
many times, as philosophic inquiry, which is obviously
legitimate. It is neither science nor religion. You have your
atheist agenda, and fundies have their religious agenda,
but I have no agenda except as advocate of intellectual
freedom to inquire and investigate without harrassment
from either of your houses.
TomS
<140920091110358266%in...@loclanet.com>, Invid Fan stated..."
>
>In article <gdksa5h07mqpg12t5...@4ax.com>, Padmar Mushkin
><x@y.z> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> >Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
>> >science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
>> >appeals to me because it leaves the question
>> >open, which conforms to our current state of
>> >knowledge.
>> Google "cdesign proponentsists", then try to say with a straight face
>> that intelligent design is not creationism with a new name.
>Which is the problem. ID certainly is an idea that's worth looking
>into, but not only doesn't the evidence now support it but its
>proponents don't seem to take the idea seriously. If they think they've
>proven the theory, then where's the research that takes that knowledge
>and goes beyond it? If humans were engineered, then we can be reverse
>engineered and that I would think would open lots of paths of research.
ISTM that the complaint that ID is not creationism is mostly based
on identifying creationism with *young*earth* creationism, or Biblical
"literalism". While ID does not *reject* support from that segment of
their audience, it makes a point of staying apart from any substantive
statements, such as saying *when* the "design(s)" took place.
ID also does not show any interest in developing an answer to *who*
the designer(s) might have been, or anything else about the design
(such as *where*, *how*, or *why*, or even *what* "intelligent design"
might be like, or what sorts of things result from it, or what sorts
of things do *not*).
In brief, if someone would be interested in "looking into" ID, there
is no hint as to how to go about that. Once one accepts the point
that something or other about evolution is amiss, and therefore there
must have been a design somewhere, somehow involved in the history
of life, that's the end of it.
For example, while it seems fair enough to me to follow up on your
suggestion that ID means that "humankind" was "engineered", I'd bet
that they'd object to that language. And I'd bet that they'd even
more vigorously object into doing any "reverse designing". It would
be "interesting" to hear what they'd say about investigating the
reasons for the human body being designed so close to the bodies of
chimps and other apes in the "tree of life".
And that is still far short of looking for the "evidence".
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail current jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the current jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Ernest Major
<ab4998c7-74ee-41bf...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
fellow travellers, and is a political movement for the promotion of
creationism. If you're referring to something else it would be clearer
if you didn't appropriate their label.
BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
exactly it is that you are referring to.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<17d3489e-7fd9-4599...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
a research program, but its proponents preferred it to be a political
movement.
We are left uncertain of what you are a supporter of - especially as
intelligent design makes factual claims about the nature of the world,
and would seem to fall within the scope of science, not philosophy.
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
>
> There is no underlying agenda to intelligent design, the
> way I look at it.
even the people who advocate ID admit it has an agenda.
Whether others have agenda is for you
> to speak to *them* about. I look at it, as I've told you
> many times, as philosophic inquiry, which is obviously
> legitimate.
why is an attempt to distort logic and reason in favor of religious
fundamentalism 'legit'?
>It is neither science nor religion.
even its adherents admit it's religious. mike behe has admitted the
'designer' is jesus
You have your
> atheist agenda, and fundies have their religious agenda,
> but I have no agenda except as advocate of intellectual
> freedom to inquire and investigate without harrassment
> from either of your houses.-
there's a difference between being open minded and being gullible.
Invid Fan
<ab4998c7-74ee-41bf...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
I look at if from the point that we humans are a generation or three
away from being able to design life and put it on another planet or
moon (say, Europa), Thus, the idea it has already happened is at least
worth looking into and every time a new field of inquiry opens up it's
worth giving the idea a quick test. However, to say inquiry into it
should never end is to say the idea isn't science... which I think it
in fact is. Saying humans were designed is no different then saying the
Earth was designed, and at some point the evidence is just going to
rule out that possibility (unless you assume the designers were
intentionally trying to trick us, at which point you just have to
decide to go along with what they want you to think and ignore the
design option)
wf3h
of research.
>
> There's nothing settled about intelligent design. It is philosophical
> inquiry, which should never end. No one thinks it is a proven
> theory. That is a straw man. People who lump intelligent design
> with creationism miss the point of ID entirely.
so you say.
go ahead and prove you're right. we'll wait\
Friar Broccoli
In your view are ID and the Theory of Evolution compatible?
In other words, do you think God could have used evolution as
His means designing intelligently?
TomS
<ab4998c7-74ee-41bf...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, calvin
stated..."
A "philosophical inquiry", ISTM, to be worthy of that name, ought
to engage in *inquiry*.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any inquiry
carried on in the name of "intelligent design".
That is to say, some activity where the results were not assured
from the very beginning.
Just out of curiosity, has any ID advocate ever come up with a
statement like, "such-and-such has *not* been established as a sound
argument for ID"? That's what I would expect from - at least - the
early stages of a theory. And ID is even further - if possible -
from having the hallmarks of a mature theory.
The question is *not* whether ID is a "proven theory". The question
is whether it is a "theory". And I'm not restricting that to
*scientific* theories only. I recognize that there are historical
theories ("what were the causes of WWI?") and legal theories ("is
this a violation of the law?") and artistic theories ("why does the
Mona Lisa have that smile?") and sports theories ("why is the double
steal not tried more often?").
A theory should be able to point to something-or-other and say that
*this* is more likely, given the theory, than some other state of
affairs. Is there something about ID that tells us why or how humans
have eyes like chimps, and that they don't have eyes quite so much
like octopuses (not to mention potatoes)? When and where did that
state of affairs come about, humans having eyes like chimps? What
were things like before humans, chimps, and octopuses had their
respective kinds of eyes?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
AZ Nomad
>In your view are ID and the Theory of Evolution compatible?
>In other words, do you think God could have used evolution as
>His means designing intelligently?
To bad this proposed designer didn't put more inteligence into his adherents.
calvin
> ...
> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
> exactly it is that you are referring to.
To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
To me, that leaves Darwinism as the scientific grinding stone
against which Intelligent Design, the philosophic inquiry, may
most productively examine the question, stated above, for
which it seeks avenues to an answer.
Ernest Major
<d9fc414d-0ff4-4046...@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 12:11�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ...
>> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
>> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
>> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>
>To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
>philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
>of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
different meaning.
>
>To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
>simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
>free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
Then I suggest that you adopt another term.
>
>To me, that leaves Darwinism as the scientific grinding stone
>against which Intelligent Design, the philosophic inquiry, may
>most productively examine the question, stated above, for
>which it seeks avenues to an answer.
--
alias Ernest Major
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
> >On Sep 14, 12:11 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
> >> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
> >> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>
> >To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
> >philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
> >of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>
> I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
> inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
> misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
> different meaning.
