Evolution/Creationism Debates
MarkA
Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
understand the point, I disagree.
In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
within a kind; that much is undeniable.
To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind". A human
and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
more, and evolution MUST occur. The burden of proof is on the
creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
The current invocation of a mystical "kind" that is immune to
macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in the
Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth had been
tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that everything on
Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
UC
MarkA wrote:
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy.
What is that?
> One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists.
'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
is to it.
>Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> exert pressure on various state legislatures.
Credibility? They have some influence, but no credibility whatsoever.
>To avoid debating them is
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition.
I say to counter them, with no 'debating' as such.
> There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
I cannot imagine anyone being "on the fence" who has actually been
instructed in science.
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive.
Depends on what you mean.
> The
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
Not at all.
> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> within a kind; that much is undeniable.
>
> To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind".
'Species' and 'kind' are both ordinary English words that means
essentially the same thing. 'Species' is a word that predates
evolutionary theory by millennia, and is actually a term of logic, not
biology.
>A human
> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for.
????
> In fact,
> evolution is *inevitable*.
Depends on what you mean. 'Progress' is certainly NOT inevitable.
> Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> more, and evolution MUST occur.
Not is there is insufficient selection pressure. There are still
bacteria, right? There is no inevitability about multi-cellular
organisms at all.
>The burden of proof is on the
> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
WTF?
Mike
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
>
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
You're probably right that it is necessary to debate the less
insane half of the intelligent design people, but it probably makes
sense to avoid debating the Genisis crowd. One may as well debate the
flat earthers.
>
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
The evidence that evolution has occurred is about as compelling
as the evidence that the earth is round. The scientist can win that
debate hands down. The harder problem is to debate the intelligent
designers who agree that evolution has occurred and that natural
selection plays a role (perhaps large) in directing the course of
evolution, but argue that natural selection alone is not an adequate
explanation for the complexity that has evolved. Here it is true that
the scientist is at a disadvantage since the paucity of the fossil
record will probably leave us forever ignorant of many important
details of evolutionary history. As you say, any version of
intelligent design theory is not science.
>
> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> within a kind; that much is undeniable.
That is only one variant of creationism. There are more
sophisticated versions of intelligent design as I mentioned above.
>
> To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind". A human
> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
> evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> more, and evolution MUST occur. The burden of proof is on the
> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
>
> The current invocation of a mystical "kind" that is immune to
> macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
> identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
> that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in the
> Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth had been
> tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that everything on
> Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
>
> The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
> despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
Let us not paint them all the same. Possibly a minority of
intelligent design believers are redeemable and the people on the fence
can be persuaded by reason.
Budikka666
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
I agree with you for nations other than the US, but as you indicate, in
the US, things are getting out of control, and having Bush slavishly
kow-tow to the religious right has only made things worse.
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
No, the emphasis needs to be on the utter vacuity of the creationist
position. Their entire armamentarium consists of attacking evolution
by lying about it. If you ask them for some positive *science*
supporting their position, they are completely and utterly lost.
Offering a debate about the difference between science and religion is
not going to cut it, because to the creationist, there is no
difference, and the ID camp isn't far behind that, either.
I'm guessing that there are many more "theistic scientists" (that is,
scientists who have religion of some sort) who support evolution than
there ever are creationist "scientists" or ID scientists. All of these
would be on board if the requirement were that the creationists and
ID-ers (Creidiots) were forced to scientifically support their claims.
The first item on the agenda ought to be to have a law passed that as
far as science teaching goes, only science which has a body of
published work in the professional journals can be taught in schools.
That would permanently keep them out of education.
> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> concept of "kinds".
Not at all. The central difference is that creidiots have zero
scientific support for their claims.
> The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> within a kind; that much is undeniable.
That's easily trashed by asking them to *scientifically* define "kind"
which they have failed to do. Do not let them get away with trying to
turn the question around so it depends on a definition of "species".
Ask them also to define what it is which prevents one "kind" (if they
ever define it) from evolving into another "kind" - what is the
scientific explanation for the genetic or biochemical mechanism which
prevents it?
That silences them every time.
> To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind". A human
> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
> evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> more, and evolution MUST occur. The burden of proof is on the
> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
Evolution, by deifnition, is simply a change in allele frequency in a
given gene pool. Everything else follows from this, as the study of
genomes in modern organisms strongly indicates.
[Rest snipped]
Budikka
hbar...@troy.edu
get dirty and the pig loves it!
HB
Budikka666
> MarkA wrote:
> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > Guy.
>
> What is that?
> > One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > debate creationists.
>
> 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> is to it.
No, it's a lot more than that. Scientists are not databases, nor are
they essentially statisticians. Science is the observation of the
natural world (read: "universe"), the gathering of information about
it, and the attempt to understand and explain it.
> >Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > understand the point, I disagree.
>
> I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
He probably wasn't any good at debating either. Although he would have
been as inanely wooden-headed as the fundies are.
> > In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> > exert pressure on various state legislatures.
>
> Credibility? They have some influence, but no credibility whatsoever.
Not among the real scientists and those with a decent intellect,
although they're all but worshipped among the religious wingnuts.
> >To avoid debating them is
> > to let them run free with no meaningful opposition.
>
> I say to counter them, with no 'debating' as such.
>
> > There are enough
> > people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> > not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> I cannot imagine anyone being "on the fence" who has actually been
> instructed in science.
Instructed and had an open mind!
> > The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> > of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> > always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive.
>
> Depends on what you mean.
>
> > The
> > emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> > concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> > and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> > within a kind; that much is undeniable.
> >
> > To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind".
>
> 'Species' and 'kind' are both ordinary English words that means
> essentially the same thing. 'Species' is a word that predates
> evolutionary theory by millennia, and is actually a term of logic, not
> biology.
"Species" is a useful convention, but not rooted in anything steadfast.
For sexually reproducing organisms, "species" can be defined as any
group of such organisms in which individuals can successfully
reproduce, but outside of which it does not occur. It's tougher to
define outside that limited set.
This is perfectly understandable in terms of evolution - species ought
to be difficult to define! If there were a creation of immutable
"kinds", "kind" ought to be the easiest thing in the world to
scientifically define.
> >A human
> > and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for.
And how it's regulated. Many genes code for the same thing no matter
which species they're in, and are interchangeable between species.
> ????
>
> > In fact,
> > evolution is *inevitable*.
>
> Depends on what you mean. 'Progress' is certainly NOT inevitable.
>
> > Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> > therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> > mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> > more, and evolution MUST occur.
>
> Not is there is insufficient selection pressure. There are still
> bacteria, right? There is no inevitability about multi-cellular
> organisms at all.
Evolution does not require that a species change into another species.
The bacteria and other organisms alive today are just as "evolved" as
humans are, and all continue to evolve. Evolution has not stopped.
Changes in allele frequency in a gene pool are inevitable given the
errancy in genetic control and duplication mechanisms.
> >The burden of proof is on the
> > creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
>
> WTF?
He's right. Since mainstream scientists cannot find any mechanism
which would prevent evolution, and the creationists/ID crowd implicitly
claim that there is such a thing, then it is incumbent upon them to
scientifically determine what it is. Since they actually do no
science, we need not concern ourselves with them doing the requisite
work or obtaining a favorable result
Budikka
Larry Moran
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
> to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
> the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
> I understand the point, I disagree.
Which Creationists do you think Richard Dawkins should debate?
Larry Moran
UC
Budikka666 wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > MarkA wrote:
> > > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > > Guy.
> >
> > What is that?
>
> http://www.infidelguy.com/
>
> > > One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > > debate creationists.
> >
> > 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> > good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> > is to it.
>
> No, it's a lot more than that. Scientists are not databases, nor are
> they essentially statisticians. Science is the observation of the
> natural world (read: "universe"), the gathering of information about
> it, and the attempt to understand and explain it.
Science without data is nothing. Data gathering is 99.9% of science.
>
> > >Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > > understand the point, I disagree.
> >
> > I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> > hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
>
> He probably wasn't any good at debating either. Although he would have
> been as inanely wooden-headed as the fundies are.
You would be wrong there. He was a great speech-maker. he knew how to
get his audience to believe in him.
Correct. It is a Greek term, I believe.
> work or obtaining a favorable result.
The statement was unintelligible.
>
> Budikka
Dick
It is so unfortunate that Creationism and Intelligent Design have come
to mean Christianity. I am an agnostic. I find the concept of
"Irreducibal Complexity" a useful idea. If nothing else, it is a
convenient way to isolate some of the most intriguing questions.
How could feather evolve?
How does a cell membrane evolve?
How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
process that can be applied to any question.
Science cannot be attacked, only dogmas defended. Once one says all
evolution can be explained by mutation versus environment, the battle
is engaged. However, accepting that there may be "Intervention" opens
doors to dialogue. I would gladly refute Genesis, but never the
possibility of Intelligent Design.
dick
guscubed
Bull. No one has been able to define IC, apart from 'I know it when I
see it' *wave hands*. How exactly do you find the concept of IC a
useful idea?
> How could feather evolve?
Current theories favour several stages starting with reptillian scales
>
> How does a cell membrane evolve?
>
> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
>
I don't know, I'm not a professional scientist, someone else might have
a better idea. However throwing up our hands and saying "It's
Irreducably Complex, it can't be explained by natural means" is not a
useful conclusion.
> So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
How exactly does IC help us understand the answers to the questions you
just asked? Several biological structures, processes and mechanisms
have appeared to be 'Irreducably Complex' in the past and yet we can
now state with a certain degree of confidence how they might have
evolved.
Using the label 'Irreducably Complex' to describe a system that we
don't YET understand
seems an easy way out of asking any more questions. That is not a
healthy mindset to have if you wish to find answers.
>
> As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
> exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
> answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
> process that can be applied to any question.
>
> Science cannot be attacked, only dogmas defended. Once one says all
> evolution can be explained by mutation versus environment, the battle
> is engaged. However, accepting that there may be "Intervention" opens
> doors to dialogue.
OK, there might have been "intervention" - a designer, if given enough
theoretical powers, could do anything including hiding all physical
traces or evidence that points to their existence. Dialogue started,
your turn.
> I would gladly refute Genesis, but never the
> possibility of Intelligent Design.
Sure it's possible just like the Omphalos fallacy, it's just not very
useful.
>
> dick
Pithecanthropus Erectus
In political arenas, not scientific ones, should the debate take place.
The whole concept of "teaching the controversy" is a political one;
one that pulls over this concept of "fairness" and "free speech." The
creationist idea is not to convince scientists that they are following
the wrong path, but to convince voters and parents that science is out
of touch with religion.
They "debate" in churches, on campuses and on the floor of legislatures,
in front of school boards. If scientists wish to stem the tide in the
U.S. of the invasion of God concepts in science classes, then they need
to hire lobbyists and counter this stupidity trend.
Scientists don't need to debate creationists for precisely the reason
that Dawkins states. Politicians need to wake up and protect science.
Especially wrt the ToE.
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
Dave Oldridge
news:pan.2006.07.11....@stopspam.net:
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the
> Infidel Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for
> scientists to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a
> Creationist gives the creationist credibility that he would not
> otherwise have. Although I understand the point, I disagree.
>
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility
> to exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating
> them is to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are
> enough people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why
> creationism is not science, and does not belong in the science
> classroom.
THEY will not debate scientists unless THEY get to set the rules. What
scientists need to do is set up a venue where the creationist who lies
gets booted ignominiously and where there is no time limit on refutations
of glib lies.
Perhaps some sort of courtroom-style debate.
Set it up, organize it debating real scientific issues until the kinks
are worked out, then start inviting professional, loud creationist
apologists to debate their nonsense in a truly FAIR forum. Make sure
everyone knows they have backed down.
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in
> support of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the
> creationist can always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the
> defensive. The emphasis must be on the difference between science and
> religion.
Or, alternatively, the creationist side should be challenged to produce a
SCIENTIFIC theory of creation and suggest how it can be tested, using the
scientific method.
> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each
> kind, and one kind can't change into another. There can be
> "microevolution" within a kind; that much is undeniable.
