info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
YEC creation science is better than ID - says Eugenie Scott
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Buchanan
Jul 15, 2012, 5:06:21 PM7/15/12
to
This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
Mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
Mark
Steven L.
Jul 15, 2012, 5:50:54 PM7/15/12
to
Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
sharply critique YEC.
http://www.oldearth.org/
I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
drive evolution in just the right way.
--
Steven L.
jillery
Jul 15, 2012, 7:05:51 PM7/15/12
to
Another claim that might be relevant to T.O. she makes at 2:40, that
IC is a special creation concept. This might be additional fodder to
the discussions about what is creationism and who are creationists.
Friar Broccoli
Jul 15, 2012, 7:13:14 PM7/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>>
>> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>>
>> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>
>I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
I just listened to the whole talk - and she very clearly meant to
include YEC's because they make testable claims, which the IDer's do not
make.
>
>But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
>the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
>sharply critique YEC.
>
>http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
>I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>and theistic evolution.
Scott made a clear distinction - as would most knowledgeable
creationists - since standard OEC is special creation followed by a
period of "micro-evolution".
> In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
>that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
>quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
>drive evolution in just the right way.
My interpretation of Scot's answer to one of the questions was that she
considers Miller to be an alley, since he accepts the verifiable
evidence.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wrote:
>On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>>
>> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>>
>> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>
>I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
include YEC's because they make testable claims, which the IDer's do not
make.
>
>But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
>the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
>sharply critique YEC.
>
>http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
>I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>and theistic evolution.
creationists - since standard OEC is special creation followed by a
period of "micro-evolution".
> In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
>that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
>quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
>drive evolution in just the right way.
considers Miller to be an alley, since he accepts the verifiable
evidence.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Ron O
Jul 15, 2012, 7:58:09 PM7/15/12
to
On Jul 15, 6:13�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net>
The ID perps designed the ID scam so that none of their material was
testable. They were specifically avoiding the mistakes of their YEC
predecessors. No mention of the flood or specific ages for the earth
and universe. Unfortunately for them when they settled on this
strategy it insured that there would be no ID science to teach in the
public schools, so the whole scam was worthless. All they
accomplished was running the bait and switch on their own creationist
support base when they were caught with no ID science worth teaching,
and they had to run in the bogus switch scam that doesn't even mention
that ID ever existed.
Ron Okimoto
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net>
testable. They were specifically avoiding the mistakes of their YEC
predecessors. No mention of the flood or specific ages for the earth
and universe. Unfortunately for them when they settled on this
strategy it insured that there would be no ID science to teach in the
public schools, so the whole scam was worthless. All they
accomplished was running the bait and switch on their own creationist
support base when they were caught with no ID science worth teaching,
and they had to run in the bogus switch scam that doesn't even mention
that ID ever existed.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Jul 15, 2012, 7:59:46 PM7/15/12
to
On Jul 15, 6:05�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
>
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
>
smoke and poofing involved in making the IC systems.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
Jul 16, 2012, 5:21:51 PM7/16/12
to
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>>On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>>>
>>> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>>>
>>> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>>
>>I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>>Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>I just listened to the whole talk - and she very clearly meant to
>include YEC's because they make testable claims, which the IDer's do not
>make.
But, but... Those claims have been tested and found to be false.
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>>On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>>>
>>> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>>>
>>> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>>
>>I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>>Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>I just listened to the whole talk - and she very clearly meant to
>include YEC's because they make testable claims, which the IDer's do not
>make.
Yet YEC's still exist.
Which leads me to believe that we may be talking about a religous
group to whom logic makes no difference, no matter what they say.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Glenn
Jul 16, 2012, 5:38:37 PM7/16/12
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ju20le$9tv$5...@reader1.panix.com...
Frank J
Jul 16, 2012, 7:08:45 PM7/16/12
to
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:06:21 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
Before I even look at it, I agree that YEC (and "classic" OEC) are better than ID in almost every way. At least they make testable claims regarding what the designer did and when (if not "how"). So they have at least one of the necessary (though far from sufficent) components of science. ID goes out of its way to avoid making those claims (despite the occasional one from individual IDers, usually Behe). They reason of course is that IDers know that none of them hold up to scrutiny, and that the YEC-OEC contradictions alone are enough to turn most people off, should they ever give them more than 5 minutes' thought.
> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
BTW, Scott made that claim at least as far back as 2001.
I wish we would all stop focusing on thr very old news of ID's refusal to name the designer, and concentrate on all its other faults.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>
> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>
>
> Mark
Frank J
Jul 16, 2012, 7:19:52 PM7/16/12
to
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> > This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >
> > There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >
> > There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>
> I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>
> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> sharply critique YEC.
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
> I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>
> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> sharply critique YEC.
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
> and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
> quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
> drive evolution in just the right way.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
Huge difference. OEC comes in many varieties, but all explicitly deny common descent, incluing the "progressive" variety that concedes all the "when" questions to science. But new species (or "kinds") are not created "in vivo" as TE, and even Behe's version of ID claim. Whereas in TE, they occur not only "in vivo" they are indistingushable from "natural" processes.
> drive evolution in just the right way.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
Much more importantly it's what OECs (and YECs, and IDers) *do*, not "believe," that sets their *pseudocience* light years apart from mainstream science:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/D5uczAK_3Hg/0o6y3fLU3tkJ
Miller does not pretend that quantum indeterminacy is an "alternative" to evolution or "evidence" of design. Nor does he bait-and-switch the 2.
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >
> > There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >
> > There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>
> I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>
> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> sharply critique YEC.
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
> I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>
> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> sharply critique YEC.
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/
>
>
> and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
Steven L.
Jul 17, 2012, 6:40:54 PM7/17/12
to
On 7/16/2012 7:19 PM, Frank J wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
>> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> > This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>> >
>> > There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>> >
>> > There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>>
>> I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>> Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>>
>> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
>> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
>> sharply critique YEC.
>>
>> http://www.oldearth.org/
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>> and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
>> that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
>> quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
>> drive evolution in just the right way.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>
> Huge difference. OEC comes in many varieties, but all explicitly deny common descent, incluing the "progressive" variety that concedes all the "when" questions to science. But new species (or "kinds") are not created "in vivo" as TE, and even Behe's version of ID claim. Whereas in TE, they occur not only "in vivo" they are indistingushable from "natural" processes.
>
Answers in Creation (an OEC website) explicitly lists "theistic
> On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
>> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> > This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
>> >
>> > There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
>> >
>> > There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
>>
>> I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
>> Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>>
>> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
>> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
>> sharply critique YEC.
>>
>> http://www.oldearth.org/
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
>> and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
>> that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
>> quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
>> drive evolution in just the right way.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>
> Huge difference. OEC comes in many varieties, but all explicitly deny common descent, incluing the "progressive" variety that concedes all the "when" questions to science. But new species (or "kinds") are not created "in vivo" as TE, and even Behe's version of ID claim. Whereas in TE, they occur not only "in vivo" they are indistingushable from "natural" processes.
>
evolution" as one possible OEC view:
"Does it matter which position you believe in? No, it doesn�t. The
doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is not affected by the age of
the earth, nor the methods God used to create the earth. Some people
mix and match these theories. For instance, a Gap Theory believer may
believe in evolution during the billions of years between Genesis 1:1
and 1:2."
http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm
Perhaps that's even what Ms. Scott was referring to when she said that
some things that OECs say are reasonable.
If you can't convince a religious fundamentalist to accept the ToE, it
wouldn't be too bad if he accepted OEC instead. He could learn all
about the universe and mainstream geology and have no problems with it.
That's better than nothing.
-- Steven L.
Frank J
Jul 19, 2012, 6:44:33 PM7/19/12
to
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:40:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/16/2012 7:19 PM, Frank J wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/16/2012 7:19 PM, Frank J wrote:
> >> On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >> &gt; This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
> >> &gt;
> >> &gt; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >> &gt;
> >> &gt; There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >> &gt;
> >> &gt; There is a good Q &amp; A at the end of her talk as well.
> >>
> >> I don&#39;t think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> >> Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
> >>
> >> But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> >> the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> >> sharply critique YEC.
> >>
> >> http://www.oldearth.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> I don&#39;t think there&#39;s a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
> >> and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> >> that sound like OEC, when he says that God &quot;could have&quot; made use of
> >> quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
> >> drive evolution in just the right way.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steven L.
