In the News: Medical professor questions evolution
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
of the first cell.
By GRACE ASSOUAD
For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
a common biological origin.
But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
intelligent design, or ID.
In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk
about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too
closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept - the scientific evidence for
ID.
"A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they
arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU professor of
medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology
and also the associate director of education at the School of
Medicine. "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one
of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
publish intelligent design material."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
J. Spaceman
Ron O
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
>
> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
> believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
> a common biological origin.
>
> But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
> after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
> proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
> adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
> intelligent design, or ID.
SNIP:
Oops, another true believer that claims that they believed Darwinian
evolution, but switched because they were snowed by the evidence that
even the scam artists that perpetrated the creationist scams are
calling "premature." You can't make it any plainer than that. When
the "godfather" of the ID scam (Philip Johnson) admits that there
never was any science worth talking about supporting the ID political
scam, and the director of the science wing of the ID scam outfit
(Meyer of the Discovery Institute) admits that teaching the "science"
of ID is premature at this time, just what lame evidence are guys like
this convinced about enough to switch? Really after the ID proponents
(Behe and Minnich) had to admit under oath in the Dover courtroom that
they weren't even doing any science what could possibly have changed
the mind of this MD?
If they ever switched their opinion, it obviously wasn't due to the
scientific evidence. All you have to go by is the words and actions
of the guys that ran the dishonest ID scam. They even are
perpetrating a new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed. Sure sounds like there was a really good reason to switch.
Ron Okimoto
CreateThis
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
>evolutionary theory with Genesis
I recommend suicide.
CT
Rich Townsend
Yet another non-scientist claiming to be a scientist.
Cheezits
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
[etc.]
>> In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will
>> talk about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many
>> researchers are too closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept -
>> the scientific evidence for ID.
I bet he won't mention any of the holes in Genesis.
[etc.]
> Yet another non-scientist claiming to be a scientist.
And telling scientists how to do their job.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Robert Carnegie
> On Apr 24, 4:04 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > From the article:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> > of the first cell.
>
> > By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> > For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
> > believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
> > a common biological origin.
>
> > But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
> > after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> > evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> > the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
> > proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
> > adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
> > intelligent design, or ID.
>
> SNIP:
>
> Oops, another true believer that claims that they believed Darwinian
> evolution, but switched because they were snowed by the evidence that
> even the scam artists that perpetrated the creationist scams are
> calling "premature." You can't make it any plainer than that.
Yeah... any proof that this man ever understood, let alone accepted,
"Darwinian evolution"? Or that, having been (let's suppose) deceived
then, he isn't deceived now?
Bobby Bryant
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> writes:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
>
> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John
> Marshall believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all
> life forms share a common biological origin.
>
> But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the
> theory. And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to
> reconcile evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of
> how God created the earth and everything on it in six days.
Well, he can hardly be faulted for that conclusion. What needs
explanation is why a purported man of science would decide the
myth trumps evidence-based conclusions.
> Marshall has since become a proponent of the view that there are
> some natural systems that cannot be adequately explained by natural
> forces, and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, or
> ID.
>
> In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall
> will talk about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many
> researchers are too closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept -
> the scientific evidence for ID.
Holes in the theory of evolution, even if real, are hardly evidence
for ID.
Are we supposed to expect him to come up with something better than
the well funded professional liars of the Discovery Institute have?
> "A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even
> when they arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU
> professor of medicine who is board certified in internal medicine
> and gastroenterology and also the associate director of education at
> the School of Medicine.
We're all waiting to hear what this new evidence is.
> "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one of
> the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
> publish intelligent design material."
Maybe he's going to show us all the rejected ID articles, so we can
see what good science is in them.
Though if they have good, publishible science it's hard to understand
why their public rhetoric always relies on logical fallacies applied to
misrepresentations of fact and theories, rather than on that treasure
of good science.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> writes:
> On Apr 24, 4:04 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and
>> the origin of the first cell.