We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
That, I believe (unless Darwinism is truly infallible), is as dogmatic
as fundamentalist Creationism. I want to challenge Darwinism's
orthodoxy without offering an absurdity like Creationism as
an alternative. I have no alternative to Darwinism, other than
the vague possibility of 'intelligence' somewhere behind the
scenes.
> >To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
> >simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
> >free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>
> Then I suggest that you adopt another term.
Why, because you equate Intelligent Design with Creationism?
I don't, and neither do any adherents of ID that I know of.
I might add a question mark, and call it 'Intelligent Design?'
That's what both Darwinists and Creationists should do too.
If they will, I will.
TomS
<iy5cnjSt...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>
>In message
><d9fc414d-0ff4-4046...@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>>On Sep 14, 12:11�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
>>> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
>>> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>>
>>To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
>>philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
>>of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>
>I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
>inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
>misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
>different meaning.
>>
>>To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
>>simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
>>free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>
>Then I suggest that you adopt another term.
I agree with Ernest. Your term is needlessly confusing, as it has
nothing to do with either intelligence or with design or with
"Intelligent Design" in its general, anti-evolutionary, sense.
>>
>>To me, that leaves Darwinism as the scientific grinding stone
>>against which Intelligent Design, the philosophic inquiry, may
>>most productively examine the question, stated above, for
>>which it seeks avenues to an answer.
--
AZ Nomad
>We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
from you. Get over it.
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
> >that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
>
> We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
> from you. Get over it.
I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
liberal and PC universities.
Hatunen
"Intelligent design" must, perforce, presume a designer. Any
research carries with it a presumption of its own result. Would
that it wre only philosphical enquiry.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Ernest Major
<12048978-82c2-4569...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>On Sep 14, 1:06�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
>> >On Sep 14, 12:11�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
>> >> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
>> >> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>>
>> >To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
>> >philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
>> >of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>>
>> I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
>> inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
>> misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
>> different meaning.
>
>We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
You're posting using an address on an American ISP. You'll pardon me if
I find the idea that America is an oppressively atheistic society
laughable. It would be nearer the mark to describe America as
oppressively anti-atheistic.
The remainder of your sentence is no more accurate. Firstly America is a
society notoriously sceptical of the factuality of evolution - which can
hardly be described as one that proclaims that Darwinism is the last
word on the subject of evolution. Secondly Darwinism is an ill-defined
term, which would weigh against proclaiming it the last word on the
subject of evolution. Thirdly evolutionary biologists know full well
that that the current state of the field is not the last word on the
subject - it is widely expected that the burgeoning field of evo-devo
will provide new insights.
The implication that evolution is atheistic is also false. Evolutionary
biology, like all sciences, is silent on the existence of God.
>That, I believe (unless Darwinism is truly infallible), is as dogmatic
>as fundamentalist Creationism.
It's a pity that it's a strawman, a false description of both America
and evolutionary biology. Your beliefs about imaginary societies are
irrelevant.
> I want to challenge Darwinism's
>orthodoxy without offering an absurdity like Creationism as
>an alternative. I have no alternative to Darwinism, other than
>the vague possibility of 'intelligence' somewhere behind the
>scenes.
>
>> >To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
>> >simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
>> >free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>>
>> Then I suggest that you adopt another term.
>
>Why, because you equate Intelligent Design with Creationism?
No, because the Discovery Institute and its fellow travellers use
Intelligent Design as a mask for creationism. As I said earlier
Intelligent Design could have been a research program - one that I would
expect to be futile, but I wouldn't object to it if it was honestly
carried out - but its proponents preferred it to be a political
movement.
>I don't, and neither do any adherents of ID that I know of.
Are you unaware of the authors of "Pandas and People", the Intelligent
Design text book? That was written as a creationist book, and repackaged
as an Intelligent Design book, in the forlorn hope of performing and end
run round the 1st Amendment prohibition of an establishment of religion.
They even left "transitional fossils" in the intermediate drafts - hence
the references people make to "cdesign proponentists".
Or you could look at its adherents in this group. Ray Martinez says that
he is an old-earth, young-life creationist, rejecting any evolution
whatsoever (we suspect that he may be a theistic evolutionistic with an
allergy to the word) and wraps himself in the mantle of Intelligent
Design. Tony Pagano, is if I understand correctly a young earth
creationist, and attempts to defend Intelligent Design - in particular
the works of Behe and Dembski.
Maybe you don't equate Intelligent Design with creationism, but
creationists do - the boat sailed long ago, and you have little hope of
successfully abducting the term.
>I might add a question mark, and call it 'Intelligent Design?'
>That's what both Darwinists and Creationists should do too.
>If they will, I will.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
calvin
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 12:11 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
> >> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
> >> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>
> >To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
> >philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
> >of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>
> >To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
> >simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
> >free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>
> >To me, that leaves Darwinism as the scientific grinding stone
> >against which Intelligent Design, the philosophic inquiry, may
> >most productively examine the question, stated above, for
> >which it seeks avenues to an answer.
>
> "Intelligent design" must, perforce, presume a designer. Any
> research carries with it a presumption of its own result. Would
> that it wre only philosphical enquiry.
No, the research would seek to find out if there is a
designer (or designers) or not. It also would entertain
Eastern viewpoints as possible avenues of approach.
Almost anything *except* Creationism would be on
the table.
You and those like you seem to be so certain that
ID is the same as Creationism than you can't look at
it objectively.
Hatunen
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 1:06 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
>> >On Sep 14, 12:11 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
>> >> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
>> >> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>>
>> >To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
>> >philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
>> >of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>>
>> I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
>> inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
>> misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
>> different meaning.
>
>We live in an oppressively atheistic society,
you apparently do not live in the USA where it is quite clear
from polls that the majority of Americans claim to be religious
and scarcely any claim to be atheist. Why do you think
politicians would never admit to being an atheist. In face, the
oppression seems to run the other way.
>which proclaims
>that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
Nonsense. but at this time it is the one theory best supported by
the research.
>That, I believe (unless Darwinism is truly infallible), is as dogmatic
>as fundamentalist Creationism.
Rubbish. Present some convincing evidence that evolution by
natural selection is is an invalid explanation of the facts and
science will head that wa
>I want to challenge Darwinism's
>orthodoxy without offering an absurdity like Creationism as
>an alternative. I have no alternative to Darwinism, other than
>the vague possibility of 'intelligence' somewhere behind the
>scenes.
Well. There you have it. You feel that there must be a designer.
instead of screeds, prove it.
>> >To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
>> >simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
>> >free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>>
>> Then I suggest that you adopt another term.
>
>Why, because you equate Intelligent Design with Creationism?
Some promulgators of intelligent design have linked it to
Creationism; why shouldn't the rest of us?
In Kitzmiller v Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District the
judge 's opinion says,
"Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the
designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell
biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been
proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert
witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession
that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature
and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’
rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the
designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this
question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at
7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that
despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes
ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading
ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their
argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of
Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, is the author of the book
Creationism’s Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively
chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for
her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which
were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID
leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical, and cultural
content."