The word being mistranslated here is the Hebrew miyn. I would venture to
say that the authors of scripture had the same thing in mind as we do
when we say "species."
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Westprog
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrneb8blq....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
Dawkins is counterproductive because he agrees with the creationists on the
fundamental point that religious belief is incompatible with science.
The people who should be aggressively debating the creationists are
Christians who accept that evolution is factually true. They should do it
with reference to the dishonesty of the creationists, and the warped version
of God that they believe in.
J/
jimme...@sbcglobal.net
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
>
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
Do you say that because you want to defend evolution, or because you
would prefer to attack religion? I notice that you have posted to two
newsgroups. Personally, I wish that evangelical atheists would take
their crusade somewhere else and leave evolution alone. I speak as
a non-evangelical atheist.
The thing that I find most distasteful about the talk.origins newsgroup
is that it is filled with anti-religious bigots who know nothing about
the
theory of evolution, but find this a convenient place to make their
sophomoric comments and pretend they have Science behind them to
back them up.
One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
staging ground for attacks on religion. Enough already. Let science
stay neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both
science and religion. Zealots like you and Dawkins may be advancing
the cause of atheism, but you are alienating potential allies for the
cause of evolution and science.
Richard Forrest
MarkA wrote:
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
>
> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive.
Only by lying through their teeth.
> The
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
No, the emphasis must be on honesty.
> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
> concept of "kinds".
No it isn't.
The central difference is that creationists are not bound by the same
rules as scientists when it comes to presenting evidence. The
creationists are unfettered by such concepts as truth and honesty, and
feel free to misrepresent, distort and lie in support of their cause,
and are encouraged to do so by their creationist peers.
Scientists on the other hand are bound to base their arguments on the
evidence, and if they resort to misrepresentation, distortion and
falsehood to argue their case, other scientists will be the first to
condemn them for doing so.
> The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> within a kind; that much is undeniable.
"Kinds" is pretty well irrelevant. It is one of a large number of
examples of words used by creationists in the pretence that they have
some sort of scientific validity, and which are impossible to define in
any meaningful way.
>
> To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind". A human
> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
> evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> more, and evolution MUST occur. The burden of proof is on the
> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
>
"Micro/macro" evolution is just another one of the instances in which
creationists are using scientifically valid terms, but used in a way
which is not that of evolutionary biologists, and in a way which cannot
be defined in a meaningful way.
> The current invocation of a mystical "kind" that is immune to
> macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
> identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
> that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in the
> Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth had been
> tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that everything on
> Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
>
> The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
> despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
>
If the creationists want to do that, it's fine by me. I have no
argument with anyone who wishes to believe that.
I have no argument with anyone because of what they believe. I do have
an arugment with people who wish to present their religious convictions
as science, and then built their whole argument on a misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehood.
This "debate" is not between "evolutionists" and creationists, or
between religion and science.
It's about honesty.
Science is a system which makes it very hard to get away with
dishonesty, and destroys the careers of those found to be dishonest in
their science.
Creationism encourages dishonesty, and rewards richly those who use
dishonesty to forward the cause.
RF
Westprog
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1152693712....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> MarkA wrote:
...
> One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
> that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> staging ground for attacks on religion. Enough already. Let science
> stay neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both
> science and religion. Zealots like you and Dawkins may be advancing
> the cause of atheism, but you are alienating potential allies for the
> cause of evolution and science.
I've no objection to atheists making their case for atheism - but when they
deliberately confuse the case for evolution with the case for atheism, they
make it far more easy for the creationists.
A central plank of the creationist case is that evolution is anti-religion,
and that "evolutionists" are pushing an atheist, communist, anti-american
agenda. The way to counter such an argument is not to agree with it.
J/
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > UC wrote:
> > > MarkA wrote:
> > > > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > > > Guy.
> > >
> > > What is that?
> >
> > http://www.infidelguy.com/
> >
> > > > One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > > > debate creationists.
> > >
> > > 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> > > good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> > > is to it.
> >
> > No, it's a lot more than that. Scientists are not databases, nor are
> > they essentially statisticians. Science is the observation of the
> > natural world (read: "universe"), the gathering of information about
> > it, and the attempt to understand and explain it.
>
> Science without data is nothing. Data gathering is 99.9% of science.
Go ahead and blindly believe whatever you want. Make up whatever
unsupported assine "statistic" you care to. It won't change reality.
Hey, I've got an idea: get Stephen Hawking on the phone and tell him
he's not doing science because he doesn't blindly accumulate data.
> > > >Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > > > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > > > understand the point, I disagree.
> > >
> > > I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> > > hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
> >
> > He probably wasn't any good at debating either. Although he would have
> > been as inanely wooden-headed as the fundies are.
>
> You would be wrong there. He was a great speech-maker. he knew how to
> get his audience to believe in him.
Now all you have to do is show how staticly parotting a speech
translates to thinking on your feet in a debate environment.
Not to people who can think, as I explained.
Budikka
Budikka666
You mean "dumb" questions.
> How could feather evolve?
A feather is nothing more than a complex hair. We find different forms
of feathers in the fossil record.
> How does a cell membrane evolve?
Proto cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Factories of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
> So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
You think evoltuion scientists didn't already talk about these things
long before creationism and ID started muddying the water? They did
and they do, and the difference is that while all ID "scientists" do is
talk, evolution scientists investigate and resolve issues.
ID and creationism have contriobuted not a thing to science. They're a
vacuous waste of time and resources.
> As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
> exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
> answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
> process that can be applied to any question.
Lie. Let's take you literally and say there was a designer. Where did
the designer originate? Was the designer designed by a earlier
designer? And where did *that* designer originate - another designer?
In short, the design "argument" goes nowhere, because unless the
designer is supernatural, it also had to evolve. Design solves
nothing, it merely begs the question.
> Science cannot be attacked, only dogmas defended. Once one says all
> evolution can be explained by mutation versus environment, the battle
> is engaged. However, accepting that there may be "Intervention" opens
> doors to dialogue. I would gladly refute Genesis, but never the
> possibility of Intelligent Design.
>
> dick
Appropriate name.
Budikka
Budikka666
"...atheist, communist, anti-american agenda..."?
You just lost even a pretence at credibility.
And since when is atheism, or science, or religion solely an American
thing? Did you forget you live on planet Earth and the USA is only a
tiny portion of it?
Budikka
Budikka666
> MarkA wrote:
> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > understand the point, I disagree.
> >
> > In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> > exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> > to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> > people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> > not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
> >
> > The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> > of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> > always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> > emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Do you say that because you want to defend evolution, or because you
> would prefer to attack religion? I notice that you have posted to two
> newsgroups. Personally, I wish that evangelical atheists would take
> their crusade somewhere else and leave evolution alone. I speak as
> a non-evangelical atheist.
Well you can sit quietly in the corner and do nothing, or you can speak
up when lies are told. Your choice. But what you should not do is
confuse what happens in the news groups with real life. The two are
not the same.
> The thing that I find most distasteful about the talk.origins newsgroup
>
> is that it is filled with anti-religious bigots who know nothing about
> the
> theory of evolution, but find this a convenient place to make their
> sophomoric comments and pretend they have Science behind them to
> back them up.
And what evidence do you have to support this claim?
> One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
That they are ignorant and/or stupid. And the creationist ID
fill-court press to dirty the water isn't helping anyhtign or anyone.
They started this, not the scientists, so if they're getting a bloody
nose now, they have no one to thank but themselves.
> that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> staging ground for attacks on religion.
And your support for this claim is?
> Enough already. Let science
> stay neutral.
How can scientists stay neutral when they're being insulted and
attacked and lied about on a regular basis by the ID crowd? What you
propose is bullshit and will blow up in your face. You cannot give an
inch to fanatics. Otherwise you end up with Nazi Germany or you get
Iran.
> The middle ground is full of people who respect both
> science and religion. Zealots like you and Dawkins may be advancing
> the cause of atheism, but you are alienating potential allies for the
> cause of evolution and science.
Anyone who respects science will support the slamming of those who lie
about it and try to distort it. Complicity with or limp tolerance of
those who do these things makes you no better than those who do these
things.
Budikka
Westprog
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1152697264.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Westprog wrote:
> > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:1152693712....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > MarkA wrote:
...
> > > One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
> > > that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> > > staging ground for attacks on religion. Enough already. Let science
> > > stay neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both
> > > science and religion. Zealots like you and Dawkins may be advancing
> > > the cause of atheism, but you are alienating potential allies for the
> > > cause of evolution and science.
> > I've no objection to atheists making their case for atheism - but when
they
> > deliberately confuse the case for evolution with the case for atheism,
they
> > make it far more easy for the creationists.
> > A central plank of the creationist case is that evolution is
anti-religion,
> > and that "evolutionists" are pushing an atheist, communist,
anti-american
> > agenda. The way to counter such an argument is not to agree with it.
> "...atheist, communist, anti-american agenda..."?
> You just lost even a pretence at credibility.
Not too quick, eh? One of the tricks of the creationists - as can be easily
seen right here on TO - is to confuse science and religion and nationhood.
The way to combat this is to insist on rigid boundaries between science and
religion.
Who crossposts between alt.atheism and talk.origins? Who benefits from the
interaction? Why assist a dishonest claim?
> And since when is atheism, or science, or religion solely an American
> thing? Did you forget you live on planet Earth and the USA is only a
> tiny portion of it?
Creationism used to be an American thing, which is bad enough, but there are
signs of it creeping into Europe now.
The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept both
religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case. Demanding that
the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only anti-scientific,
it's handing the argument to the creationists on a plate.
J/
BOTW: "Consciousness" - Jeffrey Gray
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <e92hcn$s7i$1...@news.datemas.de>
Creationism used to be a European thing well before it became an
"American" thing, whatever that means.
>The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept both
>religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
>counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
>believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
>conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case.
It is also false.
Evolutionary theory says much that is in conflict with many religions.
An honest scientist could not utter it, atheist or otherwise.
>Demanding that
>the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only anti-scientific,
So, you consider proof to be anti-scientific??
Are you joking?
Is this a temporary abberation on your behalf?
>it's handing the argument to the creationists on a plate.
What "argument"?
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1152697109....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Here, here.
This particular scientist agrees wholeheartedly.
--
TomS
<Xns97FDE94331A2A...@64.59.135.159>, Dave Oldridge stated..."
[...snip...]
>The word being mistranslated here is the Hebrew miyn. I would venture to
>say that the authors of scripture had the same thing in mind as we do
>when we say "species."
>
>
That is possible, but there are other possibilities.
One is that different breeds of cattle would be different kinds.
Another is that it has no reference at all, but when saying "after their kind",
it means something like "in all their variety", or "as they are".
Remember that the concept of "fixity of type" is a quite late development.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
Westprog
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:thl9b2h2v14a40g9g...@4ax.com...
...
> >Creationism used to be an American thing, which is bad enough, but there
are
> >signs of it creeping into Europe now.
> Creationism used to be a European thing well before it became an
> "American" thing, whatever that means.
It largely died out, however. The creationism seen now in Europe comes from
across the Atlantic.
> >The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept both
> >religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
> >counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
> >believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
> >conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case.
> It is also false.
> Evolutionary theory says much that is in conflict with many religions.
However, I didn't say that. I said that it doesn't conflict with religious
belief. Which it doesn't. It conflicts with a particular literal reading of
certain religious texts.
> An honest scientist could not utter it, atheist or otherwise.
He could if he read it carefully.
> >Demanding that
> >the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only
anti-scientific,
> So, you consider proof to be anti-scientific??
> Are you joking?
> Is this a temporary abberation on your behalf?
Investigating metaphysical and philosophical issues has nothing to do with
science. Science has nothing to say on the issue.
I may be mistaken about this, and if anyone wants to point me in the
direction of scientific publications dealing with the existence or
non-existence of God, I'd be interested to read them. N.B. A publication by
a scientist is not the same thing as a scientific publication.
> >it's handing the argument to the creationists on a plate.
> What "argument"?