>>
>> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>>
>> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John
>> Marshall believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all
>> life forms share a common biological origin.
>>
>> But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the
>> theory. And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to
>> reconcile evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of
>> how God created the earth and everything on it in six
>> days. Marshall has since become a proponent of the view that there
>> are some natural systems that cannot be adequately explained by
>> natural forces, and therefore must be the result of intelligent
>> design, or ID.
>
> SNIP:
>
> Oops, another true believer that claims that they believed Darwinian
> evolution, but switched because they were snowed by the evidence that
> even the scam artists that perpetrated the creationist scams are
> calling "premature."
At least this one is honest enough to admit that he got religion
*before* developing an allergy to the result of science.
Daoud
theory. And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to
reconcile evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of
how God created the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall
has since become a proponent of the view that there are some natural
systems that cannot be adequately explained by natural forces, and
therefore must be the result of intelligent design, or ID."
I know it's all been said before, but for chrissakes, has he thought
about how "intelligent design" is supposed to be compatible with
Genesis??? I'm aware of the whole big tent thing and so on. But you
know that IF evolution was dropped from all schools and universities
and they all "won", I wonder whether all these disparate,
contradictory factions (oec, yec, id'ers etc) would turn on each
other like rabid wolves. Think of Afghanistan circa 1989. It would
become a political (at least) battle to see which religious faction
was the right one (think Europe 1600's...which led to WHY the US
established separation of church and state in the first place and oh,
what's the point of trying to talk to these nutjobs...<sigh>)
Harry K
wrote:
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
sinker. Becoming a Christian - yes. Creationist - no, at least not
without a lobotomy.
Harry K
Bobby Bryant
Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> writes:
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
> college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
> sinker.
Not just buy into it, but become a crusader for it.
Desertphile
Yeah, that's good. Next plumbers will question photosynthesis.
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
Marshall's opinions on the subject of evolution and evolutionary
theory: his opinions on the subject are worth as much as a
plumber's, or a carpenter's, or a goat herder's.
Evolution is an observed fact: evolutionary theory defines,
describes, and makes predictions about that observed fact. If
there are "holes" in the theory of evolution (odd, Dr. Marshell
didn't bother to mention any), that still leaves evolution an
observed fact. Even if nobody ever discovered how evolution works
(i.e., evolutionary theory), evolution still occured and still
occurs.
"Intelligent design" is occult superstition (Creationism): it
belongs in churches, not on campuses and not in governments.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Desertphile
That would be the only way he could reconcile the Bible with
reality: dead people no longer worry about such things.
JohnN
wrote:
And how will the good doctor reconcile his knowledge of medical
science and his Christian belief in demon possession? I wonder if my
health insurance covers exorcisms?
JohnN
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> the earth and everything on it in six days.
So he had a 50-50 shot at making the logical call even if he'd relied
on a coin toss, and still blew it.
Fooj
> Yet another non-scientist claiming to be a scientist
Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and physicians
non-scientists? Considering that they tend to know more than
biologists and geologists, would it be wise to define science so
narrowly. At this rate, science will be associated with inferior
technoloigical disciplines.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177427840....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
> college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
> sinker. Becoming a Christian - yes. Creationist - no, at least not
> without a lobotomy.
This puzzles me too.
Francis Collins is a good example of not just an 'educated' man but an
extremely talented scientist becoming a Christian but he tears apart ID in
his book 'The Language of God' . Mind you, the fact that he is a 'real'
scientist probably explains that latter part.
Rich Townsend
I'm sure you'll be able to back up your claim that engineers and physicians
'know more' than biologists and geologists.
In the meantime, I can assure you that engineers and physicians are not
scientists --- they're engineers and physicians. These disciplines focus on the
applying various principles (often learned from physics, chemistry and biology)
to build things and fix people. Sometimes this will involve the application of
the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-experiment), but more often than not
engineering and medicine can be accomplished just with application of knowledge
and rational sense.