And, further on,
"ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously
explained and as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96
(Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). ID takes a natural
phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural
explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107
(Pennock)). Further support for the conclusion that ID is
predicated on supernatural causation is found in the ID reference
book to which ninth grade biology students are directed, Pandas.
Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it
does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various
forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design
means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already
intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks,
and wings, etc. P-11 at 99-100 (emphasis added).
"Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve
naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by
a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. [note the word
'created'] Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this
point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that
the designer is a natural entity”); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (“. . .
ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism .
. .”); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of
a supernatural designer, including deities).
"It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors
that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science
to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the
Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly
recognized as an inherently religious concept ..."
>I don't, and neither do any adherents of ID that I know of.
>I might add a question mark, and call it 'Intelligent Design?'
>That's what both Darwinists and Creationists should do too.
>If they will, I will.
Are you looking for evidence that all critters were created in
their current mode?
The Kitzmiller case is a good read, presenting both sides of the
argument; the fact that the ruling goes against Creationism and
ID will probably keep it from being read.
That is to say, Intellignet Design has had its day in court and
defense's argument that it is not religious in nature was found
wanting.
AZ Nomad
>On Sep 14, 1:42?pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>> >that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
>>
>> We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
>I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
>to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
>orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
>liberal and PC universities.
Bullshit. It is only in use because it works, unlike your puerile fairy
tales. If you don't like it, I suggest you tear up your health
insurance card and employ only prayer and an exhorcist from now on.
Let us know how well prayer works when you have a raging case of
appendicitus.
moviePig
Then by all means open your mind, heart, and pocketbook ...and
"investigate" ID to within an fairy's eyelash of its fantasy life.
And, while you're at it, have a go, too, at the well-known theory that
Earth is borne by four elephants astride tortoises. (Btw, *my*
atheist agenda is that I'd *love* for there to be Intelligent Design.
Unfortunately, as a sentient being, I just can't get there
from ...well ...anywhere.)
wf3h
> On Sep 14, 12:11 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
> > philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
> > exactly it is that you are referring to.
>
> To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
> philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
> of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
ID is not a question. it's a proposed answer, based on ignorance and
religion. so right away, your definition makes no sense.
e
>
> To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
> simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
> free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
since ID is based on creationism, as the 'kitzmiller' cased showed in
dover, PA, where are you getting this info?
wf3h
> On Sep 14, 1:06 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > I realise that etymology doesn't necessarily constrain meaning, but
> > inventing that neologism for that definition would be foolishly
> > misleading even if the term was not already in current use with a
> > different meaning.
>
> We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
> that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
which is a statement typical of a paranoid creationist. first, there
are so few atheists in america they can be counted on the 6th finger
of either hand. 2nd they are the most hated group in america, hated
more than muslims or gays
so other than rectal speculations, where you getting your info?
wf3h
IOW science is oppressive. interesting view. for 2000 years religion
led to ignorance and war.
science, in the view of those who support ignorance, is 'oppressive'.
talk about 1984
wf3h
which is, of course, nonsense spewed forth by someone who's never
spent a day in a lab.
how does one 'seek to find out if there's a designer'? you seem to
think this is a new question. it's not. it's the oldest question
humans have asked and so far all the answers keep coming up that
there's no way to tell (at best), or that there's no designer.
and since eastern viewpoints (sic) are older than christianity, and
have also yielded nothing, why stick with failure? are you
creationists so in love with being losers that you would prefer
ignorance to be enshrined as a human value?
>
> You and those like you seem to be so certain that
> ID is the same as Creationism than you can't look at
> it objectively.-
and you seem to be unable to handle the evidence showing that ID is
creationism in drag.
Ernest Major
<166201fb-eb6f-4701...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 2:52�pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 14, 12:11�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> BTW, so far you've spent several posts claiming that ID is legitimate
>> >> philosophical inquiry, but you seem to have neglected to state what
>> >> exactly it is that you are referring to.
>>
>> >To me, Intelligent Design is simply looking into the question,
>> >philosophically, of how the current state of mankind, in terms
>> >of its physical and mental development, has been reached.
>>
>> >To me, Intelligent Design rejects Creationism out of hand, as
>> >simply superstitious nonsense, though others should be
>> >free to examine that theory to their hearts' content.
>>
>> >To me, that leaves Darwinism as the scientific grinding stone
>> >against which Intelligent Design, the philosophic inquiry, may
>> >most productively examine the question, stated above, for
>> >which it seeks avenues to an answer.
>>
>> "Intelligent design" must, perforce, presume a designer. Any
>> research carries with it a presumption of its own result. Would
>> that it wre only philosphical enquiry.
>
>No, the research would seek to find out if there is a
>designer (or designers) or not.
That would a good reason for you not to try to steal the term
Intelligent Design from the creationists. If your program of inquiry
concedes that there may not be a designer, or that the designer may be
unintelligent, then calling it Intelligent Design is liable to mislead
readers at to its content.
> It also would entertain
>Eastern viewpoints as possible avenues of approach.
>Almost anything *except* Creationism would be on
>the table.
One wonders why, if you're being so eclectic and open-minded,
Creationism is off the table.
>
>You and those like you seem to be so certain that
>ID is the same as Creationism than you can't look at
>it objectively.
>
To repeat, Intelligent Design didn't have to be a mask for Creationism,
but the Discovery Institute and their fellow travellers made it so. It
ill becomes you to accuse others of a lack of objectivity because they
recognise how the term Intelligent Design is used in common discourse.
--
alias Ernest Major
moviePig
...because the "challenges" to Darwinism come from 99%-certified
evangelist loonies. If you somehow mean to distinguish yourself from
your parade, you'd better have a t-shirt made up...
calvin
> Maybe you don't equate Intelligent Design with creationism, but
> creationists do - the boat sailed long ago, and you have little hope of
> successfully abducting the term.
Okay, I'll drop for the moment the term Intelligent Design.
Let's call what interests me Darwinism Skepticism and
Creationism Rejection (DSCR).
As an aside, when I said the U.S. is oppresively atheistic,
I was referring to the universities, and to the mainstream
media that have emerged from the universities. That's the
part of America that is intellectually important, not the
fundamentalist mob. Unfortunately, though, our universities
no longer support free thought, I propose DSCR as one
avenue by which to restore free thought to our universities
and media.
What is this 'talk.origins' newsgroup? I posted to a film group
originally, but somehow became entangled with posts
from this other group. Do you exixt just for the sake of
proclaiming Darwinism to be the only valid explanation of
evolution, or do you admit any validity for other viewpoints?
It would be helpful to know where you are coming from.
AZ Nomad
>On Sep 14, 2:39?pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 1:42?pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>>
>> > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > >We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>> > >that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
>>
>> > We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
>>
>> I'm not interested in religious freedom. ?That's for other people
>> to worry about. ?I'm interested in questioning oppressive
>> orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
>> liberal and PC universities.