> >
> > Huge difference. OEC comes in many varieties, but all explicitly deny common descent, incluing the "progressive" variety that concedes all the "when" questions to science. But new species (or "kinds") are not created "in vivo" as TE, and even Behe's version of ID claim. Whereas in TE, they occur not only "in vivo" they are indistingushable from "natural" processes.
> >
>
> Answers in Creation (an OEC website) explicitly lists "theistic
> evolution" as one possible OEC view:
>
> "Does it matter which position you believe in? No, it doesn�t. The
> doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is not affected by the age of
> the earth, nor the methods God used to create the earth. Some people
> mix and match these theories. For instance, a Gap Theory believer may
> believe in evolution during the billions of years between Genesis 1:1
> and 1:2."
> the earth, nor the methods God used to create the earth. Some people
> mix and match these theories. For instance, a Gap Theory believer may
> believe in evolution during the billions of years between Genesis 1:1
>
> http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm
>
> Perhaps that's even what Ms. Scott was referring to when she said that
> some things that OECs say are reasonable.
>
> If you can't convince a religious fundamentalist to accept the ToE, it
>
> wouldn't be too bad if he accepted OEC instead. He could learn all
> about the universe and mainstream geology and have no problems with it.
>
> That's better than nothing.
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
Interesting site. Almost entirely concerned with promoting belief in God, not doubt of science. Yet I should say that even RTB, the OEC site that is fully into promoting pseudoscience, impressed me by criticizing that pornographic propaganda �Expelled� (though they backpedaled a bit, undoubtedly to placate fans who threatened to abandon them).
So it�s no surprise that the DI, which is strictly about peddling pseudoscience and unreasonable doubt of evolution, has *personal beliefs* which average much closer to OEC than to YEC, but *political* sympathies that are the reverse.
Frank J
Jul 20, 2012, 11:20:56 AM7/20/12
to
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:13:14 PM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >>
> >> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >>
> >> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
> >
> >I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> >Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
> make.
>
> >
> >But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> >the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> >
> >
> >I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
> >and theistic evolution.
>
> > In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> >that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
> >quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
> >drive evolution in just the right way.
>
> My interpretation of Scot's answer to one of the questions was that she
IMO, few if any books come close to his "Finding Darwin's God" for demolishing YEC, OEC and ID *separately*, without glossing over the radical differences between them. As I like to say, one can't truly appreciate the similarities of the 3 anti-evolution strategies unless one takes a long hard look at the differences.
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:50:54 -0400, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >> This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >>
> >> There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >>
> >> There is a good Q & A at the end of her talk as well.
> >
> >I don't think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> >Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
>
> I just listened to the whole talk - and she very clearly meant to
> include YEC's because they make testable claims, which the IDer's do not
> I just listened to the whole talk - and she very clearly meant to
> make.
>
> >
> >But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> >the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> >sharply critique YEC.
> >
> >http://www.oldearth.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >I don't think there's a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
> >and theistic evolution.
>
> Scott made a clear distinction - as would most knowledgeable
> creationists - since standard OEC is special creation followed by a
> period of "micro-evolution".
> Scott made a clear distinction - as would most knowledgeable
> creationists - since standard OEC is special creation followed by a
>
> > In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> >that sound like OEC, when he says that God "could have" made use of
> >quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
> >drive evolution in just the right way.
>
> My interpretation of Scot's answer to one of the questions was that she
> considers Miller to be an alley, since he accepts the verifiable
> evidence.
Not to mention that he has spent 30+ years exposing the word games of anti-evolution activists. And just when it looked like his job was done ~20 years ago, along comes a new scam for him to tackle.
> evidence.
IMO, few if any books come close to his "Finding Darwin's God" for demolishing YEC, OEC and ID *separately*, without glossing over the radical differences between them. As I like to say, one can't truly appreciate the similarities of the 3 anti-evolution strategies unless one takes a long hard look at the differences.
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 3:24:45 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:
I recall an interview where Miller talks about his book. Miller said
he sent a copy to Richard Dawkins, and asked for his opinion of it.
Dawkins wrote back, giving it high praises, and saying he agreed with
everything in it. Miller realized that Dawkins hadn't read past
chapter six, after which the book describes Miller's personal faith in
God. So Miller wrote back, asking Dawkins for his opinion of the last
few chapters specifically. Dawkins again wrote back, saying he agreed
with everything in the first six chapters.
wrote:
he sent a copy to Richard Dawkins, and asked for his opinion of it.