Their argument that evolution is anti-religious doctrine. I see this on a
regular basis. There are numerous threads here where a piece of creationist
nonsense about some spurious easily refuted claim become sidetracked into
metaphysical debates about the fundamental nature of the universe that
amount to nothing more than swapping prejudices.
That kind of thing is appropriate for alt.atheism. It is not appropriate or
helpful in the debate over evolution. And when scientist switch from
reasoned arguments about science to amateur arguments about religion, they
allow the bystander to think that the scientific arguments - which are often
difficult to follow - are as dubious as their religious assertions.
The fundamental argument against the teaching of ID and creationism is that
religion should be kept seperate from science. So it should.
J/
Christopher A. Lee
Not really. You can't compare the default belief before science became
generally understood, with the today's fundamentalists who deny
science and actively try to replace it with myth.
The Victorians didn't have today's creationist attitudes, apart from a
few high-ups in the church. It was science that had given the progress
and prosperity of Western Europe, and people embraced it. Even those
who took religion seriously. They had a sort of mental disconnect
between god-mode and science mode, and could think outside the box.
Today's creationists can't do that, they are entirely in god-mode.
Richard Forrest
Nonsense.
> Evolutionary theory says much that is in conflict with many religions.
>
No more than does any other branch of any other science.
> An honest scientist could not utter it, atheist or otherwise.
There are plenty of honest scientists who hold strong religious
convictions.
>
> >Demanding that
> >the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only anti-scientific,
>
> So, you consider proof to be anti-scientific??
Offering scientific proof of God is bad science and bad religion.
Science does not offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for
phenomena which can be observed and measured.
Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.
Belief in God is faith, which does not require proof. If it demands
proof, it isn't faith.
RF
Christopher A. Lee
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>Offering scientific proof of God is bad science and bad religion.
Then they shouldn't beg the question, especially in an area where
everything has to be backed up.
>Science does not offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for
>phenomena which can be observed and measured.
>
>Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.
>
>Belief in God is faith, which does not require proof. If it demands
>proof, it isn't faith.
That's not our problem. They shouldn't bring it up in the real world
outside their religion - at which point it becomes subject to the same
tools, methodology as anything else.
>RF
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <e92m1m$4aq$1...@news.datemas.de>
>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
>news:thl9b2h2v14a40g9g...@4ax.com...
>...
>> >Creationism used to be an American thing, which is bad enough, but there
>are
>> >signs of it creeping into Europe now.
>
>> Creationism used to be a European thing well before it became an
>> "American" thing, whatever that means.
>
>It largely died out, however. The creationism seen now in Europe comes from
>across the Atlantic.
>
>> >The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept both
>> >religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
>> >counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
>> >believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
>> >conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case.
>
>> It is also false.
>> Evolutionary theory says much that is in conflict with many religions.
>
>However, I didn't say that. I said that it doesn't conflict with religious
>belief. Which it doesn't. It conflicts with a particular literal reading of
>certain religious texts.
You said this:
"...there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts with
religious belief."
I can cut the philoso-crap by providing a concrete counter-example.
(Thereby proving the statement to be false.)
Vis: Evolutionary theory asserts (quite rightly) that favourable
genetic change is accumulated over time through natural selection,
such that speciation occurs.
This conflicts with the religious belief of millions of people.
These people explicitly say that this bit of evolutionary theory
conflicts with their religious belief.
Which conflicts precisely with what you did write.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
:
--
MarkA
> MarkA wrote:
>> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
>> to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
>> the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
>> I understand the point, I disagree.
>>
>> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
>> exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
>> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
>> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
>> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>>
>> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
>> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
>> always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
>> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Do you say that because you want to defend evolution, or because you would
> prefer to attack religion? I notice that you have posted to two
> newsgroups. Personally, I wish that evangelical atheists would take their
> crusade somewhere else and leave evolution alone. I speak as a
> non-evangelical atheist.
>
I have no desire to "attack religion", except when it attacks evolution.
I generally hang out at alt.atheism, but thought this topic would be of
interest on TO as well.
> The thing that I find most distasteful about the talk.origins newsgroup
>
> is that it is filled with anti-religious bigots who know nothing about
> the theory of evolution, but find this a convenient place to make their
> sophomoric comments and pretend they have Science behind them to back
> them up.
>
> One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is that
> there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a staging
> ground for attacks on religion. Enough already. Let science stay
> neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both science
> and religion. Zealots like you and Dawkins may be advancing the cause of
> atheism, but you are alienating potential allies for the cause of
> evolution and science.
The point is that religion is attacking science in the Creationism
crusade. The policy of ignoring creationists does not seem to be working.
Promoting science may have some value, but religion is intrinsicly more
appealing than science. As scientists, regardless of our religious
beliefs, we must be willing to stand up to the creationists.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
MarkA
>
> MarkA wrote:
>> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> Guy.
>
> What is that?
Podcast - an audio file downloaded from the Internet
Richard Dawkins - a British scientist, advocate of Evolution.
Infidel Guy - a radio program/web site that distributes podcasts of
previous shows.
>
>> One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
>> debate creationists.
>
> 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> is to it.
Science is about discovering facts. Debating is about winning arguments.
They are not always the same thing.
Science does more than compile data; it looks for explanations for the
data. As Darwin said, without theories, science is little more than
cataloging all the pebbles in a quarry.
>
>>Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
>> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
>> understand the point, I disagree.
>
> I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
>
Dawkins feels that just by having a debate, the creationists have won,
because it gives them the appearance of legitimacy. I disagree, because
avoiding a debate gives the creationist the appearance of having a strong
position.
>> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility
>> to exert pressure on various state legislatures.
>
> Credibility? They have some influence, but no credibility whatsoever.
>
>>To avoid debating them is
>> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition.
>
> I say to counter them, with no 'debating' as such.
>
To avoid debating is to appear afraid to debate them. The problem with
a debate is that science thrives on hard data, facts, and theories.
Though I am not a debater, I have heard that one tactic used by successful
debaters is to avoid committing yourself to a definite position, because
as soon as you do, your opponent can attack that position.
Scientists naively assume that by citing the evidence, people will be
convinced. This plays right into the hands of the creationists, because
they can then attack the evidence, while presenting no positive evidence
in support of creationism. Hence, the scientist is constantly on the
defensive, and the overall impression is that the creationists have a
strong position, because they were on the offensive for the entire debate.
>> There are enough
>> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
>> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> I cannot imagine anyone being "on the fence" who has actually been
> instructed in science.
>
I cannot imagine an American high school student who can't find the USA on
a globe, but many are out there. The vast majority of lay people don't
really know the difference between science and creationism. Science is
inherently counter-intuitive, and creationists have worked hard to craft
attractive sounding arguments.
>> The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in
>> support of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the
>> creationist can always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the
>> defensive.
>
> Depends on what you mean.
>
>> The
>> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Not at all.
>
>> The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
>> concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each
>> kind, and one kind can't change into another. There can be
>> "microevolution" within a kind; that much is undeniable.
>>
>> To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind".
>
> 'Species' and 'kind' are both ordinary English words that means
> essentially the same thing. 'Species' is a word that predates
> evolutionary theory by millennia, and is actually a term of logic, not
> biology.
>
Ah, but that is my point: to creationists, a "kind" has some divine
property that scientists do not acknowlege when they talk about "species".
>>A human
>> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for.
>
> ????
>
I mean, there is no devine difference between a man and a microbe, as
the religionists will claim.
>> In fact,
>> evolution is *inevitable*.
>
> Depends on what you mean. 'Progress' is certainly NOT inevitable.
>
>> Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate; therefore, mutations will
>> occur. Natural selection will decide if those mutations get propagated
>> or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and more, and evolution
>> MUST occur.
>
> Not is there is insufficient selection pressure. There are still
> bacteria, right? There is no inevitability about multi-cellular
> organisms at all.
>
Then why do they exist? Clearly, there are niches for multi-cellular
organisms, else the world would still be covered by a giant mat of
blue-green algae.
>>The burden of proof is on the
>> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is
>> prevented.
>
> WTF?
We can prove that mutations occur, and natural selection occurs. The
reason that cumulative mutations do not eventually produce a new species,
or allow one "kind" to become another, is because:
(waiting for Creation Scientist (an oxymoron, I know) to fill in the blank).
>>
>> The current invocation of a mystical "kind" that is immune to
>> macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
>> identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
>> that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in
>> the Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth
>> had been tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that
>> everything on Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
>>
>> The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
>> despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
>>
>> --
>> MarkA
>> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
--
er...@swva.net
> MarkA wrote:
> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > understand the point, I disagree.
> >
> > In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> > exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> > to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> > people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> > not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
> >
> > The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> > of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> > always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> > emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Do you say that because you want to defend evolution, or because you
> would prefer to attack religion? I notice that you have posted to two
> newsgroups. Personally, I wish that evangelical atheists would take
> their crusade somewhere else and leave evolution alone.
Me too.
> I speak as
> a non-evangelical atheist.
>
> The thing that I find most distasteful about the talk.origins newsgroup
>
> is that it is filled with anti-religious bigots who know nothing about
> the
> theory of evolution, but find this a convenient place to make their
> sophomoric comments and pretend they have Science behind them to
> back them up.
That can't be, because, while there are a few anti-religious bigots
with an agenda on t.o, you are simply wrong in saying that it is
"filled with" them.
>
> One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
> that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> staging ground for attacks on religion.
It is not "religious people" in general who are attacking science, it
is fundamentalists, who are not only attacking science, but also modern
religion with its tendency to study the Bible from a scholarly
viewpoint, as a fallible document like many others.
> Enough already. Let science
> stay neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both
> science and religion. Zealots like you
You have a hornet in your helmet. The original poster showed no
zealotry at all, and here you are, foaming at the mouth.
> and Dawkins may be advancing
> the cause of atheism,
Where does the OP do anything to advance the cause of atheism?
> but you are alienating potential allies for the
> cause of evolution and science.
You are alienating people who might otherwise think your head isn't,
erm, is on your shoulders.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> MarkA wrote:
> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > understand the point, I disagree.
> >
> > In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
> > exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
> > to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> > people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> > not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
> >
> > The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
> > of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> > always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
> > emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> Do you say that because you want to defend evolution, or because you
> would prefer to attack religion? I notice that you have posted to two
> newsgroups. Personally, I wish that evangelical atheists would take
> their crusade somewhere else and leave evolution alone.
Me too.
> I speak as
> a non-evangelical atheist.
>
> The thing that I find most distasteful about the talk.origins newsgroup
>
> is that it is filled with anti-religious bigots who know nothing about
> the
> theory of evolution, but find this a convenient place to make their
> sophomoric comments and pretend they have Science behind them to
> back them up.
That can't be, because, while there are a few anti-religious bigots
with an agenda on t.o, you are simply wrong in saying that it is
"filled with" them.
>
> One reason the religious people are beginning to attack science is
> that there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> staging ground for attacks on religion.
It is not "religious people" in general who are attacking science, it
is fundamentalists, who are not only attacking science, but also modern
religion with its tendency to study the Bible from a scholarly
viewpoint, as a fallible document like many others.
> Enough already. Let science
> stay neutral. The middle ground is full of people who respect both
> science and religion. Zealots like you
You have a hornet in your helmet. The original poster showed no
zealotry at all, and here you are, foaming at the mouth.
> and Dawkins may be advancing
> the cause of atheism,
Where does the OP do anything to advance the cause of atheism?
> but you are alienating potential allies for the
> cause of evolution and science.
You are alienating people who might otherwise think your head isn't,
Richard Forrest
Well, no. It isn't our problem.
As I keep saying, the problem is not "evolutionist" v. creationist or
science v. religion.
I don't care what someone believes on faith. If they want to believe
that the world was created 6,000 years ago, I won't argue with that.
It's when such beliefs are presented as science that I care, as in
every single instance I have ever come across that presentation is
founded on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehood.
Scientists are by no means morally superior to the rest of the world.
However they work in a strong discipline which relies on the honesty of
scientists in matters of science, and destroys the careers of those who
propogate falsehoods.