>...because the "challenges" to Darwinism come from 99%-certified
>evangelist loonies. If you somehow mean to distinguish yourself from
>your parade, you'd better have a t-shirt made up...
The religious nutcases like calvin wouldn't give a shit about darwin's
theory of evolution any more than they do about quark theory if it didn't
directly contradict their fairy tale. They don't give a shit about
reality or truth, only the promotion of their fairy tales.
Meanwhile their religion, like ID, retreats further into the god of the
gaps. Most of it is as laughable as believing that insanity is caused
by evil spirits, or that a smelly norseman with a big hammer and helmet
is responsible for thunder and lightning.
calvin
> The religious nutcases like calvin ...
I may be a nutcase, but I'm not a religious fundamentalist,
as I've said many times. In this thread I've rejected creationism
several times. For name calling to have any effect at all,
besides giving you a moment of hostility relief, the name
must have some relation to the one called it.
moviePig
{"I love the smell of ozone in the morning...") Afaics, Calvin's
embrace of ID isn't fueled by religious fervor, but rather by his
misguided animus towards those who would suppress ignorant
demagoguery... (a.k.a. "liberals", to him...)
VoiceOfReason
So it's "liberal and PC" to rely on facts and evidence as opposed to
lies and pseudoscience?
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
> > to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
> > orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
> > liberal and PC universities.
>
> So it's "liberal and PC" to rely on facts and evidence as opposed to
> lies and pseudoscience?
That's the crux of the matter. Darwinism does *not* rely on
facts and evidence. It relies on a beautifully logical-sounding,
(and factual) theory:
1) organisms are subject to random mutations in their
reproductive cells, which are passed potentially into the
makeup of the next generation of the organism
2) these changes in the makeup of the organism
may be either beneficial or detrimental to the functioning
of the organism
3) the organism tends not to survive the detrimental changes
all the way to reproduction as well as it survives the
beneficial changes, thus the beneficial changes tend to
be passed on to the next generation more often than the
detrimental ones
4) thus the beneficial random mutations slowly propel
organisms higher along evolutionary ladders
All four of those points are factual and scientific, though
of course simplified here. Skeptics don't doubt the
logical steps in the theory.
But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
eventually produce 'Hamlet'. We don't doubt that theory.
But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
within the expected time span of the universe.
It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
political preferences.
Rusty Sites
Why not creationism? Why not just define it to be what everybody else
is talking about when they say evolution or ID or whatever? Why are you
crossposting to a movie newsgroup?
>
> You and those like you seem to be so certain that
> ID is the same as Creationism than you can't look at
> it objectively.
>
You seem to think that you define the term intelligent design and
nothing the rest of the people using that term say matters.
Ernest Major
<fbfff9a8-6473-4977...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 3:58�pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>> > I'm not interested in religious freedom. �That's for other people
>> > to worry about. �I'm interested in questioning oppressive
>> > orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
>> > liberal and PC universities.
>>
>> So it's "liberal and PC" to rely on facts and evidence as opposed to
>> lies and pseudoscience?
>
>That's the crux of the matter. Darwinism does *not* rely on
>facts and evidence. It relies on a beautifully logical-sounding,
>(and factual) theory:
Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes is inference supported by literally billions of
observations and mountains of evidence. Your ignorance of this, real or
feigned, does not make it go away.
>
>1) organisms are subject to random mutations in their
> reproductive cells, which are passed potentially into the
> makeup of the next generation of the organism
>
>2) these changes in the makeup of the organism
> may be either beneficial or detrimental to the functioning
> of the organism
>
>3) the organism tends not to survive the detrimental changes
> all the way to reproduction as well as it survives the
> beneficial changes, thus the beneficial changes tend to
> be passed on to the next generation more often than the
> detrimental ones
So far so good.
>
>4) thus the beneficial random mutations slowly propel
> organisms higher along evolutionary ladders
But this is not correct. A ladder is a dreadful metaphor for the process
of evolution.
>
>All four of those points are factual and scientific, though
>of course simplified here. Skeptics don't doubt the
>logical steps in the theory.
>
>But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
>since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
>mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
It would be better if you had informed doubts. These questions have been
asked and investigated, and the answer would appear to be yes.
Evolutionary change can be observed to happen much faster in the
contemporary world than is necessary to account for the rate of change
observed in the fossil record. The diversity of domestic dogs, domestic
pigeons, and Brassicas is evidence that exhaustion of variation already
present in the population is insufficient to reduce the rate below that
level.
>
>Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
>not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
>of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
>mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
>
>As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
>eventually produce 'Hamlet'. We don't doubt that theory.
>But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
>within the expected time span of the universe.
That is a stupid analogy. Variation and selection is, for many problems,
a much more efficient algorithm than random guessing.
The bottom line is that the evidence for common descent is voluminous,
and that known processes appear to be sufficient to against for the
diversification of life over the last few billion years. Perhaps unknown
processes have also operated - but regurgitating bad creationist
arguments against evolution is not going to lead us their discovery.
Kaufmann's self-organisation research program, or the burgeoning field
of evo-devo may.
>
>It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
>doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
>of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
>political preferences.
>
You're getting more ridiculous. For a start the factuality of common
descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
other processes is accepted by persons of greatly varied political
views. Your claim is factually false and logically fallacious.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<8d67e43a-6e26-4e5d...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 3:06�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Maybe you don't equate Intelligent Design with creationism, but
>> creationists do - the boat sailed long ago, and you have little hope of
>> successfully abducting the term.
>
>Okay, I'll drop for the moment the term Intelligent Design.
>Let's call what interests me Darwinism Skepticism and
>Creationism Rejection (DSCR).
>
>As an aside, when I said the U.S. is oppresively atheistic,
>I was referring to the universities, and to the mainstream
>media that have emerged from the universities. That's the
>part of America that is intellectually important, not the
>fundamentalist mob. Unfortunately, though, our universities
>no longer support free thought, I propose DSCR as one
>avenue by which to restore free thought to our universities
>and media.
I don't agree with your premise, but even if it was true your strategy
is silly. Presenting bad arguments against well established science is
not a means of promoting free thought.
>
>What is this 'talk.origins' newsgroup?
The strap line (thumbnail description) for talk.origins is creation vs
evolution - sometimes hot.
> I posted to a film group
>originally, but somehow became entangled with posts
>from this other group. Do you exixt just for the sake of
>proclaiming Darwinism to be the only valid explanation of
>evolution, or do you admit any validity for other viewpoints?
You know, I've already pointed out to you that Darwinism is an
ill-defined term, and that it tends to be deprecated by evolutionary
biologists. I'll now mention that it is a term beloved by creationists,
who like to be pretend that it is an ideology, and to downplay all the
work that has been done since Darwin's day.
>It would be helpful to know where you are coming from.