Of course, this doesn't mean that these disciplines are in any way trivial, or
that they don't require talent and years of hard study. All I'm saying is that
they don't fall into the usual definition of science.
cheers,
Rich
Bobby Bryant
Fooj <deanlan...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and
> physicians non-scientists? Considering that they tend to know more
> than biologists and geologists,
Do they? They certainly know _different_ things, but how can you
justify claiming _more_?
> would it be wise to define science so narrowly. At this rate,
> science will be associated with inferior technoloigical disciplines.
ISTM that engineers and physicians are _not_ scientists. Sure, they
use the same kind of problem-solving skills that science requires,
but so does an auto mechanic. It's simply that engineers, physicians,
and auto mechanics are trained, and usually employed, to do something
other than what scientists.
That doesn't mean that one class is better than another, but we have
to realize that they're not all the same thing.
Harry K
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:04:41 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
> >after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> >evolutionary theory with Genesis
>
> I recommend suicide.
>
> CT
But not by shooting in the head. Only empty space there.
I find it extemely hard to believe that an adult with a college degree
could possibly buy into creationism. Get religion - yes. Get
Creationism - no.
Harry K
TomS
<UGyXh.55$uJ6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
However, doesn't it give the impression, when someone claims to
be a scientist, that they feel inferior?
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Rich Townsend
> "On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:04:36 GMT, in article
> <UGyXh.55$uJ6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
>> In article <1177450995.8...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Fooj <deanlan...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and
>>> physicians non-scientists? Considering that they tend to know more
>>> than biologists and geologists,
>> Do they? They certainly know _different_ things, but how can you
>> justify claiming _more_?
>>
>>
>>> would it be wise to define science so narrowly. At this rate,
>>> science will be associated with inferior technoloigical disciplines.
>>
>> ISTM that engineers and physicians are _not_ scientists. Sure, they
>> use the same kind of problem-solving skills that science requires,
>> but so does an auto mechanic. It's simply that engineers, physicians,
>> and auto mechanics are trained, and usually employed, to do something
>> other than what scientists.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that one class is better than another, but we have
>> to realize that they're not all the same thing.
>>
>
> However, doesn't it give the impression, when someone claims to
> be a scientist, that they feel inferior?
>
>
Agreed -- and I think this goes to the roots of the whole ID and scientific
creationism movement. These folks are in awe of science, and desperately desire
the credibility and (in their eyes) certainty that it brings. Hence, their
attempts to be 'scientists', while at the same time twisting the science to fit
with their preconceived notions. I read a great article recently, discussing
this tension between religious fundamentalism and 'love' of science -- can
anyone recall where it was?
Anyhow, the inferiority complex revealed by these 'scientists' is remarkably
similar to the self-loathing shown by those religious folk who are desperate to
have atheism and/or 'Darwinism' labeled as a religion.
cheers,
Rich
Bobby Bryant
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes:
> "On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:04:36 GMT, in article
> <UGyXh.55$uJ6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
>>
>>In article <1177450995.8...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Fooj <deanlan...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and
>>> physicians non-scientists? Considering that they tend to know more
>>> than biologists and geologists,
>>
>>Do they? They certainly know _different_ things, but how can you
>>justify claiming _more_?
>>
>>> would it be wise to define science so narrowly. At this rate,
>>> science will be associated with inferior technoloigical disciplines.
>>
>>ISTM that engineers and physicians are _not_ scientists. Sure, they
>>use the same kind of problem-solving skills that science requires,
>>but so does an auto mechanic. It's simply that engineers, physicians,
>>and auto mechanics are trained, and usually employed, to do something
>>other than what scientists.
>>
>>That doesn't mean that one class is better than another, but we have
>>to realize that they're not all the same thing.
>
> However, doesn't it give the impression, when someone claims to
> be a scientist, that they feel inferior?
There's definitely something going on among creationist leaders.
Otherwise you wouldn't have them touting their purchases from diploma
mills, and other common misrepresentations of their credentials as
authoritative spokesmen.
I call it "creationist credential inflation syndrome".
Peter Barber
<notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> > of the first cell.