Creationists have no such control, and no matter how often their lies
are exposed, they not only keep on repeating them, but gain influence
and finanical rewards by doing so.
It's all about honesty.
I despise dishonesty, especially when it is used to exploit the genuine
desires and fears of decent people for political and financial gain.
RF
>
> >RF
UC
But that's simply false.
UC
Budikka666 wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > UC wrote:
> > > > MarkA wrote:
> > > > > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > > > > Guy.
> > > >
> > > > What is that?
> > >
> > > http://www.infidelguy.com/
> > >
> > > > > One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> > > > > debate creationists.
> > > >
> > > > 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> > > > good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> > > > is to it.
> > >
> > > No, it's a lot more than that. Scientists are not databases, nor are
> > > they essentially statisticians. Science is the observation of the
> > > natural world (read: "universe"), the gathering of information about
> > > it, and the attempt to understand and explain it.
> >
> > Science without data is nothing. Data gathering is 99.9% of science.
>
> Go ahead and blindly believe whatever you want. Make up whatever
> unsupported assine "statistic" you care to. It won't change reality.
> Hey, I've got an idea: get Stephen Hawking on the phone and tell him
> he's not doing science because he doesn't blindly accumulate data.
Perhaps "doing science" is source of the issue. Most scientists DO NOT
formulate theories. They gather data and publish findings. Most
scientists would not know how to formulate a theoy to save their lives.
I know lots of scientists, and I know exactly what they do. Theorizing
is not part of their work in the vast majority of cases. Research is.
>
> > > > >Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> > > > > creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> > > > > understand the point, I disagree.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> > > > hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
> > >
> > > He probably wasn't any good at debating either. Although he would have
> > > been as inanely wooden-headed as the fundies are.
> >
> > You would be wrong there. He was a great speech-maker. he knew how to
> > get his audience to believe in him.
>
> Now all you have to do is show how staticly parotting a speech
> translates to thinking on your feet in a debate environment.
Maybe you have a point.
Perhaps the syntax is contorted.
>
> Budikka
chris.li...@gmail.com
Budikka666 wrote:
> Dick wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
snip
> >
> > It is so unfortunate that Creationism and Intelligent Design have come
> > to mean Christianity. I am an agnostic. I find the concept of
> > "Irreducibal Complexity" a useful idea. If nothing else, it is a
> > convenient way to isolate some of the most intriguing questions.
>
> You mean "dumb" questions.
>
> > How could feather evolve?
>
> A feather is nothing more than a complex hair. We find different forms
> of feathers in the fossil record.
YIKES! Feathers are not "complex hairs". Feathers and hairs have
completely different evolutionary histories. Feathers are probably
derived from epidermal scutes. Hair arises from follicles deep in the
dermis. I am sure John Harshman or r norman can provide a considerably
more detailed explanation if you're interested.
Chris
TCE
MarkA wrote:
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
>
> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
> people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
> not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>
> of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
> emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>
> concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
> and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
> within a kind; that much is undeniable.
>
> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
> evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
> therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
> mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
>
> macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
> identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
> that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in the
> Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth had been
> tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that everything on
> Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
>
> The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
> despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
>
> --
> MarkA
> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
I know this wasn't the point you were trying to make, but just to
nitpick ;-)
The creationists manifesto isn't 'credible', regardless how many
people mistakenly believe in their cause. Any public group, (or
individual), can screw up the education system by voting members to
school boards and wasting money and the court's time. That isn't
'credibility'; it's simply a large group of silly people. The
flying spaghetti monster folks are also active in the public arena now
- this year they have more funding and say they'll begin their
first court cases and also involve themselves in more school boards
than just Kansas... they're just as incredible as the creationists,
and that's the whole point :-)
---
Strange
UC
MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:56:00 -0700, UC wrote:
>
> >
> > MarkA wrote:
> >> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> >> Guy.
> >
> > What is that?
>
> Podcast - an audio file downloaded from the Internet
> Richard Dawkins - a British scientist, advocate of Evolution.
> Infidel Guy - a radio program/web site that distributes podcasts of
> previous shows.
I know who Dawkins is. I don't know what "Infidel Guy" is.
> >
> >> One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> >> debate creationists.
> >
> > 'Debate' is not what science does, and scientists are not necessarily
> > good debaters. Science basically compiles data. That's really all there
> > is to it.
>
> Science is about discovering facts. Debating is about winning arguments.
> They are not always the same thing.
Right, and that's what I said.
>
> Science does more than compile data; it looks for explanations for the
> data. As Darwin said, without theories, science is little more than
> cataloging all the pebbles in a quarry.
Most scientists are researches who do not formulate new theories.
>
> >
> >>Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> >> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> >> understand the point, I disagree.
> >
> > I would say that it depends on the skills of the individual. I would
> > hate to have to debate someone as oratorically skilled as Hitler.
> >
>
> Dawkins feels that just by having a debate, the creationists have won,
> because it gives them the appearance of legitimacy.
I agree.
> I disagree, because
> avoiding a debate gives the creationist the appearance of having a strong
> position.
Instead, ask them to bring data.
>
> >> In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility
> >> to exert pressure on various state legislatures.
> >
> > Credibility? They have some influence, but no credibility whatsoever.
> >
> >>To avoid debating them is
> >> to let them run free with no meaningful opposition.
> >
> > I say to counter them, with no 'debating' as such.
> >
>
> To avoid debating is to appear afraid to debate them.
Not true.
>The problem with
> a debate is that science thrives on hard data, facts, and theories.
> Though I am not a debater, I have heard that one tactic used by successful
> debaters is to avoid committing yourself to a definite position, because
> as soon as you do, your opponent can attack that position.
Only the most skilled can do that.
I repeat, 'species' is a term of logic borrowed by biology.
>
> >>A human
> >> and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for.
> >
> > ????
> >
>
> I mean, there is no devine difference between a man and a microbe, as
> the religionists will claim.
Divine?
>
> >> In fact,
> >> evolution is *inevitable*.
> >
> > Depends on what you mean. 'Progress' is certainly NOT inevitable.
> >
> >> Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate; therefore, mutations will
> >> occur. Natural selection will decide if those mutations get propagated
> >> or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and more, and evolution
> >> MUST occur.
> >
> > Not is there is insufficient selection pressure. There are still
> > bacteria, right? There is no inevitability about multi-cellular
> > organisms at all.
> >
>
> Then why do they exist?
They happened. They did not HAVE to happen. It was contingent, not
necessary.
> Clearly, there are niches for multi-cellular
> organisms, else the world would still be covered by a giant mat of
> blue-green algae.
It was (I guess), for many millions of years.
>
> >>The burden of proof is on the
> >> creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is
> >> prevented.
> >
> > WTF?
>
> We can prove that mutations occur, and natural selection occurs.
Quite true.
Dick
<james.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> >Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
>> >debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
>> >creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
>> >understand the point, I disagree.
>> >
>> >In the USA at this time, creationists already have enough credibility to
>> >exert pressure on various state legislatures. To avoid debating them is
>> >to let them run free with no meaningful opposition. There are enough
>> >people "on the fence", who need to be educated as to why creationism is
>> >not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
>> >
>> >The focus of the debate, however, must not be on the evidence in support
>> >of evolution. No matter what evidence is presented, the creationist can
>> >always shot holes in it, and put the scientist on the defensive. The
>> >emphasis must be on the difference between science and religion.
>> >
>> >The central difference between creationism and evolution is the fuzzy
>> >concept of "kinds". The creationist believes that God created each kind,
>> >and one kind can't change into another. There can be "microevolution"
>> >within a kind; that much is undeniable.
>> >
>> >To the biologist, however, there is no such thing as a "kind". A human
>> >and a microbe are different only in what their DNA codes for. In fact,
>> >evolution is *inevitable*. Duplication of the DNA is not 100% accurate;
>> >therefore, mutations will occur. Natural selection will decide if those
>> >mutations get propagated or not. Over time, the genome diverges more and
>> >more, and evolution MUST occur. The burden of proof is on the
>> >creationists to identify a mechanism whereby macroevolution is prevented.
>> >
>> >The current invocation of a mystical "kind" that is immune to
>> >macroevolution reminds me of the situation that existed before Newton
>> >identified gravity as a universal force. At that time, it was believed
>> >that there was an inherent difference between the way things moved in the
>> >Heavens versus movement on Earth, due to the fact that the Earth had been
>> >tarnished by Adam & Eve's original sin. Newton showed that everything on
>> >Earth and in the sky moved the same way, due to gravity.
>> >
>> >The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
>> >despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
>>
>> It is so unfortunate that Creationism and Intelligent Design have come
>> to mean Christianity. I am an agnostic. I find the concept of
>> "Irreducibal Complexity" a useful idea. If nothing else, it is a
>> convenient way to isolate some of the most intriguing questions.
>>
>
>Bull. No one has been able to define IC, apart from 'I know it when I
>see it' *wave hands*. How exactly do you find the concept of IC a
>useful idea?
>
>> How could feather evolve?
>
>Current theories favour several stages starting with reptillian scales
I find your acceptance a shredded membrane even approaching the
complexity of the feather's construction, un believeable. Perhaps you
could provide a list of gene functions which could accidentally mutate
the membrane and change the muscular arrangement not to mention the
lung and heart modifications needed to make this change.
Identification of specific genes and an explanation of the timing and
sequencing of such changes might make it understandable.
>
>>
>> How does a cell membrane evolve?
>>
>> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
>>
>
>I don't know, I'm not a professional scientist, someone else might have
>a better idea. However throwing up our hands and saying "It's
>Irreducably Complex, it can't be explained by natural means" is not a
>useful conclusion.
>
You use "natural means" as though such means are understood. In
Darwin's day mutation was seen as a finished product, but today we
have to be able to explain how DNA changes that are acceptable by RNA
and proteins can change whole organs and skeletal arrangements.
Darwin didn't have to consider such mechanisms.
>> So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
>
>How exactly does IC help us understand the answers to the questions you
>just asked? Several biological structures, processes and mechanisms
>have appeared to be 'Irreducably Complex' in the past and yet we can
>now state with a certain degree of confidence how they might have
>evolved.
>
>Using the label 'Irreducably Complex' to describe a system that we
>don't YET understand
>seems an easy way out of asking any more questions. That is not a
>healthy mindset to have if you wish to find answers.
>
>>
>> As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
>> exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
>> answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
>> process that can be applied to any question.
>>
>> Science cannot be attacked, only dogmas defended. Once one says all
>> evolution can be explained by mutation versus environment, the battle
>> is engaged. However, accepting that there may be "Intervention" opens
>> doors to dialogue.
>
>OK, there might have been "intervention" - a designer, if given enough
>theoretical powers, could do anything including hiding all physical
>traces or evidence that points to their existence. Dialogue started,
>your turn.
>
>> I would gladly refute Genesis, but never the
>> possibility of Intelligent Design.
>
>Sure it's possible just like the Omphalos fallacy, it's just not very
>useful.
>
>>
>> dick
More useful than denial.
dick
Westprog
...
> You said this:
> "...there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts with
> religious belief."
> I can cut the philoso-crap by providing a concrete counter-example.
> (Thereby proving the statement to be false.)
> Vis: Evolutionary theory asserts (quite rightly) that favourable
> genetic change is accumulated over time through natural selection,
> such that speciation occurs.
> This conflicts with the religious belief of millions of people.
> These people explicitly say that this bit of evolutionary theory
> conflicts with their religious belief.
> Which conflicts precisely with what you did write.
> Quod erat demonstrandum.
However, there are plenty of people who manage to combine a religious belief
with an acceptance of the fact of evolution.
Do you want to play with words or address substantive issues?
J/
Westprog
"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.12....@nowhere.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:41:52 -0700, jimmenegay wrote:
> The point is that religion is attacking science in the Creationism
> crusade.
No, it isn't. Certain people are attacking a scientific theory from a basis
of a particular religious belief.
> The policy of ignoring creationists does not seem to be working.
The police of bypassing the science and attacking religious belief doesn't
seem any more likely to work.