>
Personally I object to dishonest arguments against valid science.
--
alias Ernest Major
Louann Miller
8f30-d87...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
>> to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
>> orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
>> liberal and PC universities.
>
> So it's "liberal and PC" to rely on facts and evidence as opposed to
> lies and pseudoscience?
I've often suspected that. You wind up with oppressive orthodoxies like the
idea of vaccinations instead of prayer for smallpox, or Round Earth theory,
or the odd notion that earthquakes mostly happen on boundaries between
tectonic plates. It must be a conspiracy.
PC appears to be the opposite of "going out of your way to be an *sshole to
as many people and groups as you can possibly get away with." Or of "Mac."
I'm willing to entertain other definitions, but these seem to be the only
ones I run into in the wilds of Usenet.
Louann "apart from Police Constables" Miller
AZ Nomad
>On Sep 14, 3:58?pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>> > to worry about. ?I'm interested in questioning oppressive
The age of the earth is old enough. Dating of fossils shows a steady
progression.
>Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
>not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
>of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
>mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
It started with photoreceptors. A small probability that is beneficial
to offspring enough to survive is enough.
>As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
>eventually produce 'Hamlet'. We don't doubt that theory.
>But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
>within the expected time span of the universe.
That's a piss poor analogy. It ignores survival of the fittest and
ignores improvements in genetic makeup. Shame on you for dregging
up that turd.
>It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
There is no such thing as darwinist. That is a figment of your paranoia.
Darwin's theories were a starting point and science has moved on to
refine them.
>doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
>of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
>political preferences.
Bullshit. Politics isn't a factor except when then the religious try to
teach stone age fairy tales as if they were fact.
Louann Miller
b409ba...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
> since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
> mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
>
> Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
> not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
> of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
> mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
Wow. For a pure philosopher with no religious interest or bias, you're
GOOD at re-creating creationist arguments. In fact, you happen to have
hit on some of the ones that experience has led us to number for
convenience.
Deep time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html (and its subheadings)
Eye:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
This may remind you of the old joke about the prison cellblock where the
prisoners have been there together so long that all the jokes all of them
know have been assigned numbers; one guy yells out "37" and everyone
laughs. We feel this way, too. But creationists keep refusing to tell
different jokes.
Louann Miller
b409ba...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
> doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
> of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
> political preferences.
Logic and evidence? The bastards.
VoiceOfReason
Evidence suggests that is the case. There is no evidence I am aware
of that the "speed" of evolution is insufficient to account for extent
of life forms we see on the earth.
Also, be aware that the rate of evolution is not a constant. It is
dependent upon pressure from the environment.
Also understand that evolution is not a random process. A mutation
must be either beneficial or neutral to be expected to continue.
> Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
> not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
> of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
> mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
That presupposes that there is a "goal" of a fully functioning eye in
its present state. Evolution has no "goal."
There are a number of intermediate stages of development where
"primitive" eyes are useful to an organism, such as simple light-
sensitive cells in simpler organisms. For example, see:
> As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
> eventually produce 'Hamlet'. We don't doubt that theory.
> But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
> within the expected time span of the universe.
That's a poor analogy -- evolution is not random.
> It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
> doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
> of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
> political preferences.
First, "reasonableness" is hardly a goal.
Understand there is a BIG different in the way the term "theory" is
used in science as opposed to the vernacular. In common use, "theory"
can mean any wild-assed idea that someone comes up with. But in
science, a hypothesis can only be called a theory if it is
falsifiable, and if it is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Some of the biggest names in ID/Creationism depend upon such a lack of
public understanding, to the point of actively perpetuating known
falsehoods. As other have said in this thread, look up the case
material for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for some truly
enlightening insight into the business of evolution denial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
> >That's the crux of the matter. Darwinism does *not* rely on
> >facts and evidence. It relies on a beautifully logical-sounding,
> >(and factual) theory:
>
> Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
> and other processes is inference supported by literally billions of
> observations and mountains of evidence. Your ignorance of this, real or
> feigned, does not make it go away.
>
> >1) organisms are subject to random mutations in their
> > reproductive cells, which are passed potentially into the
> > makeup of the next generation of the organism
>
> >2) these changes in the makeup of the organism
> > may be either beneficial or detrimental to the functioning
> > of the organism
>
> >3) the organism tends not to survive the detrimental changes
> > all the way to reproduction as well as it survives the
> > beneficial changes, thus the beneficial changes tend to
> > be passed on to the next generation more often than the
> > detrimental ones
>
> So far so good.
>
> >4) thus the beneficial random mutations slowly propel
> > organisms higher along evolutionary ladders
>
> But this is not correct. A ladder is a dreadful metaphor for the process
> of evolution.
Why do you sieze on that? Substitute any word you
like in place of 'ladder', and my meaning will be the same.
Why is point 4 not correct?
> >All four of those points are factual and scientific, though
> >of course simplified here. Skeptics don't doubt the
> >logical steps in the theory.
>
> >But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
> >since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
> >mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
>
> It would be better if you had informed doubts. These questions have been
> asked and investigated, and the answer would appear to be yes.
> Evolutionary change can be observed to happen much faster in the
> contemporary world than is necessary to account for the rate of change
> observed in the fossil record. The diversity of domestic dogs, domestic
> pigeons, and Brassicas is evidence that exhaustion of variation already
> present in the population is insufficient to reduce the rate below that
> level.
> >Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
> >not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
> >of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
> >mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
>
> >As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
> >eventually produce 'Hamlet'. We don't doubt that theory.
> >But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
> >within the expected time span of the universe.
>
> That is a stupid analogy. Variation and selection is, for many problems,
> a much more efficient algorithm than random guessing.
Again, why do you sieze on that? Just delete the analogy,
and my points remain the same.
> The bottom line is that the evidence for common descent is voluminous,
> and that known processes appear to be sufficient to against for the
> diversification of life over the last few billion years. Perhaps unknown
> processes have also operated - but regurgitating bad creationist
> arguments against evolution is not going to lead us their discovery.
I'm not a creationist, and I don't know their arguments. I'm
offering my own personal thoughts and doubts. Please stop
trying to force me into your creationist mold.
> Kaufmann's self-organisation research program, or the burgeoning field
> of evo-devo may.
>
> >It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
> >doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
> >of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
> >political preferences.
>
> You're getting more ridiculous. For a start the factuality of common
> descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
> other processes is accepted by persons of greatly varied political
> views. Your claim is factually false and logically fallacious.
I'm referring to the Darwinists like Dawkins, who is nothing
but political.
Why didn't you answer my question about the 'talk.origins' group?
Is there any room for non-Darwinists in the group?
Rusty Sites
> On Sep 14, 1:42 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>>> that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
>> We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
>> from you. Get over it.
>
> to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
> orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
> liberal and PC universities.