> >
> > By GRACE ASSOUAD
> >
> >
> > But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
> > after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> > evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> > the earth and everything on it in six days.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
>
Note that his conversion to Christianity came first, and *only then*
did he reject evolutionary theory in favour of a creation story (which
version, eh?) more compatible with his holy book. What I would like to
ask him is: if the Genesis account managed to persuade him single-
handedly that evolutionary theory is wrong, why isn't he prepared to
go the whole hog and believe it properly? And since he is criticising
the scientists' approach to the evidence, would he call his own
approach scientific?
TomS
<FrIXh.12218$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
How about the claim to have absolute truth?
Dewey Henize
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
> college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
> sinker. Becoming a Christian - yes. Creationist - no, at least not
> without a lobotomy.
This puzzles me too.
Francis Collins is a good example of not just an 'educated' man but an
extremely talented scientist becoming a Christian but he tears apart ID in
his book 'The Language of God' . Mind you, the fact that he is a 'real'
scientist probably explains that latter part.
I've read several of these responses now, and I don't understand those who
don't understand :-)
Don't you know any old people? Especially old "professional" people, those
who are used to speaking and having other people hang on what they say.
The old man referenced was, you'll note, on his way out of being productive,
at least in the way he was used to. Unless he was truly exceptional, which
we have no indication of, there aren't going to be people going to him for
help and information. He very likely felt that a major, and important to
him at least, part of his life was over.
But hooray! There are all kinds of folks out there that don't know much
of anything, but will listen to you if you "talk bible" and say what they
want to hear, i.e. reinforce their beliefs instead of asking them to
think and reason. And if you have credentials, regardless of how bogus
they are in the field, all the better. You not only get to talk to other
ignorant people on the church steps, but some of them will actually come
up with money to get you to keep talking.
Bobby Bryant
The one they like to support with the "you can't know anything for sure"
argument?
Mark VandeWettering
For the ones who demonstrate that they aren't scientists, probably yes,
although calling it a "scheme" is a bit much. A profession has to
maintain certain standards.
> Considering that they tend to know more than
> biologists and geologists,
There is no indication to suggest that Dr. Marshall knows more about evolution
than biologists and geologists. In fact, he demonstrates all the classic
signs of being, well, a creationist stooge. Just reading the above shows
that Marshall had a difficult time reconciling the beliefs that his newly
found Christian faith demanded (or, at least the ones he think his faith
demands) and his education demonstrated. To resolve this inner dilemma, he
abandoned his education. I think he made the wrong choice.
> would it be wise to define science so
> narrowly. At this rate, science will be associated with inferior
> technoloigical disciplines.
Inferior to what, precisely?
Mark
Robert Grumbine
Fooj <deanlan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 24, 8:06 am, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> > From the article:
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
[trim]
>> > "A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they
>> > arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU professor of
>> > medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology
>> > and also the associate director of education at the School of
>> > Medicine. "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one
>> > of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
>> > publish intelligent design material."
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > Read it athttp://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
>
>> Yet another non-scientist claiming to be a scientist
>
>Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and physicians
>non-scientists?
Same 'scheme' as used by engineers to call physicians, plumbers,
and musicians non-engineers, or by physicians to call engineers,
race car drivers, and stock brokers non-physicians. Might have
something to do with being honest and labelling things reasonably.
Interestingly, between 'scientist', 'engineer' and 'physician',
it is only 'scientist' which does not have a formal certification
process, making science a rather more open field/profession than
the others.
>Considering that they tend to know more than
>biologists and geologists, would it be wise to define science so
>narrowly. At this rate, science will be associated with inferior
>technoloigical disciplines.
Science and engineering are different things. That's no knock
on either of them, just description. Which one is 'better'
depends on what you're trying to do, same as anything else.
If you have an engineering problem, get an appropriate sort of
engineer. If you have a science problem, get an appropriate
sort of scientist.
Of course that 'appropriate sort' qualifier is another thing
that creationists hide from. I wouldn't turn to a meteorologist
(science side) for explanations of evolution, any more than
I'd turn to an Electrical Engineer for them. YECs do both.