> Promoting science may have some value, but religion is intrinsicly more
> appealing than science. As scientists, regardless of our religious
> beliefs, we must be willing to stand up to the creationists.
The way to stand up to them is no to cede half the argument before we start.
The creationists have to be confronted both by scientists and by rational
Christians who accept that faith cannot be based on irrationality and lies.
J/
Westprog
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-11527115...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> > The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept
both
> > religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
> > counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
> > believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory
which
> > conflicts with religious belief."
> But that's simply false.
As I've clarified elsewhere, any scientific fact can impinge on any given
religious belief. What it doesn't do is interfere with religious belief as
such.
In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts with
Christianity. There are minority sects of Christians who have a problem with
evolutionary theory.
J/
UC
Westprog wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uranium-11527115...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > > The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept
> both
> > > religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
> > > counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
> > > believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory
> which
> > > conflicts with religious belief."
>
> > But that's simply false.
>
>
> As I've clarified elsewhere, any scientific fact can impinge on any given
> religious belief. What it doesn't do is interfere with religious belief as
> such.
What do you mean by 'interfere'?
>
> In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts with
> Christianity.
That is simply false.
Westprog
...
> > > > The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept
> > > > both
> > > > religion and evolution. This is both intellectually dishonest and
highly
> > > > counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I
don't
> > > > believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory
> > > > which
> > > > conflicts with religious belief."
> > > But that's simply false.
> > As I've clarified elsewhere, any scientific fact can impinge on any
given
> > religious belief. What it doesn't do is interfere with religious belief
as
> > such.
> What do you mean by 'interfere'?
In the sense that one belief impinges on another.
> > In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts
with
> > Christianity.
> That is simply false.
In order to demonstrate that it is true, I'd have to be able to point to
Christians who believe in evolution. There's a stretch.
'the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that
"creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible
were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation
is, it's not a theory alongside theories.... My worry is creationism can end
up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." His view is
that creationism should not be taught in schools.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
> >There are minority sects of Christians who have a problem with
> > evolutionary theory.
They are quite noisy though. The kind of people who don't think archbishops
are Christians.
J/
UC
It is possible to drive a car while not knowing a thing about the
internal combustion engine too.
One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the facts or one does
not.
The fact that people claim to be Christians while accepting evolution
does not make them (the positions) <<<actually>>> compatible.
Westprog
"UC" <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-11527191...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
> > > > In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
conflicts
> > with
> > > > Christianity.
> > > That is simply false.
> > In order to demonstrate that it is true, I'd have to be able to point to
> > Christians who believe in evolution. There's a stretch.
> It is possible to drive a car while not knowing a thing about the
> internal combustion engine too.
> One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the facts or one does
> not.
If one accepts the facts, that leads to a belief
> The fact that people claim to be Christians while accepting evolution
> does not make them (the positions) <<<actually>>> compatible.
No, and it doesn't make them <<<actually>>> incompatible either. It would be
necessary to point out where the incompatibility lies. Naturally a
sufficiently restricted definition of Christianity will do the trick as
well.
I like the archbishop's idea that Creationism is a category mistake.
Claiming that accepting Christ as a living saviour is incompatible with a
common origin for all life on earth is like saying that apples are
incompatible with starlight.
J/
Gordon Hill
Larry Moran wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
> > to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
> > the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
> > I understand the point, I disagree.
>
>
> Larry Moran
Not Larry Moran ;-)
Mybe Kent Hovind or Ken Ham
UC
Westprog wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uranium-11527191...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > > > > In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
> conflicts
> > > with
> > > > > Christianity.
>
> > > > That is simply false.
>
> > > In order to demonstrate that it is true, I'd have to be able to point to
> > > Christians who believe in evolution. There's a stretch.
>
> > It is possible to drive a car while not knowing a thing about the
> > internal combustion engine too.
>
> > One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the facts or one does
> > not.
>
'Faith' is a big part of the Christian creed. "Blessed is he who has
not seen, yet has believed."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/rescomptable.htm
> > The fact that people claim to be Christians while accepting evolution
> > does not make them (the positions) <<<actually>>> compatible.
>
> No, and it doesn't make them <<<actually>>> incompatible either.
It's obvious that there is no 'job' for gods if evolution is true. It
also shows that was formerly believed to be evidence for the existence
of gods is not such.
Westprog
...
> > > One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the facts or one does
> > > not.
> > If one accepts the facts, that leads to a belief.
> 'Faith' is a big part of the Christian creed. "Blessed is he who has
> not seen, yet has believed."
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/rescomptable.htm
Yes, religious belief is established on a different basis to scientific
belief. What I said.
...
> It's obvious that there is no 'job' for gods if evolution is true.
It may be obvious to some people. That seems to me to be another category
error.
> It
> also shows that was formerly believed to be evidence for the existence
> of gods is not such.
Former beliefs modified by new data. Good lord.
J/
UC
Yes, creating 'conflict', eh?
>Good lord.
No, "Good Lord".
Westprog
...
> > > It
> > > also shows that was formerly believed to be evidence for the existence
> > > of gods is not such.
> > Former beliefs modified by new data.
>
> Yes, creating 'conflict', eh?
The birth of modern science led to lessons about scientific and religious
belief.
J/
UC
Like how to write reversed....
jimme...@sbcglobal.net
> On 12 Jul 2006 02:38:29 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <1152697109....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> ... there are too many people (like Dawkins) using science as a
> >> staging ground for attacks on religion.
> >
You are asking for evidence that Dawkins uses science as a staging
ground for attacks against religion? Get serious!
Or perhaps you are asking for evidence that there are many people like
Dawkins. Just look around the talk.origins newsgroup. And presumably
alt.atheism is similar; I haven't checked.
But maybe what you are looking for is evidence that there are TOO MANY
such people. De gustibus, non disputandum est.
VoiceOfReason
MarkA wrote:
> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists to
> debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives the
> creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although I
> understand the point, I disagree.
I disagree with your disagreement.
In most so-called "debates", the creationist quite often takes on the
properties of pond scum: it stinks of decay and it fouls your shoes.
Step in pond scum - it gishes out of the way, but the moment you move
away it will immediately slime back where it was before. It's much
closer to the bottom of the food chain. Pond scum has been around
since the dawn of time, and it'll always be there. Grow, achieve,
reach for the sky, etc., but the pond scum will always be there,
stinking up the place and trying to foul your Keds.
The only place I see that debate really counts is in the courtrooms.
Creationists can easily flim-flam their own members, but they are
totally outclassed in Federal Courts.
Ken Denny
>
> but religion is intrinsicly more
> appealing than science.
Not to me.
Gordon Hill
Westprog wrote:
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrneb8blq....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> > > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> > > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
> > > to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
> > > the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
> > > I understand the point, I disagree.
>
>
> fundamental point that religious belief is incompatible with science.
>
> The people who should be aggressively debating the creationists are
> Christians who accept that evolution is factually true. They should do it
> with reference to the dishonesty of the creationists, and the warped version
> of God that they believe in.
You're on target regarding "the God they believe in". Kenneth Miller
did this in his book, In Search of Darwin's God."
While the "debate" about the origin of life is a fiction, the issue of
speciation is not. The simple (simple minded maybe) question here for
the religious is whether God created every species from scratch or used
available species to create new species. I have asked this question of
some borderline creationists and been astonished by their saying, "I
never thought of it that way before."
A significant problem is the clergy who are so concerned with shrinking
membership they are afraid of controversy.
The absence of this "debate" within most churches may be delaying
progress as much or more than the absence of it from the media.
(My opinions are free and worth every penny)
Budikka666
Still waiting on support for the "...atheist, communist, anti-american
agenda...". Haven't seen a shred of it yet. Not expecting to.
> Who crossposts between alt.atheism and talk.origins? Who benefits from the
> interaction? Why assist a dishonest claim?
Prove that it's a dishonest claim, then I'll respond to your as yet
unsupported assertion.
> > And since when is atheism, or science, or religion solely an American
> > thing? Did you forget you live on planet Earth and the USA is only a
> > tiny portion of it?
>
> Creationism used to be an American thing, which is bad enough, but there are
> signs of it creeping into Europe now.
It's all over the world and has been for some time, but from what I've
seen, nowhere is it as obsessively-compulsive as it is in the USA.
> The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept both
> religion and evolution.
Majority of whom?
> This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
> counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
> believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory which
> conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case.
It depends on where their case is coming from. If they believe the
Bible is literally true, as the young-Earth creationists insist, then
they do indeed believe it contradicts wiht their religious belief.
That's their entire motivation. That's why they want it out of
schools. That's why it needs to be fought on science alone because
evolution is a scientific issue, not a religious one. If the theists
who accept evolution wish to come on board then they're most welcome,
especially if they're people like Kenneth Miller.
> Demanding that
> the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only anti-scientific,
> it's handing the argument to the creationists on a plate.
Please do point out to me where I specified that, and I'll show you how
you're lying.
Budikka
Budikka666
You're right. I could have worded that a lot better (not that the
original material deserved better), my mind was on something else when
I typed it.
B.
Budikka666
If you were seriously interested in learning, you would educate
yourself. It isn't hard to find this material: I found this in 30
seconds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
Knowing where to look helps, of course, but a Google search for
"evolution of feathers" found 955 pages in the English language. Ttry
it.
Just because science at present doesn't know everything doesn't mean
evolution is all wrong and the creationists are all right. The Theory
of Evolution has been solidly built up for almost 150 years. It has
not failed any test to which it has been put. There is no other
scientifically-supported explanation for the diversity and distribution
of living things on earth - unless, of course, you care to share one
with us?
A prediction made by the Theory recently turned up yet another
transitional form in the movement of organisms form aquatic to
terrestrial habitat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
The Theory of Evolution could not have accurately made a prediction
like this is there was no science behind it, or if there had been an
arbitrary divine creation just six thousand years ago followed by a
global flood.
> >> How does a cell membrane evolve?
> >>
> >> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
> >>
> >
> >I don't know, I'm not a professional scientist, someone else might have
> >a better idea. However throwing up our hands and saying "It's
> >Irreducably Complex, it can't be explained by natural means" is not a
> >useful conclusion.
> >
> You use "natural means" as though such means are understood. In
> Darwin's day mutation was seen as a finished product, but today we
> have to be able to explain how DNA changes that are acceptable by RNA
> and proteins can change whole organs and skeletal arrangements.
> Darwin didn't have to consider such mechanisms.
And those explanations are coming thick and fast. Here's a recent
article on topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/maternal_effect_genes.php
[Rest snipped]
Budikka
Dick
wrote:
>You mean "dumb" questions.
>
I am aware of "dumb" answers, not dumb questions
>> How could feather evolve?
>
>A feather is nothing more than a complex hair. We find different forms
>of feathers in the fossil record.
>
Junk yards are full of different kinds of autos, this explains nothing
about their design.
>> How does a cell membrane evolve?
>
>Proto cells:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks."
Speculation, why is this speculation better than the speculation of
"ID?"
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
" which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth" not only "may", but passing the buck to other worlds, still
begging the question as to "origins."
>
>Factories of life:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
>
>Lab molecules mimic life:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
>
>> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
>
>Mechanism for evolution described:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
"Mechanism for evolution described" headline
"Scientists have discovered what they believe may be the molecular
basis of evolution.
They may have found out what actually happens to an organism's genes
that enables its offspring to adapt and change"
Isn't this also speculation. Not even new speculation. Obviously no
one is satsified that current speculation is satisfying or the seach
would be over.
>Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
>http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
>
>
>> So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
>
>You think evoltuion scientists didn't already talk about these things
>long before creationism and ID started muddying the water? They did
>and they do, and the difference is that while all ID "scientists" do is
>talk, evolution scientists investigate and resolve issues.
>
>ID and creationism have contriobuted not a thing to science. They're a
>vacuous waste of time and resources.
>
The discussion about questions not yet answered has done one thing;
It aroused my interest. To me, that is no small thing. Once I have
all the answers, I will find something new to explore. Somehow I
don't think that will happen in this life time.