>
What about the geocentric theory of the solar system, i.e., the earth
revolves around the sun? Is dissent allowed? Do you know of any other
views that aren't just laughed at? Is this the result of an oppressive
orthodoxy? Since you seem to think the theory of evolution is liberal,
is the theory of gravity liberal or conservative? Perhaps Newton's
theory of gravity is conservative but Einstein's is liberal.
Hatunen
<in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>uIn article
><ab4998c7-74ee-41bf...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 11:10 am, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>> > Padmar Mushkin <x...@y.z> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> > > <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > > >Intelligent design, which is neither religion nor
>> > > >science, but is proper philosophical inquiry,
>> > > >appeals to me because it leaves the question
>> > > >open, which conforms to our current state of
>> > > >knowledge.
>> >
>> > > Google "cdesign proponentsists", then try to say with a straight face
>> > > that intelligent design is not creationism with a new name.
>>
>> For some it may be, but not for everyone who finds it interesting.
>>
>> > Which is the problem. ID certainly is an idea that's worth looking
>> > into, but not only doesn't the evidence now support it but its
>> > proponents don't seem to take the idea seriously. If they think they've
>> > proven the theory, then where's the research that takes that knowledge
>> > and goes beyond it? If humans were engineered, then we can be reverse
>> > engineered and that I would think would open lots of paths of research.
>>
>> There's nothing settled about intelligent design. It is philosophical
>> inquiry, which should never end. No one thinks it is a proven
>> theory. That is a straw man. People who lump intelligent design
>> with creationism miss the point of ID entirely.
>>
>I look at if from the point that we humans are a generation or three
>away from being able to design life and put it on another planet or
>moon (say, Europa), Thus, the idea it has already happened is at least
>worth looking into and every time a new field of inquiry opens up it's
>worth giving the idea a quick test.
You do understand, don't you, that Darwin had nothing to say on
the origin of life? This is a straw man argument.
>However, to say inquiry into it
>should never end is to say the idea isn't science... which I think it
>in fact is.
To be quite blunt, I see little difference between scientists'
failure to delve into Intelligent Design and their unwillingness
to look into Coan Doyle's fairy photos.
>Saying humans were designed is no different then saying the
>Earth was designed,
Talk about begging the question...
>and at some point the evidence is just going to
>rule out that possibility (unless you assume the designers were
>intentionally trying to trick us, at which point you just have to
>decide to go along with what they want you to think and ignore the
>design option)
I gotta say one thing: if we humans were designed the way we are
today, the designer did a pisspoor job. We have an appendix which
was unnecessary, we've got a skeletal structure more designed for
walking on all fours, which makes our internal organs scrunch
downwards, amd so on. An the octopus got a better eye than we
did; why didn't the designer stick with one best eye instead of
designing seven or eight for different animals?
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in news:fbfff9a8-6473-4977-a430-
>
> > But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
> > since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
> > mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
>
> > Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
> > not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
> > of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
> > mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
>
> Wow. For a pure philosopher with no religious interest or bias, you're
> GOOD at re-creating creationist arguments. In fact, you happen to have
> hit on some of the ones that experience has led us to number for
> convenience.
>
> Deep time:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html(and its subheadings)
>
>
> This may remind you of the old joke about the prison cellblock where the
> prisoners have been there together so long that all the jokes all of them
> know have been assigned numbers; one guy yells out "37" and everyone
> laughs. We feel this way, too. But creationists keep refusing to tell
> different jokes.
Nevertheless, my doubts concerning complex organisms
naturally pointed me to the eye, and doubting that there have
been enough generations is again my own idea. I wonder
why you think one has to be a creationist to have those
obvious doubts. I know the age of the universe is 13.7
billion years. I don't recall the age of life on earth, but I
know the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
Since both of those numbers are more than 6000 years,
you can be assured that I am not a creationist.
Hatunen
wrote:
>ISTM that the complaint that ID is not creationism is mostly based
>on identifying creationism with *young*earth* creationism, or Biblical
>"literalism". While ID does not *reject* support from that segment of
>their audience, it makes a point of staying apart from any substantive
>statements, such as saying *when* the "design(s)" took place.
Once you accept the idea of a supernaturl designer/creator, it
really doesn't matter much whether he/she/it designed it as a
young earth in one swell foop or one taking eons.
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
> > doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
> > of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
> > political preferences.
>
> Logic and evidence? The bastards.
I already said the theory was reasonable, and each point
I listed was sound. But the theory does not prove, for example,
that there have been enough generations. They point to sound
logic, but not to the big picture.
I guess I'm your group's red meat for today. I'm glad
I could help with your self-justification and group
reinforcement. You're not the most hostile usenet
group I've encountered; 'talk.abortion' is worse; but
you have essentially the same m.o.
Ernest Major
<526b018a-ee4e-49cb...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 5:20�ｿｽpm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
>> >facts and evidence. �ｿｽIt relies on a beautifully logical-sounding,
>> >(and factual) theory:
>>
>> Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
>> and other processes is inference supported by literally billions of
>> observations and mountains of evidence. Your ignorance of this, real or
>> feigned, does not make it go away.
>>
>> >1) organisms are subject to random mutations in their
>> > reproductive cells, which are passed potentially into the
>> > makeup of the next generation of the organism
>>
>> >2) these changes in the makeup of the organism
>> > may be either beneficial or detrimental to the functioning
>> > of the organism
>>
>> >3) the organism tends not to survive the detrimental changes
>> > all the way to reproduction as well as it survives the
>> > beneficial changes, thus the beneficial changes tend to
>> > be passed on to the next generation more often than the
>> > detrimental ones
>>
>> So far so good.
>>
>> >4) thus the beneficial random mutations slowly propel
>> > organisms higher along evolutionary ladders
>>
>> But this is not correct. A ladder is a dreadful metaphor for the process
>> of evolution.
>
>Why do you sieze on that? Substitute any word you
>like in place of 'ladder', and my meaning will be the same.
>Why is point 4 not correct?
Because the ladder fallacy is a pervasive misunderstanding of evolution.
Organisms (you mean species) being propelled along evolutionary ladders
is Lamarckism, not Darwinism.
The ladder metaphor neglects the branching nature of evolution. It also
applies that there is a goal or predetermined path. And the whole
question of some organisms being higher or lower is problematical.
>
>> >All four of those points are factual and scientific, though
>> >of course simplified here. �ｿｽSkeptics don't doubt the
>> >logical steps in the theory.
>>
>> >But we do have doubts: �ｿｽHave there been enough generations
>> >since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
>> >mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
>>
>> It would be better if you had informed doubts. These questions have been
>> asked and investigated, and the answer would appear to be yes.
>> Evolutionary change can be observed to happen much faster in the
>> contemporary world than is necessary to account for the rate of change
>> observed in the fossil record. The diversity of domestic dogs, domestic
>> pigeons, and Brassicas is evidence that exhaustion of variation already
>> present in the population is insufficient to reduce the rate below that
>> level.