Per the later comments, definitely they have problems with
'science envy'. So they pretend that engineers are scientists,
and that their religion is science -- truly a disservice to both
engineering and religion.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Bobby Bryant
bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
> In article <1177450995.8...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Fooj <deanlan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and
>> physicians non-scientists?
>
> Same 'scheme' as used by engineers to call physicians, plumbers,
> and musicians non-engineers, or by physicians to call engineers,
> race car drivers, and stock brokers non-physicians. Might have
> something to do with being honest and labelling things reasonably.
>
> Interestingly, between 'scientist', 'engineer' and 'physician',
> it is only 'scientist' which does not have a formal certification
> process, making science a rather more open field/profession than
> the others.
In some states, e.g. Texas, it is _illegal_ to describe yourself as
an engineer if you don't hold the state certification.
AC
By what definition do they "know more"? Does that mean they'll do
better at Hollywood Squares? That they no more mathematical calculations?
What?
> would it be wise to define science so
> narrowly.
Yes. Engineering is applied physics. It is not physics entire. That's
like calling an auto-mechanic an engineer.
> At this rate, science will be associated with inferior
> technoloigical disciplines.
That doesn't even make sense.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Tim Norfolk
>
> Interestingly, between 'scientist', 'engineer' and 'physician',
> it is only 'scientist' which does not have a formal certification
> process, making science a rather more open field/profession than
> the others.
Actually, I am now a chartered mathematician and scientist, for what
it's worth.
Bobby Bryant
Tim Norfolk
> In article <1177625647.323006.264...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > On Apr 25, 2:21�pm, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
> >> Interestingly, between 'scientist', 'engineer' and 'physician',
> >> it is only 'scientist' which does not have a formal certification
> >> process, making science a rather more open field/profession than
> >> the others.
>
> > Actually, I am now a chartered mathematician and scientist, for what
> > it's worth.
>
> Is that some kind of certification?
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
By Royal Charter, through the Institute of Mathematics and its
Applications. The idea, at one time, was to certify people to check
software that might result in death if it failed.
Robert Carnegie
Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Apr 26, 8:13?pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> > In article <1177625647.323006.264...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > ? ? ? ? Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Apr 25, 2:21?pm, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> >
> > >> ? Interestingly, between 'scientist', 'engineer' and 'physician',
> > >> it is only 'scientist' which does not have a formal certification
> > >> process, making science a rather more open field/profession than
> > >> the others.
> >
> > > Actually, I am now a chartered mathematician and scientist, for what
> > > it's worth.
> >
> > Is that some kind of certification?
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Reno, Nevada
> >
> > Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
>
> By Royal Charter, through the Institute of Mathematics and its
> Applications. The idea, at one time, was to certify people to check
> software that might result in death if it failed.
I took membership in that Institute for a year until I came to think
of it as a vanity organisation that graduates could kid themselves
that it was worth being in. At least, I think I stopped after a
year. Anyway, it had nothing to do with /my/ real life. A
Chartership might be one more thing to sell to the suckers, who knows.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Dewey Henize" <hen...@ITPREMP17X.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf2unib...@ITPREMP17X.cb.lucent.com...
>
>> I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
>> college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
>> sinker. Becoming a Christian - yes. Creationist - no, at least not
>> without a lobotomy.
>
> This puzzles me too.
>
> Francis Collins is a good example of not just an 'educated' man but an
> extremely talented scientist becoming a Christian but he tears apart ID in
> his book 'The Language of God' . Mind you, the fact that he is a 'real'
> scientist probably explains that latter part.
>
> I've read several of these responses now, and I don't understand those who
> don't understand :-)
>
> Don't you know any old people? Especially old "professional" people,
> those
> who are used to speaking and having other people hang on what they say.
> The old man referenced was, you'll note, on his way out of being
> productive,
> at least in the way he was used to. Unless he was truly exceptional,
> which
> we have no indication of, there aren't going to be people going to him for
> help and information. He very likely felt that a major, and important
> to
> him at least, part of his life was over.