>> As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
>> exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
>> answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
>> process that can be applied to any question.
>
>Lie. Let's take you literally and say there was a designer. Where did
>the designer originate? Was the designer designed by a earlier
>designer? And where did *that* designer originate - another designer?
>In short, the design "argument" goes nowhere, because unless the
>designer is supernatural, it also had to evolve. Design solves
>nothing, it merely begs the question.
>
I don't know what I lied about.
The possibility of a designer is no different than the possibilities
mentioned in the links you provided. I am curious, the dates were not
current, have you lost interest?
>> Science cannot be attacked, only dogmas defended. Once one says all
>> evolution can be explained by mutation versus environment, the battle
>> is engaged. However, accepting that there may be "Intervention" opens
>> doors to dialogue. I would gladly refute Genesis, but never the
>> possibility of Intelligent Design.
>>
>> dick
>
>Appropriate name.
How informative!
>
>Budikka
dick (my parents liked it)
Dick
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Budikka666 wrote:
>> Dick wrote:
>> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> >
>> > It is so unfortunate that Creationism and Intelligent Design have come
>> > to mean Christianity. I am an agnostic. I find the concept of
>> > "Irreducibal Complexity" a useful idea. If nothing else, it is a
>> > convenient way to isolate some of the most intriguing questions.
>>
>> You mean "dumb" questions.
>>
>> > How could feather evolve?
>>
>> A feather is nothing more than a complex hair. We find different forms
>> of feathers in the fossil record.
>
>YIKES! Feathers are not "complex hairs". Feathers and hairs have
>completely different evolutionary histories. Feathers are probably
>derived from epidermal scutes. Hair arises from follicles deep in the
>dermis. I am sure John Harshman or r norman can provide a considerably
>more detailed explanation if you're interested.
>
>Chris
>
Thanks for the comment. I don't have a good memory to be able to cite
authorities. I was surprised at the idea of "complex hairs." Complex
anything for that matter.
The feather itself does not allow flight without a lung, heart,
skeletal and muscle alteration (as I understand the issue) also a
sophisticated brain flight control system. So often the focus by ID
has been on just the feather or eye, but it is the whole system which
must change in a coordinated fashion.
Then there is the question of how such coordinated alterations could
come about one DNA gene mutation at a time.
No matter what the motivation of the creators of ID may be, I am
greatful they popularized the complexities of evolution. It certainly
has captured my interest.
dick
jimme...@sbcglobal.net
> The feather itself does not allow flight without a lung, heart,
> skeletal and muscle alteration (as I understand the issue) also a
> sophisticated brain flight control system. So often the focus by ID
> has been on just the feather or eye, but it is the whole system which
> must change in a coordinated fashion.
>
> Then there is the question of how such coordinated alterations could
> come about one DNA gene mutation at a time.
>
> No matter what the motivation of the creators of ID may be, I am
> greatful they popularized the complexities of evolution. It certainly
> has captured my interest.
The "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution does have
some plausibility - at least until you look deeper at the way in which
evolutionary science suggests that such complex systems would
have evolved .
A symmetrical argument against ID also has some plausibility - the
argument of "irreducible stupidity". For example, why would an
intelligent designer (or Designer) have given the penguin feathers,
given that it was never meant to fly? If the IDer defends the
intelligence of the designer by pointing out that feathers are also
good insulation, they have successfully defended their own position,
but at the cost of undermining their attack on evolution.
I like that.
Budikka666
And which answers have you been given that are dumb? Please point them
out and explain why they are dumb, then offer a better explanation from
the creationist point of view.
> >> How could feather evolve?
> >
> >A feather is nothing more than a complex hair. We find different forms
> >of feathers in the fossil record.
> >
> Junk yards are full of different kinds of autos, this explains nothing
> about their design.
What I should have said is that a feather is nothing more than a
complex scale. It is made of the same material. Modern birds have
scales on their legs. There are fossil birds that are quite literally
half-way between a reptile and a modern bird. Archaeopteryx was one of
these.
> >> How does a cell membrane evolve?
> >
> >Proto cells:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
>
> "The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
> of tubes on the surface of rocks."
>
> Speculation, why is this speculation better than the speculation of
> "ID?"
Because it is supported by solid science. ID is supported by hot air
and little of it.
Please name me one paper published in a peer-reviewed science journal
which establishes a theory which better explains the evidence than does
the Theory of Evolution. You cannot, can you? Because there isn't
one.
Failing that, point out to me even one paper published in a
peer-reviewed science journal which offers sound science refuting the
Theory of Evolution. You cannot, can you? Because there isn't one.
In short, you have nothing but unsupported bullshit on your side. The
Theory of Evolution has ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SUPPORT, and
every week that goes by brings more. Meanwhile creationism and ID sit
wallowing in the unsupported tedious, rehashed blatherings of
yesteryear, going nowhere, achieving nothing, throwing no light on
anything.
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
>
> " which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
> Earth" not only "may", but passing the buck to other worlds, still
> begging the question as to "origins."
Evolution does not address origins. That would be the science of
abiogenesis. If you want to learn about it, read "Vital Dust" by Nobel
laureate Christian de Duve.
> >Factories of life:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
> >
> >Lab molecules mimic life:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
> >
> >> How does one evolve DNA without proteins?
> >
> >Mechanism for evolution described:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
>
> "Mechanism for evolution described" headline
>
> "Scientists have discovered what they believe may be the molecular
> basis of evolution.
>
> They may have found out what actually happens to an organism's genes
> that enables its offspring to adapt and change"
>
> Isn't this also speculation. Not even new speculation. Obviously no
> one is satsified that current speculation is satisfying or the seach
> would be over.
It's science. It's supported. And what do you have to replace it
with? Anything other than your assinine blather? I thought not. How
pathetic you truly are. You are completely empty inside. Your entire
existence consists of criticisng the hard work of others and oyu can
offer not a single thing to support your carping, nor anything to
replace what you seek to tear down.. How awful an existence you must
lead. How empty. How pointless. How fruitless.
> >Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
> >http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
> >
> >
> >> So many great questions and IC provides a way to talk about them.
> >
> >You think evoltuion scientists didn't already talk about these things
> >long before creationism and ID started muddying the water? They did
> >and they do, and the difference is that while all ID "scientists" do is
> >talk, evolution scientists investigate and resolve issues.
> >
> >ID and creationism have contriobuted not a thing to science. They're a
> >vacuous waste of time and resources.
> >
> The discussion about questions not yet answered has done one thing;
> It aroused my interest. To me, that is no small thing. Once I have
> all the answers, I will find something new to explore. Somehow I
> don't think that will happen in this life time.
Not if you sit on your whiney ass complaining, it won't. Unlike the
scientists who are out there working hard every day to learn about our
unvierse and how this knowledge can benefit humanity.
Think about that next time you benefit from the learning provided by
these people. The next time you see a doctor. The next time you get
medicine. The next time you use your computer to compain about these
people - the computer that would not even be available to you were it
not for the hard work of scientists using precisely the same principles
that evolutionists use. The computer which would not work if these
scientists didn;t know what they were doing.
> >> As to Designers, there is a whole other fascinating realm of
> >> exploration once we shake off Christianity. If Evolution cannot
> >> answer our questions then we need not say "Science failed," it is the
> >> process that can be applied to any question.
> >
> >Lie. Let's take you literally and say there was a designer. Where did
> >the designer originate? Was the designer designed by a earlier
> >designer? And where did *that* designer originate - another designer?
> >In short, the design "argument" goes nowhere, because unless the
> >designer is supernatural, it also had to evolve. Design solves
> >nothing, it merely begs the question.
> >
> I don't know what I lied about.
That there was a designer. Where is your evidence?
> The possibility of a designer is no different than the possibilities
> mentioned in the links you provided. I am curious, the dates were not
> current, have you lost interest?
Fidn your own links if you want somethting more recent. And check out
the vintage of the dates on the materials the creationists use if you
want something to compare mine with. Then youc an see whose references
are obsolete.
Do you think you're god almighty that you can sit on your lazy ass and
demand adherents of evolution provide you with up-to-the-minute answers
to every single petty question you dream up?
Meanwhile, chew on this list (and I don't care if it's somewhat
outdated or if some of the links are broken):
666 items of evidence for macroevolution:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
"Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge" are not dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/8d77u
And 10 questions creationists would rather dodge are dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/7lvwr
And finally, a leading supporter of intelligent design is disowned by
his own university:
http://tinyurl.com/dydbr
And embarrassed on court on the topic:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
Read about:
Abiogenesis:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
Proto cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Factories of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
Precambrian to cambrian:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
Early diversification:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
Transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Primitive fish different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/504776.stm
Fish with fingers:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html
Snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680116.stm
Ant-wasp evolution:
http://research.amnh.org/entomology/social_insects/publications/ms_sp...
Mosquitoes still evolving:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158522.stm
Origins of flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664541.stm
4-winged dinos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm
Dog evolution:
http://www.provet.co.uk/online/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
Human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Computer simulated evolution:
http://necsi.org/postdocs/sayama/sdsr/
Evolution vs. creationism debates:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html
Evolution not "atheist religion":
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html
29 Evidences supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The evolution of the eye:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
The woodpecker's tongue:
http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm
Radiometric dating - a Christian perpective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Noah's ark never happened:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Ex-creationist on why young Earth creationism doesn't work:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/
Another ex-creationist:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Creationists cannot define "kind":
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
Even evolutionists believe in God!:
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/04/04/01.asp
General anti-creationism/pro-evolution FAQs:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/newindex.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specif...
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/index.html
Questionable creationist credentials:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Even dyed-in-the-wool creationists think a lot of their arguments are
bad:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Budikka
Larry Moran
> Larry Moran wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
>> > to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
>> > the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
>> > I understand the point, I disagree.
>>
>> Which Creationists do you think Richard Dawkins should debate?
> Mybe Kent Hovind or Ken Ham
Wouldn't that do exactly what Dawkins fears - give them credibility?
If you think Dawkins would "win" such a debate, you haven't been paying
attention.
Larry Moran
Dick
wrote:
"Paul Keck's recounting of How the interlocking mechanism on feathers
probably developed:
In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much
like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of those
other types of feathers mentioned above still are. At some point, some
of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early
feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection
favored those animals that possessed them."
I count the use of the word "probably" 3 times in this short segment.
If you read the article you would find it is all speculation:
dick
Dick
wrote:
I was referring to your response to my statement above. I said
"intriguing questions" you said "dumb questions."
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> The Creationists want to continue that "divine difference" mentality,
> despite the fact that science moves forward very nicely without it.
I would like to see Ken Ham debate Vine Deloria and Michael Cremo.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <e930du$nc6$1...@news.datemas.de>
>
>"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
>news:oaq9b29bd38ccmkha...@4ax.com...
>...
>> You said this:
>> "...there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts with
>> religious belief."
>
>> I can cut the philoso-crap by providing a concrete counter-example.
>> (Thereby proving the statement to be false.)
>
>> Vis: Evolutionary theory asserts (quite rightly) that favourable
>> genetic change is accumulated over time through natural selection,
>> such that speciation occurs.
>> This conflicts with the religious belief of millions of people.
>> These people explicitly say that this bit of evolutionary theory
>> conflicts with their religious belief.
>
>> Which conflicts precisely with what you did write.
>
>> Quod erat demonstrandum.
>
>However, there are plenty of people who manage to combine a religious belief
>with an acceptance of the fact of evolution.
Utterly irrelevant.
You were wrong.
>Do you want to play with words or address substantive issues?
Thank you for your eventual admission of error.
Quite why you could not have read your own words, and come to this
conclusion before accusing me of dishonesty, I cannot fathom.
But that you were so quick to do so, on such a plain and simple
example of English, and so very forgetful of your own wording,
(especially considering that I included it verbatim the first time
around), does not augur well for any sort of reasonable interaction
with you on more controversial topics, I'm afraid.
Having you retract the accusation of dishonesty against myself, is NOT
"playing with words".
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <e9319f$p4q$1...@news.datemas.de>>news:uranium-11527115...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>...