>
>> >Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
>> >not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
>> >of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
>> >mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
>>
>> >As an analogy, we know that random keystrokes would
>> >eventually produce 'Hamlet'. �ｿｽWe don't doubt that theory.
>> >But we can doubt whether the process would be completed
>> >within the expected time span of the universe.
>>
>> That is a stupid analogy. Variation and selection is, for many problems,
>> a much more efficient algorithm than random guessing.
>
>Again, why do you sieze on that? Just delete the analogy,
>and my points remain the same.
>
>> The bottom line is that the evidence for common descent is voluminous,
>> and that known processes appear to be sufficient to against for the
>> diversification of life over the last few billion years. Perhaps unknown
>> processes have also operated - but regurgitating bad creationist
>> arguments against evolution is not going to lead us their discovery.
>
>I'm not a creationist, and I don't know their arguments. I'm
>offering my own personal thoughts and doubts. Please stop
>trying to force me into your creationist mold.
>
>> Kaufmann's self-organisation research program, or the burgeoning field
>> of evo-devo may.
>>
>> >It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
>> >doubts such as these. �ｿｽInstead they point to the reasonableness
>> >of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
>> >political preferences.
>>
>> You're getting more ridiculous. For a start the factuality of common
>> descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
>> other processes is accepted by persons of greatly varied political
>> views. Your claim is factually false and logically fallacious.
>
>I'm referring to the Darwinists like Dawkins, who is nothing
>but political.
You've just promulgated yet another falsehood. (I take it that you
haven't read "The Extended Phenotype", or "The Ancestor's Tale".)
>
>Why didn't you answer my question about the 'talk.origins' group?
>Is there any room for non-Darwinists in the group?
>
I thought I did. It would seem obvious from the description of
talk.origins as being "creation vs evolution" that there is a place for
non-Darwinists. You also seem to have overlooked my referring you to the
creationist nature of a couple of Intelligent Design supporters on the
group, from which you should have had the wit to realise that there is a
place for non-Darwinists.
--
alias Ernest Major
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
> >It would be helpful to know where you are coming from.
>
> Personally I object to dishonest arguments against valid science.
My arguments may be wrong, but there's nothing dishonest
about them. I wonder why you need to cast doubting
Darwinism [substitute whatever words you prefer for your
'valid science'] as immoral?
If I was doubting, say, Einstein's theory of relativity, would
that also be immoral?
Ernest Major
<45ebe410-1092-4279...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
creationist. A belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is not a
necessary condition to be a creationist. Those who hold that position
are Young Earth Creationists - their predominance is a relatively recent
phenomenon.
Acceptance of the scientific consensuses on the ages of the universe and
the K/T boundary would be compatible with, for example, Progressive
Creationism.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Could Calvin maybe try directed panspermia as an example of a
not-creationist, non DI - ID etc form of "design inquiry"?
VoiceOfReason
I'd have a word or two to say about my former gall bladder as well...
and the poorly-designed airway which almost choked me to death once.
Ernest Major
<78f384cd-720e-41e1...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 5:39�pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
>> > doubts such as these. �Instead they point to the reasonableness
>> > of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
>> > political preferences.
>>
>> Logic and evidence? The bastards.
>
>I already said the theory was reasonable, and each point
>I listed was sound. But the theory does not prove, for example,
>that there have been enough generations. They point to sound
>logic, but not to the big picture.
It has already been pointed out to you that you were ignoring much of
the evidence.
>
>I guess I'm your group's red meat for today. I'm glad
>I could help with your self-justification and group
>reinforcement. You're not the most hostile usenet
>group I've encountered; 'talk.abortion' is worse; but
>you have essentially the same m.o.
>
You know, I don't recognise the names of the people who were ruder to
you, so I infer that they come from rec.arts.movies.current-films group.
You might also like to do something about that beam in your eye - you
were not exactly a paragon of reasoned debate. But perhaps one day you
will learn that argumentum ad-hominem is a fallacy.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>><45ebe410-1092-4279...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>>> On Sep 14, 5:36 pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in news:fbfff9a8-6473-4977-a430-
>>>> b409ba6c5...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>> > But we do have doubts: Have there been enough generations
>>>> > since life began on the planet, for these random beneficial
>>>> > mutations to have produced the level of evolution that we see?
>>>>
>>>> > Certain highly developed organs, such as the eye, would depend
>>>> > not only on a large number of generations, but also on coincidences
>>>> > of an extremely small probability, to bring random beneficial
>>>> > mutations into the necessary harmony to develop the organ.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. For a pure philosopher with no religious interest or bias, you're
>>>> GOOD at re-creating creationist arguments. In fact, you happen to have
>>>> hit on some of the ones that experience has led us to number for
>>>> convenience.
>>>>
>>>> Deep time:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html(and its
>>>>subheadings)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eye:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.htmlhttp://www.talkorig
>>>> ins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
>>>>
>>>> This may remind you of the old joke about the prison cellblock where the
>>>> prisoners have been there together so long that all the jokes all
>>>> know have been assigned numbers; one guy yells out "37" and everyone
>>>> laughs. We feel this way, too. But creationists keep refusing to tell
>>>> different jokes.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, my doubts concerning complex organisms
>>> naturally pointed me to the eye, and doubting that there have
>>> been enough generations is again my own idea. I wonder
>>> why you think one has to be a creationist to have those
>>> obvious doubts. I know the age of the universe is 13.7
>>> billion years. I don't recall the age of life on earth, but I
>>> know the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
>>> Since both of those numbers are more than 6000 years,
>>> you can be assured that I am not a creationist.
>>>
>> I regret that we can't be assured from this that you are not a
>>creationist. A belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is not a
>>necessary condition to be a creationist. Those who hold that position
>>are Young Earth Creationists - their predominance is a relatively
>>recent phenomenon.
>> Acceptance of the scientific consensuses on the ages of the universe
>>and the K/T boundary would be compatible with, for example,
>>Progressive Creationism.
>
>Could Calvin maybe try directed panspermia as an example of a
>not-creationist, non DI - ID etc form of "design inquiry"?
>
earliest terrestrial life in situ. Or perhaps we could refer him to the
workds of Larry Niven, who combines (possibly) directed abiogenesis (by
the tnuctipun) with directed panspermia (by the thrintun) - but to
reconcile this with the evidence pretty much requires us to infer that
Slaver food yeast was not actually a yeast, but some sort of prokaryote.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<19c76335-4e50-47dc...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
>On Sep 14, 5:32�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
>> >It would be helpful to know where you are coming from.
>>
>> Personally I object to dishonest arguments against valid science.
>
>My arguments may be wrong, but there's nothing dishonest
>about them.
You know, converting an explanation of why I participate in talk.origins
to a comment on your particular arguments is a rather reckless leap on
your part.
> I wonder why you need to cast doubting
>Darwinism [substitute whatever words you prefer for your
>'valid science'] as immoral?