Yes, that's undoubtedly an factor. I find it significant that none of the
scientists who support the ID movement seem to be from what I would call the
'major league' of science, i.e. those who conributed to significant advances
in science. How many equivalents of a Charles Darwin, an Albert Einstein or
a Stephen Hawking does ID have?
All they have is a list of 1000 supporting scientists, none of whom I've
ever heard of except those who have achieved a level of fame/notoriety
simply by pushing the ID agenda, a bit like some celebrities today who are
famous for simply being famous.
gregwrld
wrote:
I think most of us here have come to realize that the need for
religious belief
is an emotional need, something related to one's personal history and
psychological
make-up. A person doesn't have to be a nutjob like Ray or Codebreaker
to need to
believe. Folks like Sean and Nashie-poo are far from certifiably nuts,
but the deep
need to believe is inescapable for them. The problem comes from
hanging their hats
on a doctrine that seems solid to them but is flawed by dogmatic pre-
suppositions
which lock them in plainly irrational intellectual positions. For
smart guys like Sean
elaborate defenses can be concocted. For the rest well, they're
limited to insults and
neurotic ramblings.
For the Francis Collins of the world (and many mainline believers)
they can accept
the notion of separate magisteria (a la S. Gould). This keeps the
"cognitive dissonance"
from driving them nuts; but at some point, in the "dark night of the
soul" they still have to
confront the contradictions and hope someday they can be resolved.
Me, I just like to learn something new to me, every day.
gregwrld
alwaysaskingquestions
"gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177781809.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> For the Francis Collins of the world (and many mainline believers)
> they can accept
> the notion of separate magisteria (a la S. Gould). This keeps the
> "cognitive dissonance"
> from driving them nuts; but at some point, in the "dark night of the
> soul" they still have to
> confront the contradictions and hope someday they can be resolved.
What "cognitive dissonance" are you talking about ?
I am what you class a "mainline believer" and I find no conflict whatsoever
between science and my religious beliefs.
Nor does Francis Collins according to his writings.
> Me, I just like to learn something new to me, every day.
So do I.
Can't speak on behalf of Francis Collins but from his track record on the
Human Geneome project, I'd be inclined to think he probably does too.
Robert Carnegie
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
> "gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1177781809.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
>
> > For the Francis Collins of the world (and many mainline believers)
> > they can accept
> > the notion of separate magisteria (a la S. Gould). This keeps the
> > "cognitive dissonance"
> > from driving them nuts; but at some point, in the "dark night of the
> > soul" they still have to
> > confront the contradictions and hope someday they can be resolved.
>
> What "cognitive dissonance" are you talking about ?
>
> I am what you class a "mainline believer" and I find no conflict whatsoever
> between science and my religious beliefs.
>
> Nor does Francis Collins according to his writings.
Is that perhaps because of NOMA? Or rather because in science
territory you use your science roadmap and in religion territory you
use your religion roadmap?
Then again...
There are various ways to treat differences in religion. Often these
are specified in the religion, or in a cult within the religion: (1)
Kill all non-co-religionists; (2) Convert all non-co-religionists, and
kill the refuseniks and recidivists; (3) Tax non-co-religionists and
don't employ them in positions of responsibility; (4) Mind your own
business.
But all this is really off the topic of "origins", unless we're
looking at cultural origins of religions - of false religions, that
is, and if we presume (as we might not presume) that false religion
isn't supernaturally inspired.
> > Me, I just like to learn something new to me, every day.
>
> So do I.
>
> Can't speak on behalf of Francis Collins but from his track record on the
> Human Geneome project, I'd be inclined to think he probably does too.
I don't. I want to know everything. (Even if it turns out I don't
like it.) But then I won't be learning anything new.
Actually I'm lying. There are things I don't want to know, such as
how many brain cells I'm losing each day.
bul...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
>
> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
> believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
> a common biological origin.