Dawkins wrote back, giving it high praises, and saying he agreed with
everything in it. Miller realized that Dawkins hadn't read past
chapter six, after which the book describes Miller's personal faith in
God. So Miller wrote back, asking Dawkins for his opinion of the last
few chapters specifically. Dawkins again wrote back, saying he agreed
with everything in the first six chapters.
Steven L.
Jul 21, 2012, 8:45:48 AM7/21/12
to
that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
> Yet I should say that even RTB, the OEC site that is fully into promoting pseudoscience, impressed me by criticizing that pornographic propaganda �Expelled� (though they backpedaled a bit, undoubtedly to placate fans who threatened to abandon them).
>
> So it�s no surprise that the DI, which is strictly about peddling pseudoscience and unreasonable doubt of evolution, has *personal beliefs* which average much closer to OEC than to YEC, but *political* sympathies that are the reverse.
creation model(s). Nor do any ID proponents, as far as I can tell.
AFAIK, Michael Behe has never stated just what he thinks was the role of
the Intelligent Designer in the appearance of Homo Sapiens.
--
Steven L.
Steven L.
Jul 21, 2012, 8:49:45 AM7/21/12
to
On 7/16/2012 7:08 PM, Frank J wrote:
> avoid making those claims (despite the occasional one from individual IDers, usually Behe). They reason of course is that IDers know that none of them hold up to scrutiny, and that the YEC-OEC contradictions alone are enough to turn most people off, should they ever give them more than 5 minutes' thought.
The main reason is that the Discovery Institute is ecumenical. They
> avoid making those claims (despite the occasional one from individual IDers, usually Behe). They reason of course is that IDers know that none of them hold up to scrutiny, and that the YEC-OEC contradictions alone are enough to turn most people off, should they ever give them more than 5 minutes' thought.
don't want to drive away people of any religious belief by stating what
they themselves believe.
So the DI's handwaving is intended to reassure religious fundamentalists
of every stripe: YEC, OEC, Christian, Muslim, whatever.
Intelligent Design: It's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
--
Steven L.
Mike Painter
Jul 22, 2012, 1:06:10 AM7/22/12
to
On 7/21/2012 5:45 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>
> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>
> Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
> keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
> don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
They are YEC's
>
> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>
> Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
> keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
> don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
"Section 4: General
The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to
be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
◾Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation,
spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
◾The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6]
consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
◾The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not
all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
◾The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
◾The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of
biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into
secular and religious, is rejected.
◾By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is
always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess
all information."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Mark Isaak
Jul 22, 2012, 11:58:00 AM7/22/12
to
On 7/21/12 10:06 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
> On 7/21/2012 5:45 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>>
>> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
>> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>>
>> Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
>> keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
>> don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
>
>
> They are YEC's
>
> "Section 4: General
> [snip] "
> On 7/21/2012 5:45 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>>
>> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
>> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>>
>> Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
>> keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
>> don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
>
>
> They are YEC's
>
> "Section 4: General
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Note: Steven L. wrote of Answers in Creation, not Answers in Genesis.
The latter are YEC, the former not.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Frank J
Jul 22, 2012, 5:05:22 PM7/22/12
to
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 8:45:48 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 6:44 PM, Frank J wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:40:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 6:44 PM, Frank J wrote:
> >> On 7/16/2012 7:19 PM, Frank J wrote:
> >> &gt; On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:50:54 PM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> >> &gt;&gt; On 7/15/2012 5:06 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; This rather unusual claim was made by Scott speaking to a group of atheists in Australia:
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvsE_ZYcP8
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; There is chart at 13:45 that compares evolution, creation science, and ID. She actually says that some of the science that creation scientists do is OK but that the so called science of ID is mostly worthless.
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; There is a good Q &amp;amp; A at the end of her talk as well.
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; I don&amp;#39;t think she meant YEC there, with their bizarro claims about the
> >> &gt;&gt; Universe being less than 10,000 years old.
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; But OEC accepts just about all of modern geology and astronomy and even
> >> &gt;&gt; the ancient age of trilobites and dinosaurs and so forth. They even
> >> &gt;&gt; sharply critique YEC.