>> > The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept
>both
>> > counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
>which
>> > conflicts with religious belief."
>
>
>
>As I've clarified elsewhere, any scientific fact can impinge on any given
>religious belief. What it doesn't do is interfere with religious belief as
>such.
>
>Christianity.
Not this lie again?
I despise dishonesty.
>There are minority sects of Christians who have a problem with
>evolutionary theory.
You contradict your above assertion immediately!
(And none of this "playing with words" rubbish.
I am pointing out your illogical assertions.)
--
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1152726587.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Could you please learn to quote properly?
You make it appear as though I wrote some of the above.
Vescere bracis meis.
--
Dave Oldridge
news:162702824.000...@drn.newsguy.com:
> "On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:55:50 +0000 (GMT), in article
> <Xns97FDE94331A2A...@64.59.135.159>, Dave Oldridge
> stated..." [...snip...]
>>The word being mistranslated here is the Hebrew miyn. I would venture
>>to say that the authors of scripture had the same thing in mind as we
>>do when we say "species."
>>
>>
>
> That is possible, but there are other possibilities.
>
> One is that different breeds of cattle would be different kinds.
>
> Another is that it has no reference at all, but when saying "after
> their kind", it means something like "in all their variety", or "as
> they are".
>
> Remember that the concept of "fixity of type" is a quite late
> development.
Actually, experimental evidence indicates that even stone-age tribes can
identify species with some accuracy. I'm pretty sure whoever originally
wrote Genesis had the same ability and my Hebrew scholar friends pretty
much agree with me that this is the intended meaning of the word. It's
not a huge deal to observe that dogs don't have kittens and cats don't
have puppies. What was surprising, though, was how well the stone-agers
did at identifying botanical species.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <e930jm$noh$1...@news.datemas.de>
>
>"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.07.12....@nowhere.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:41:52 -0700, jimmenegay wrote:
>...
>> The point is that religion is attacking science in the Creationism
>> crusade.
>
>No, it isn't. Certain people are attacking a scientific theory from a basis
>of a particular religious belief.
>
>> The policy of ignoring creationists does not seem to be working.
>
>The police of bypassing the science and attacking religious belief doesn't
>seem any more likely to work.
>
>> Promoting science may have some value, but religion is intrinsicly more
>> appealing than science. As scientists, regardless of our religious
>> beliefs, we must be willing to stand up to the creationists.
>
>The way to stand up to them is no to cede half the argument before we start.
>
>The creationists have to be confronted both by scientists and by rational
>Christians who accept that faith cannot be based on irrationality and lies.
By very definition, there are no such Christians.
Their whole dogma is based on irrationality and lies.
--
Gordon Hill
Larry Moran wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2006 09:11:59 -0700, Gordon Hill <gor...@explainer.com> wrote:
> > Larry Moran wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> >> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
> >> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
> >> > to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
> >> > the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
> >> > I understand the point, I disagree.
> >>
> >> Which Creationists do you think Richard Dawkins should debate?
>
>
> Wouldn't that do exactly what Dawkins fears - give them credibility?
That would be his choice, of course, but I think exposing BS to full
sun dries it up.
> If you think Dawkins would "win" such a debate, you haven't been paying
> attention.
You're probably right. Would Kenneth Miller be a better choice instead
of Dawkins?
I'm of the opinion that there are at least three types of people who
would consider the debate: those who side with either side, no matter
what, and those who are truly interested. If scientists aren't willing
to discuss science in a public forum, the creationists lose nothing.
But that's my opinion, reinforced by a few conversations with friends
who thought creationism had some credence until they considered the
evidence. If I can be an influence on the subject, with my minor
credentials, a scientist would be a hit... with the truly thoughtful
person.
>
>
> Larry Moran
gusCubed
Well his magic time-machine camera was probably on the blink. Absolute
certainty only dwells in the realms of mathematicians and religious
zealotry. Yes it's speculation, but it's speculation supported by a lot
of evidence.
What is ID but pure speculation with no supporting evidence?
Budikka666
Once agAIn we get whiney-ass bullshit fROm you and you avoid all
questions. How interesting. So let's boil it down to just one
question:
WHAT ALTERNATIVE DO YOU haVE TO EVOLUTION WHICH EXPLAINS THE FACTS,
EXPLAINS THE SCIENCE, AND EXPLAINS THE DISTRIBUTION AND DIVERSITY OF
ORGANISMS ON EARTH?
Budikka
Westprog
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1152726587.5...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dawkins has a perfect right to talk about his beliefs on religion. His
scientific background provides him with a basis for his beliefs.
However, he is not speaking scientifically when he talks about metaphysics.
His opinions are not privileged, and he is often speaking outside his area
of expertise.
J/
Westprog
"Gordon Hill" <gor...@explainer.com> wrote in message
news:1152731051.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There seems to be a degree of cowardice. There are churchmen who know that
creationism is dishonest, but they are frightened to engage them.
When creationinists allege that they have an exclusive hold on the faith,
that's a libel against millions of their fellow Christians. They should be
slapped down as hard for their stupid religious beliefs as for their stupid
anti-science. It's no good leaving it to people who don't believe in God in
the first place. They aren't going to point out doctrinal error.
J/
Westprog
IMO the creationists would try to manouvre Dawkins into asserting that
science and religion were incompatible, and that Darwin contradicts
Christianity. That would be hugely useful for them.
J/
Westprog
...
> Still waiting on support for the "...atheist, communist, anti-american
> agenda...". Haven't seen a shred of it yet. Not expecting to.
You've never heard statements like that from creationists? There's a new
post from Logos that explains the whole process. I think that he implies
that Darwinism leads on to termite infestation and hair loss as well.
> > Who crossposts between alt.atheism and talk.origins? Who benefits from
the
> > interaction? Why assist a dishonest claim?
> Prove that it's a dishonest claim, then I'll respond to your as yet
> unsupported assertion.
The proof that religion and evolution are not incompatible worldviews can be
seen, for example, in the list of churchmen who accept the fact of
evolution.
...
> It's all over the world and has been for some time, but from what I've
> seen, nowhere is it as obsessively-compulsive as it is in the USA.
> > The way to oppose this is not to marginalise the majority who accept
both
> > religion and evolution.
> Majority of whom?
The majority of Christians worldwide belong to churches that accept
evolution.
> > This is both intellectually dishonest and highly
> > counterproductive. An honest scientist and atheist would say "I don't
> > believe in God myself - but there is nothing in evolutionary theory
which
> > conflicts with religious belief." That undercuts their case.
> It depends on where their case is coming from. If they believe the
> Bible is literally true, as the young-Earth creationists insist, then
> they do indeed believe it contradicts wiht their religious belief.
Bible literalism was disappearing in the nineteenth century, way before
Darwin. It was obvious that the facts of science conflicted with the
knowlege available to the Jews writing two thousand years ago.
In fact, non-literal interpretations go back to Augustine. All serious
theologians realise that the Bible is a religious document, not a
cosmological guidebook. The creationists are as primitive theologically as
they are scientifically.
> That's their entire motivation. That's why they want it out of
> schools. That's why it needs to be fought on science alone because
> evolution is a scientific issue, not a religious one. If the theists
> who accept evolution wish to come on board then they're most welcome,
> especially if they're people like Kenneth Miller.
The issue of teaching science should be a matter of science. The question of
the existence of God should not come into it at all.
> > Demanding that
> > the creationist produce scientific proof of God is not only
anti-scientific,
> > it's handing the argument to the creationists on a plate.
> Please do point out to me where I specified that, and I'll show you how
> you're lying.
Point out to me where I said that you specified that.
It doesn't take long to find entire threads on TO, often, but not always
crossposted to AA, which engage the creationists purely on the issue of the
existence of God. On this very thread, UC is determined to show that belief
in God is incompatible with acceptance of evolution - which is exactly the
position espoused by the creationists.
IMO when someone supports the incorrect opinions of the creationists, he
supports creationism. There's an effective alliance of the creationists and
some atheists. They seem to want an either-or battle.
J/
Westprog
...
> >Do you want to play with words or address substantive issues?
> Thank you for your eventual admission of error.
You want to play with words.
> Quite why you could not have read your own words, and come to this
> conclusion before accusing me of dishonesty, I cannot fathom.
> But that you were so quick to do so, on such a plain and simple
> example of English, and so very forgetful of your own wording,
> (especially considering that I included it verbatim the first time
> around), does not augur well for any sort of reasonable interaction
> with you on more controversial topics, I'm afraid.
> Having you retract the accusation of dishonesty against myself, is NOT
> "playing with words".
And now it's a matter of personal honour.
I have no interest in this kind of meta-thread. I've clearly explained what
I said and what I meant. If you want to engage with that, fire away. Where
the accusation of dishonesty suddenly came from I have no idea.
J/
Westprog
...
> >As I've clarified elsewhere, any scientific fact can impinge on any given
> >religious belief. What it doesn't do is interfere with religious belief
as
> >such.
> >In particular, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which conflicts
with
> >Christianity.
> Not this lie again?
> I despise dishonesty.
Well, to prove the point I would have to provide a substantial number of
Christians who accept evolution. If there were a conflict between
evolutionary theory and Christianity per se, then they could not reconcile
the two.
As it is, the Christians who accept evolutionary theory are, in general,
better educated about both science _and_ religion than the creationists.
> >There are minority sects of Christians who have a problem with
> >evolutionary theory.
> You contradict your above assertion immediately!
> (And none of this "playing with words" rubbish.
> I am pointing out your illogical assertions.)
If some Christians accept evolution, and some do not, then clearly it is not
Christianity which is incompatible, but some belief associated with the
particular groups which do not accept evolutionary theory. In this case, the
sub-belief is biblical literalism, which is not an essential part of
Christianity.
If biblical literalism is accepted as an essential component, then that
excludes a vast number of people who call themselves Christians.
J/
Westprog
...
> >> Promoting science may have some value, but religion is intrinsicly more
> >> appealing than science. As scientists, regardless of our religious
> >> beliefs, we must be willing to stand up to the creationists.
> >The way to stand up to them is no to cede half the argument before we
start.
> >The creationists have to be confronted both by scientists and by rational
> >Christians who accept that faith cannot be based on irrationality and
lies.
> By very definition, there are no such Christians.
> Their whole dogma is based on irrationality and lies.
This is where the problem is - people who regard promoting their personal
beliefs as more important than the seperation between science and religion.
J/
Westprog
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns97FEBAA576BD9...@64.59.135.159...
...
> What was surprising, though, was how well the stone-agers
> did at identifying botanical species.
Hunter-gatherers have to be a lot better at identifying species than
farmer/gardeners.
J/
Gordon Hill
Westprog wrote:
> "Gordon Hill" <gor...@explainer.com> wrote in message
> news:1152731051.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Westprog wrote:
> > > "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:slrneb8blq....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:12:43 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
<snip, hopefully only what doesn't apply to this strand>
> > A significant problem is the clergy who are so concerned with shrinking
> > membership they are afraid of controversy.
>
> > The absence of this "debate" within most churches may be delaying
> > progress as much or more than the absence of it from the media.
>
> There seems to be a degree of cowardice. There are churchmen who know that
> creationism is dishonest, but they are frightened to engage them.
Yes, there is, a degree, maybe several degrees. In my experience the
issue has many facets.
1. There is the blatent dishonesty of "churchmen" (I like this word
because it identifies the group and focuses on the near exclusion of
women) who know science well enough to recognize the non-issue of the
creation/evolution faux debate. It is important that the scientific
community, especially the religious scientists, continue exposing these
charlatans for the hypocricy they preach. In particular, to boycott
their "houses".
2. There are those who do not understand science and would like to, but
the scientifically literate within their community have not made this
an issue. Most churchmen are educated in human, not scientific,
matters. It is important that these churchmen be encouraged to expand
their scientific understanding.
Note: Is it a mere coincidence that the U.S. Episcopal Community chose
a woman, educated in science before becoming, a priest to lead them?