>
In the News: Proffessional Mechanic Questions Physics
For most of his life, Joe Blow was a Newtonist, and believed that all
mechanical activity was the result of Newton's three laws of
motion.....
Boikat
John Wilkins
You forgot "as an automotive engineer and a man of science"...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
gregwrld
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
Cognitive dissonance as in believing Jesus is "God" yet was a man born
2000 years ago. How does a man born 2000 years ago create the
universe?
Cognitive dissonance as in: all life is an aggregation of continuous
biological
processes yet somehow, somewhen "God" must have done something when
there's no evidence for such a being at all.
NOMA is a way of "resolving" these contradictions without addressing
the
matter.
How does Francis Collins accept Jesus as his "Savior" when there is no
evidence Jesus exists anywhere"? Faith, no doubt but there's still the
matter
of evidence (i.e., observation and experiment).
Unlike some here I have no quarrel with what "Theistic evolutionists"
believe,
merely wonder how they can really resolve these contradictions for
themselves
in a way that makes sense. NOMA to me is just another hand-wave in
this
context, not an actual resolution of these contradictions. In the end
you've got
to go with something, of course but NOMA seems mere rationale.
I'd like to read some posts by TE'ers here on this matter; it would be
informative
for me. Could be what I learn today (well, probably tomorrow a.m.).
By the way, I have read Miller's "Finding Darwins God" and found that
last chapter
to be a pretty thin rationale. The rest of the book was quite good,
tho' IMO.
gregwrld
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 28, 3:54 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
[...]
> Cognitive dissonance as in believing Jesus is "God" yet was a man born
> 2000 years ago. How does a man born 2000 years ago create the
> universe?
Can't make up my mind whether you are leg pulling or serious, on the
assumption that you are serious the simplistic explanation is that Jesus was
a particlular manifestation of God, if you want a fuller explanation you'll
have to read some theology.
[...]
> How does Francis Collins accept Jesus as his "Savior" when there is no
> evidence Jesus exists anywhere"? Faith, no doubt but there's still the
> matter
> of evidence (i.e., observation and experiment).
You don't seem to grasp the essential point that faith is belief despite the
absence of hard evidence; if there were hard evidence then it would be
science, not faith.
Bobby Bryant
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> "gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1177866139.7...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 28, 3:54 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>> Cognitive dissonance as in believing Jesus is "God" yet was a man
>> born 2000 years ago. How does a man born 2000 years ago create the
>> universe?
>
> Can't make up my mind whether you are leg pulling or serious, on the
> assumption that you are serious the simplistic explanation is that
> Jesus was a particlular manifestation of God, if you want a fuller
> explanation you'll have to read some theology.
Yes, the actual cognitive dissonance lies in the conflict that the
notion of "Trinity" is supposed to patch up.
Robert Carnegie
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
I would say that faith is belief-irrespective-of-evidence, but the
merit of faith depends on whether what you believe in is, in fact,
true or false.
Then again...
Suppose you believe that in the indefinite future, neither human
beings nor any other thinking beings will exist ever again, as entropy
and other tribulation overwhelm the entire universe that we know.
Then, why get out of bed in the morning?
Faith, perhaps?
Or, you need to use the bathroom?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:em6Zh.6746$rO7...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
At risk of getting drawn into theological debate which I don't think is
particularly appropriate here, I'm not convinced that the Trinity concept is
an example of cognitive dissonance (which I must admit to having very
limited understanding of)
The three beliefs that:
a) God always existed
b) God sent his Son to Earth 2000 years ago
c) a short time later, God descended upon the apostles in the form of the
Holy Spirit
are not contradictory as such. The concept of Trinity only arose when
navel-gazing theologians started asking things like "If God existed for ever
and Jesus was God then Jesus must have existed for ever, so how do we cover
that?" and so on.
It could be argued as cognitive dissonance among theologians but not among
most ordinary Christians who rarely if ever think about such theological
issues, I would suspect that many of them would be hard pushed to even
explain the exact thinking behind the Trinity.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1177880411.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
True for the fundies, not true for the mainstream Christian denominations,
don't know enough about other non-Christian religions to comment either way.