That's another falsehood. You should have been able to have inferred
from my posts on this thread that I don't hold that doubting "Darwinism"
is immoral - for example "As I said earlier Intelligent Design could
have been a research program - one that I would expect to be futile, but
I wouldn't object to it if it was honestly carried out "
However to turn your question back at you, why do you need to cast the
widespread acceptance of the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
within the university community as oppressively atheistic?
>
>If I was doubting, say, Einstein's theory of relativity, would
>that also be immoral?
>
You've completely missed the point - it's not what one doubts, it's the
way that one argues.
--
alias Ernest Major
calvin
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
> > Could Calvin maybe try directed panspermia ...
> There's also directed abiogenesis ...
I'm merely interested in the question of whether
there is a higher consciousness than ours or
not; whether there is something going on behind
the scenes or not. Philosophically, these are
timeless and valid questions. If proponents of modern
evolutionary theory, whatever it is that supplanted
Darwinism, do not claim that these questions
are invalid, then I have no problem with those people.
Andre Lieven
> On Sep 14, 5:39 pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > It does not appear that Darwinists are interested in addressing
> > > doubts such as these. Instead they point to the reasonableness
> > > of the theory, and the provability of each step, to support their
> > > political preferences.
>
> > Logic and evidence? The bastards.
>
> I already said the theory was reasonable, and each point
> I listed was sound. But the theory does not prove, for example,
> that there have been enough generations.
Your *evidence* for this claim is... ?
Uh huh.
> They point to sound logic, but not to the big picture.
You have AbZero clue as to what even the little picture is.
> I guess I'm your group's red meat for today. I'm glad
> I could help with your self-justification and group
> reinforcement. You're not the most hostile usenet
> group I've encountered; 'talk.abortion' is worse; but
> you have essentially the same m.o.
<Massive Loon Projection>
Evolution is a well settled and supported by evidence fact.
The *scientific* theory of evolution *explains the tested
facts* of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Get over it, and yourself.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
> > >It would be helpful to know where you are coming from.
>
> > Personally I object to dishonest arguments against valid science.
>
> My arguments may be wrong, but there's nothing dishonest
> about them. I wonder why you need to cast doubting
> Darwinism [substitute whatever words you prefer for your
> 'valid science'] as immoral?
Dishonesty of any sort is immoral. Telling well debunked ignorant
LIES about the science of eolution is dishonest. Duh.
> If I was doubting, say, Einstein's theory of relativity, would
> that also be immoral?
Yes, because you'd also being a liar and/or *willfully* stupid.
Fortunately, the consequences for your willful stupidity are all
yours, too.
Andre
Ernest Major
<983109c5-91bb-4521...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes
academia, and the alleged absence of free thought. Are you unaware that
many evolutionary biologists are Christians (or otherwise religious) and
not only do not claim that the question as to whether there is a higher
consciousness is invalid, but actually believe that there is such a
higher consciousness? Are you unaware that many evolutionary biologists
are theistic evolutionists, and not only do not claim that the question
as to whether there is something going along behind the scenes is
invalid, but actually believe that there is something going on behind
the scenes?
For that matter, even among those who believe that the answers to the
questions is negative, most would not go so far as to claim that the
questions are invalid.
As you (now) don't have a problem with all these people, do you recant
all the ad-hominem arguments that you offered in this thread?
--
alias Ernest Major
Andre Lieven
> On Sep 14, 7:04 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
> > > Could Calvin maybe try directed panspermia ...
> > There's also directed abiogenesis ...
>
> I'm merely interested in the question of whether
> there is a higher consciousness than ours or
> not; whether there is something going on behind
> the scenes or not.
<Laughs> Indeed, such willful stupidity is a frequent
mark of those just under the legal age to drink...
Most people though, grow out of it.
> Philosophically, these are timeless and valid questions.
No proof offered ? Self promoting bullshit factless claim
fails.
No, these are the sorts of questions that are marks of those
locked into mental masturbation, along with "dude, have you
ever looked at your hand ? I mean, really looked at your hand ?"
> If proponents of modern
> evolutionary theory, whatever it is that supplanted
> Darwinism, do not claim that these questions
> are invalid, then I have no problem with those people.
What you have a "problem" with matters not one whit to anyone
else, much less to the Universe.
Andre
Walter Bushell
<40933f00-155b-4123...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> calvin wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 1:42�pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> > > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > >We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
> > > >that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
> > >
> > > We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
> > > from you. � Get over it.
> >
> > I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
> > to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
> > orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
> > liberal and PC universities.
>
> So it's "liberal and PC" to rely on facts and evidence as opposed to
> lies and pseudoscience?
Well yes.
Gib me dat ol'tyme religion.
Let's go dancing with the Druids
Dancing naked through the woulds,
Drinking femented fluids.
And it's good enough for me.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Baron Bodissey
Then you should have no problem with them, but you may very well be in
the wrong news group. Those are certainly valid *philosophical
questions but they are not valid *scientific questions. Do you see the
difference? If you do see the difference then what are you arguing
about? If you don't see the difference then you are indeed ill
informed on the nature of scientific inquiry. Science is both more
rigorous and more restrictive in what is acceptable evidence than is
philosophy. Have you ever heard of "methodological naturalism?"
With one breath, you concede that ID is not science; with next you
criticize the predominant position of evolutionary theory in the
science curriculum of the nation's universities. Which is it? Do you
wish an admittedly (by you) non-scientific theory taught as science?
You can't have it both ways.
And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that this country, one
of the most religious in the world, is "oppressively atheistic?"
Baron Bodissey
That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar
bowl.
– Jack Vance
Burkhard
She looks gorgeous in her nightie
She's kind of wild and flighty
But she's good enough for me.
AZ Nomad
>And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that this country, one
>of the most religious in the world, is "oppressively atheistic?"
That's an easy one. The U.S. constitution won't allow the like's
of calvin to impose his religion on everybody else.
calvin
> ...
> As you (now) don't have a problem with all these people, do you recant
> all the ad-hominem arguments that you offered in this thread?
yes
Rusty Sites
> calvin wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 1:42 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> We live in an oppressively atheistic society, which proclaims
>>>> that Darwinism is the last word on the subject of 'evolution'.
>>> We live in a society that gives religious freedom both to you and
>>> from you. Get over it.
>>
>> I'm not interested in religious freedom. That's for other people
>> to worry about. I'm interested in questioning oppressive
>> orthodoxy, which is what Darwinism currently enjoys in our
>> liberal and PC universities.
>>
>
> What about the geocentric
Should be heliocentric, of course. Glad nobody reads my posts.
calvin
> ...
> And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that this country, one
> of the most religious in the world, is "oppressively atheistic?"
In another post I explained as follows:
" ... when I said the U.S. is oppresively atheistic,
I was referring to the universities, and to the mainstream
media that have emerged from the universities. That's the
part of America that is intellectually important, not the
fundamentalist mob."