3. There are those who do not understand science and sense something is
amiss, but are afraid of rocking the boat, especially if the more
fundamentalist in their religious community are big donors. It is easy
to criticize them, but who has not shaded their convictions for job
security? Too often it is the "formerly employed."
There are others, of course. My point is that it is an issue that
needs addressing from the outside, but permanent change must come from
within.
> When creationists allege that they have an exclusive hold on the faith,
> that's a libel against millions of their fellow Christians.
That is true of all of any mindset who declare an exclusive hold on
faith.
> They should be
> slapped down as hard for their stupid religious beliefs as for their stupid
> anti-science.
It's tempting, but "slapping down hard" violates the fundamental
teaching of Christianity and many other religions as well. Non
violence is the preferred method.
> It's no good leaving it to people who don't believe in God in
> the first place. They aren't going to point out doctrinal error.
Bingo! Creationism, as it is an edifice to scientific ignorance, must
be dismantled one "brick" (read as petrified mind) at a time.
Westprog
...
> > There seems to be a degree of cowardice. There are churchmen who know
that
> > creationism is dishonest, but they are frightened to engage them.
> Yes, there is, a degree, maybe several degrees. In my experience the
> issue has many facets.
> 1. There is the blatent dishonesty of "churchmen" (I like this word
> because it identifies the group and focuses on the near exclusion of
> women) who know science well enough to recognize the non-issue of the
> creation/evolution faux debate. It is important that the scientific
> community, especially the religious scientists, continue exposing these
> charlatans for the hypocricy they preach. In particular, to boycott
> their "houses".
When they've been caught out lying, then it needs to be shown that this is
not only unscientific, but un-Christian.
> 2. There are those who do not understand science and would like to, but
> the scientifically literate within their community have not made this
> an issue. Most churchmen are educated in human, not scientific,
> matters. It is important that these churchmen be encouraged to expand
> their scientific understanding.
> Note: Is it a mere coincidence that the U.S. Episcopal Community chose
> a woman, educated in science before becoming, a priest to lead them?
I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a churchman to say "I don't
understand science and I don't know enough about evolution to comment on
whether it's true or false. All I can say is that it is a scientific issue
and it has nothing to do with religious belief". For most people, once
religion is taken out of the equation, they'll be quite happy to accept the
scientific consensus. The literal truth of Genesis is a theological matter.
An educated churchman should be up on that.
Ideally, yes, he would have enough scientific knowlege to make a judgement
on the facts, but you can't have everything. Marking out demarkation lines
should be sufficient.
> 3. There are those who do not understand science and sense something is
> amiss, but are afraid of rocking the boat, especially if the more
> fundamentalist in their religious community are big donors. It is easy
> to criticize them, but who has not shaded their convictions for job
> security? Too often it is the "formerly employed."
Those are the Elmer Gantry types who need to be reminded that it isn't just
a job, and that they will be called to account.
> There are others, of course. My point is that it is an issue that
> needs addressing from the outside, but permanent change must come from
> within.
Exactly. I suspect that it's often a matter of one or two members of the
congregation willing to stand up and be heard.
> > When creationists allege that they have an exclusive hold on the faith,
> > that's a libel against millions of their fellow Christians.
> That is true of all of any mindset who declare an exclusive hold on
> faith.
While not making religion be so bland as to be meaningless, it can't be
hijacked for assorted secular causes, from pacifism to patriotism.
> > They should be
> > slapped down as hard for their stupid religious beliefs as for their
stupid
> > anti-science.
> It's tempting, but "slapping down hard" violates the fundamental
> teaching of Christianity and many other religions as well. Non
> violence is the preferred method.
I mean slapped down in a metaphorical sense. Also in a loving and fraternal
sense. Hard slaps. Loving slaps.
> > It's no good leaving it to people who don't believe in God in
> > the first place. They aren't going to point out doctrinal error.
> Bingo! Creationism, as it is an edifice to scientific ignorance, must
> be dismantled one "brick" (read as petrified mind) at a time.
I'd do it from two opposite ends. One end points out the scientific truth.
The other points out the theological error. I'm sure that many of the
creationist rank and file would look on things differently if it were
pointed out that they were rejecting God's creation.
J/
MarkA
>
> MarkA wrote:
>> I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
>> to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
>> the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
>> I understand the point, I disagree.
>
> I disagree with your disagreement.
>
> In most so-called "debates", the creationist quite often takes on the
> properties of pond scum: it stinks of decay and it fouls your shoes. Step
> in pond scum - it gishes out of the way, but the moment you move away it
> will immediately slime back where it was before. It's much closer to the
> bottom of the food chain. Pond scum has been around since the dawn of
> time, and it'll always be there. Grow, achieve, reach for the sky, etc.,
> but the pond scum will always be there, stinking up the place and trying
> to foul your Keds.
>
> The only place I see that debate really counts is in the courtrooms.
> Creationists can easily flim-flam their own members, but they are totally
> outclassed in Federal Courts.
The debates also count in innumerable school board meetings, local
elections, etc. Though winning the high-profile cases, like Dover, is
important, don't underestimate the grass-roots campaign that the
Creationists are also waging.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Westprog
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.13....@stopspam.net...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:45:33 -0700, VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > The only place I see that debate really counts is in the courtrooms.
> > Creationists can easily flim-flam their own members, but they are
totally
> > outclassed in Federal Courts.
> The debates also count in innumerable school board meetings, local
> elections, etc. Though winning the high-profile cases, like Dover, is
> important, don't underestimate the grass-roots campaign that the
> Creationists are also waging.
In such venues, the moral effect of somebody saying "I'm a practising
Christian and I accept that evolution is a fact" will probably do more than
"I've been studying this for many years, and you are all wrong. And that God
business is nonsense as well."
J/
SOTW: "Three Lions" - Lightning Seeds
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> The feather itself does not allow flight without a lung, heart,
> skeletal and muscle alteration (as I understand the issue) also a
> sophisticated brain flight control system. So often the focus by ID
> has been on just the feather or eye, but it is the whole system which
> must change in a coordinated fashion.
the idea of "Intelligent Design" (aka "Stealth Creationism") having a
focus is laughable.
> Then there is the question of how such coordinated alterations could
> come about one DNA gene mutation at a time.
>
> No matter what the motivation of the creators of ID may be, I am
> greatful they popularized the complexities of evolution. It certainly
> has captured my interest.
<snip>
oh and the ID answer to any of these is?
what, when, how, who and, maybe, why
--
Nick Keighley
Ilas
news:e956cd$71m$1...@news.datemas.de:
> The proof that religion and evolution are not incompatible worldviews
> can be seen, for example, in the list of churchmen who accept the fact
> of evolution.
Let's ignore religion as such for now and concentrate on Christianity.
Surely either the Bible is the inerrant word of god or it isn't. If one
belives that it is, the only logical position is that creationism is true,
that god created the world in 6 literal days, that the Noachian flood
occured, that all "kinds" of animals were created as we see them now, and
that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. Now that's classic YEC and
fundamentalist Christian stuff.
Now, Im perfectly prepared to belive there are many Christians, including
bishops, the Pope and much of the clergy, who accept the ToE. My problem
then is, how do they pick and choose the bits of the Bible that they think
are true (the word of god) and which they've decided aren't the word of
god, but are instead the words of some superstitious tribesmen from
thousands of years ago? It seems to me it's a case of "I like that bit,
that's OK, that's the word of god. I don't like that bit, that can't be the
word of god". It seems a very odd attitude to have towards what is claimed
to be the one true holy book.
As a Catholic by upbringing, I can remember the priest saying words to the
effect of "this is the word of the Lord". What I don't remember is "this is
the word of the Lord (subject to revision as science moves on and makes
more discoveries. Check back later for the latest exciting version of the
word of the Lord. Now with less purgatory!)".
In a strange sort of way, I have more respect for the YECs and
fundamentalists. At least they've taken a stand and stuck with it; it's an
insane stance admittedly, against all common sense and scientific
knowledge, but they have at least made their position clear.
TomS
<Xns97FEBAA576BD9...@64.59.135.159>, Dave Oldridge stated..."
Well, I must defer to Hebrew scholars.
However, remember that people until fairly recent times did believe that
living things could come from unusual precursors.
For one thing, belief in spontaneous generation was widespread.
For another, there is the question of metamorphosis. After all, butterflies
do come from caterpillars.
I did deliberately avoid the question of identification of species (not to
speak of the concept of species), and spoke only of *fixity*. I see little
reason to think that Genesis 1 had anything to do with the fixity of the
kinds.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
UC
I have wondered if those people who were doomed to hell for eating meat
on Friday have been released since this is no longer a sin.
UC
I have wondered if those people who were doomed to hell for eating meat
TomS
<Xns97FF92A2...@195.188.240.200>, Ilas stated..."
The short answer is that from the earliest times, many Christians have
not believed that this is the proper approach to the Bible. Origen (who
wrote in the early 3rd century) is a famous example. Augustine specifically
rejected the idea of 6 literal days of creation.
Westprog
"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97FF92A2...@195.188.240.200...
The basis of the New Testament is that Christ established a church and the
Catholic church claims to be that church. (As do many others, of course).
The bible forms part of the basis for this, but of equal importance is
continuity back to Jesus.
It's perfectly valid to regard all this as nonsense - or malignant nonsense,
if you prefer. But to claim that Catholics should regard the Bible as more
important than the living Church is to misunderstand the basis of the
religion - even if you regard it as an absurd and unpleasant belief system.
> In a strange sort of way, I have more respect for the YECs and
> fundamentalists. At least they've taken a stand and stuck with it; it's an
> insane stance admittedly, against all common sense and scientific
> knowledge, but they have at least made their position clear.
Except they haven't. They accept that the Earth goes around the sun, and
that it isn't flat. They discard all the aspects of Genesis that they think
don't fit. And catholics are aware of what they think about that "This is my
body - do this in memory of me" stuff. That part they are quite certain
isn't meant to be taken literally.
J/
Larry Moran
>
> Larry Moran wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2006 09:11:59 -0700, Gordon Hill <gor...@explainer.com> wrote:
>> > Larry Moran wrote:
>> >> > I was recently listening to a podcast of Richard Dawkins on the Infidel
>> >> > Guy. One of the questions concerned whether it was good for scientists
>> >> > to debate creationists. Dawkins felt that debating a Creationist gives
>> >> > the creationist credibility that he would not otherwise have. Although
>> >> > I understand the point, I disagree.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't that do exactly what Dawkins fears - give them credibility?
>
> sun dries it up.
I agree with you but a debate is not a good way to expose BS.
I think we should bring the BS into the schools and teach our children how
to recognize the flaws in Creationism. Let's call this "Teach the Controversy."
The current strategy is to avoid this exposure at all costs using a bevy of
lawyers to protect children from exposure to the sun.
>> If you think Dawkins would "win" such a debate, you haven't been paying
>> attention.
>
> You're probably right. Would Kenneth Miller be a better choice?
YES!!! I'd pay to see a debate between Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller.
My money would be on Dawkins. Miller wouldn't stand a chance.
Larry Moran
Ilas
news:162798477.000...@drn.newsguy.com:
> The short answer is that from the earliest times, many Christians
> have
> not believed that this is the proper approach to the Bible. Origen
> (who wrote in the early 3rd century) is a famous example. Augustine
> specifically rejected the idea of 6 literal days of creation.
That's kind of my point I suppose. If it's not the inerrant word of god
(and even it is to a certain extent), then who gets to decide what the
interpretation is? The Pope? Biblical scholers? The Archbishop of
Canterbury? NashtOn? Why not me? Or you?
I realise that's been the root of schisms, splits, murder and meyhem down
the years, but it seems to me that the fundamentalists are actually being
far more honest. The same goes for the Koran, the Torah and any other holy
book, because if you don't take them as, ahem, Biblical truth, then deep
down you accept they're not the word of god. And if they're not that, then
what are they, other than a nice set of stories and a few bits of advice to
tell you that stealing or killing people probably isn't a good idea? And
then why base your religion and possibly your entire life on them?
UC
heard of transubstantiation?
UC
The Catholic position has never been that the Old testament was literal
truth.