[...]
Robert Carnegie
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Hmm. Maybe I misexpressed that. I didn't mean belief-immune-to-
evidence - I think - but belief-with-or-without-evidence.
I am not sure if in any other religions you score specifically for
feats of belief at all. You may get points for physical feats of
piety, such as praying for ever such a long time.
Robert Carnegie
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
I thiought the problem was specifically that the Jewish religion says
"one god" and here there seem to be three - two if you split off the
Spirit which doesn't really look like a person, I think. Maybe they
added that to make it more confusing, plus theology was wanted to deal
with the "superhero origin story" mode of Christian experience. You
know - if that stuff had worked for me then I might still be a
believer. Or else King of Antarctica if I abused my super powers.
alwaysaskingquestions
>
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
[...]
>> >> You don't seem to grasp the essential point that faith is belief
>> >> despite
>> >> the
>> >> absence of hard evidence; if there were hard evidence then it would be
>> >> science, not faith.
>> >
>> > I would say that faith is belief-irrespective-of-evidence,
>>
>> True for the fundies, not true for the mainstream Christian
>> denominations,
>> don't know enough about other non-Christian religions to comment either
>> way.
>
> Hmm. Maybe I misexpressed that. I didn't mean belief-immune-to-
> evidence - I think - but belief-with-or-without-evidence.
No, I realise now that I misunderstood it. That is a more accurate
definition than mine.
gregwrld
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
It still seems kind of schizoid for a scientist or any human to
balance these
opposing ideas. I accept that humans can do it, somehow. After all, we
root
for sports teams that we know suck. It's just that this NOMA thing is
like being
of two separate minds: Faith vs reality.
I mean no disrespect, tho' - more a matter of curiosity.
gregwrld
gregwrld
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177866139.7...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 28, 3:54 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
> > Cognitive dissonance as in believing Jesus is "God" yet was a man born
> > 2000 years ago. How does a man born 2000 years ago create the
> > universe?
>
> Can't make up my mind whether you are leg pulling or serious, on the
> assumption that you are serious the simplistic explanation is that Jesus was
> a particlular manifestation of God, if you want a fuller explanation you'll
> have to read some theology.
I have: that's why I brought up the Miller book. How do very smart
people (smarter
than I) balance a scientific outlook while accepting or relying on
transparent
religious fantasies? There must be a strong emotional need to do so.
er...@swva.net
Plus, some of the scientists on the list are mainstream scientists who
were honestly answering the question, "do you think natural selection
and mutation are enough to explain everything about animal variation,"
or something to that effect. Nearly anyone can honestly doubt that
there aren't _some_ other mechanisms at work. These same scientists
were tricked in that the IDers pretend they are doubting evolution
_period_, rather than just being uncertain as to some of the fine
points of mechanism.
Eric Root
Ernest Major
er...@swva.net writes
including the dentists and engineers) as the Discovery Institute's list
of UltraDarwinians. There's a bit of slip in the wording, but they
appear to be expressing skepticism about something that evolutionary
biologists (such as Richard Dawkins) know to be false.
--
Alias Ernest Major
Robert Carnegie
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
I do prefer my second version... which I suppose boils down to "faith"
= "belief", but then that doesn't make the point.
I think that to be determined never to be reasoned or persuaded away
from a belief which you also believe to be not undecidable is to
surrender your intellect the wrong way. But it's reasonable to /
expect/ not to be persuaded to change your mind, if you're very sure
about something.
For instance, I don't expect definite evidence in my lifetime of
intelligent alien material beings in outer space. I therefore regard
the question of their existence as undecidable in practical terms. I
respect, up to a point, other folks' right to believe that there
certainly are people on other worlds (flying saucers are outside my
comfort zone, though), and I respect folks' right to believe that
there certainly are not. I'd be quite interested to discuss,
casually, the arguments for and against. I'm confident there are no
aliens "nearby". But to be resolute for or against, absolutely - I
believe that's wrong.