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; http://www.oldearth.org/
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; I don&amp;#39;t think there&amp;#39;s a really clear distinction to be made between OEC
> >> &gt;&gt; and theistic evolution. In fact, Ken Miller has written some things
> >> &gt;&gt; that sound like OEC, when he says that God &amp;quot;could have&amp;quot; made use of
> >> &gt;&gt; quantum uncertainties to manipulate things at the molecular level to
> >> &gt;&gt; drive evolution in just the right way.
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt;
> >> &gt;&gt; --
> >> &gt;&gt; Steven L.
> >> &gt;
> >> &gt; Huge difference. OEC comes in many varieties, but all explicitly deny common descent, incluing the &quot;progressive&quot; variety that concedes all the &quot;when&quot; questions to science. But new species (or &quot;kinds&quot;) are not created &quot;in vivo&quot; as TE, and even Behe&#39;s version of ID claim. Whereas in TE, they occur not only &quot;in vivo&quot; they are indistingushable from &quot;natural&quot; processes.
> >> &gt;
> >>
> >> Answers in Creation (an OEC website) explicitly lists &quot;theistic
> >>
> >> evolution&quot; as one possible OEC view:
> >>
> >> &quot;Does it matter which position you believe in? No, it doesn�t. The
> >> doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is not affected by the age of
> >> the earth, nor the methods God used to create the earth. Some people
> >> mix and match these theories. For instance, a Gap Theory believer may
> >> believe in evolution during the billions of years between Genesis 1:1
> >> and 1:2.&quot;
> >>
> >> http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm
> >>
> >> Perhaps that&#39;s even what Ms. Scott was referring to when she said that
> >> some things that OECs say are reasonable.
> >>
> >> If you can&#39;t convince a religious fundamentalist to accept the ToE, it
> >> wouldn&#39;t be too bad if he accepted OEC instead. He could learn all
> >> about the universe and mainstream geology and have no problems with it.
> >>
> >> That&#39;s better than nothing.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Steven L.
> >
> > Interesting site. Almost entirely concerned with promoting belief in God, not doubt of science.
>
> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>
> Basically that's it. They draw a dividing line around Homo Sapiens to
> The part of science that Answers in Creation is doubting is the part
> that makes the appearance of Homo Sapiens a natural process.
>
> keep Man as a special creation of God. Everything else, they not only
> don't contest mainstream science much, but they shoot down YEC too.
From what little I read, they don't pretend to be "scientific," and would be fine if the "unnatural" process were the mere "insertion of a soul" in existing organisms. Whereas "scientific" YEC and OEC demand an origin-of-life event, not even the intermediate "in-vivo" intervention (e.g. DNA tweakning).
Note the difference between the "natural vs. unnatural" debate and the "how'd it happen whether natural or not?" debate. "Scientific" creationism depends on conflating those debates. Whereas ID peddlers shrewdly get the *audience* to do it for for them.
>
>
> > Yet I should say that even RTB, the OEC site that is fully into promoting pseudoscience, impressed me by criticizing that pornographic propaganda �Expelled� (though they backpedaled a bit, undoubtedly to placate fans who threatened to abandon them).
> >
> > So it�s no surprise that the DI, which is strictly about peddling pseudoscience and unreasonable doubt of evolution, has *personal beliefs* which average much closer to OEC than to YEC, but *political* sympathies that are the reverse.
>
> Unlike Answers in Creation, the Discovery Institute doesn't have its own
> creation model(s). Nor do any ID proponents, as far as I can tell.
>
> AFAIK, Michael Behe has never stated just what he thinks was the role of
> the Intelligent Designer in the appearance of Homo Sapiens.
No, but several things he said in his 2 books hint that he thinks that the no designer intervention (e.g. DNA tweaking) was necessary at the moment of (modern) H. sapiens origin. Pre-proramming in ancestral cells maybe.
>
> AFAIK, Michael Behe has never stated just what he thinks was the role of
> the Intelligent Designer in the appearance of Homo Sapiens.
Though he has no model even at the "pathetic level of detail" of YEC snd OEC models, he's pretty clear that our lineage did not require its own origin-of-life event.
While such concessions are far more extensive than those of the "classic" OECs, they do not merit the same appreciation, because his first allegiance is to ID's "big tent."
>
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
0 new messages