Goodrich, Pagano -- advice needed!
Bobby D. Bryant
I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
and troubleshoot it.
I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
troubleshooting it.
Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
nasty?
Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
of this one!
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Horn
This is good stuff!
Mike Goodrich
Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
cheers now,
-mg
Hiero5ant
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu...
Funny you should mention this. I just had a dream last night that you
would say precisely these same words. Creepy, eh?
After consulting my tarot cards, I have concluded that the two
reactions you will get will be "but the car was designed!" and "CSI limits
itself to the inference of 'mere' design."
Whatever happened to that Scheer fellow anyway? Maybe he took your
advice and opened that ontologically correct auto shop; you could stop by
there and get a diagnosis that wasn't "drenched in philosophy"...
David Horn
Of course, if Goodrich ever gives us anything that would qualify as
"quality" so that we can think about it, it would be another matter. But
Goodrich never does. But, hey! Here's yet ANOTHER chance for him to do
so; and he blew it.
AC
Bobby D. Bryant
You'll be happy to hear that I got tired of waiting for the theological
opinioins and decided to think it out on my own. It turns out that a
couple of harpies had put a materialistic plug of crud in the naturalistic
spray nozzle on that side, so that whenever I activated the device the
materialistic water squirted out on the driver's side in a most
satisfyingly naturalistic manner, but since the naturalistic passage was
blocked on the passenger's side the materialistic water must perforce go
wherever it is that floodwater goes when there's no naturalistic outlet
for it.
So I naturalistically removed the bit of materialistic crud with a
materialistic pin, cast a spell to keep the harpies away, and came back in
to wash my hands with ordinary materialistic water, since I had gotten
Automotive Black Stuff all over them during the proceedings. (I never
have figured out whether ABS is materialistic or not, but no matter for
now.)
All in all a satisfying adventure. The only thing that troubles me, other
than the possibility of forgetting to renew the spell in seven years, is
that the bit of materialistic crud that I dug out looked alarmingly like a
gigantic bacterial flagellum. I urge everyone to be on the lookout for
supernatural intelligent designers working toward a new world order that
is not as favorable to humans as what we've got right now.
Thanks for the advice, belated as it was. It's the thought that counts.
Bobby D. Bryant
Yeah, a cynic might start thinking there's a reason scientists don't
use *-natural methods.
David Horn
Obviously, you used the right bait and landed the fish; but was that a
Zebco reel or some other brand...?
howard hershey
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
Drive through a place where there are many bars, Christian storefront
tabernacles, and homeless shelters. Mike or Tony will come out and
spritz and squeege your windshield for you when you stop at a light.
AC
It's a pity I couldn't nominate this for a Chez Watt, but it just wouldn't
work without the names.
C. Thompson
Dare I inquire....was it DESIGNED to plug that nozzle?
Chris
Bobby D. Bryant
> Obviously, you used the right bait and landed the fish; but was that a
> Zebco reel or some other brand...?
I hope you're not suggesting that I've become a fisher of men.
David Horn
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:50:30 +0000, David Horn wrote:
>
>> Obviously, you used the right bait and landed the fish; but was that a
>> Zebco reel or some other brand...?
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that I've become a fisher of men.
Ouch! I deserved that one! ;)
Richard A. Mathers
OH Bobby Bobby Bobby . . . The the first question and the
answer is . . . who was your evil passenger?!
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> and troubleshoot it.
Since you don't know if the weather will be nice, if you want it to work
when you need it, I suggest having it fixed now, rather than trying to
get to the bottom of this in good weather. There are such things as
"garages".
>
> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
Good start!
> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is,
Yes, that is always a problem; whether you would like to do the job right
yourself, or take it to a "specialist" who might replace your muffler
bearings instead, or tell you there is nothing wrong and charge hundreds
of dollars.
>so I wonder
> if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> troubleshooting it.
Yes, you might first check to see if the tube has been bent or plugged due
to human or machine intervention, such as a car wash or porno star.
But if you want natural forces to fix the natural cause, then let
nature take it's course; sit back, relax, have a beer, and wait for it.
>
> Should I fast tonight?
Might clear your mind.
>Will three priests be required?
One of them might know just what to do. Since you are asking, it
couldn't hurt.
>Should I have an
> albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> nasty?
Beats me. I didn't know that albino chipmunks were good at handling
nasty things.
>
> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated.
I'm not Tony or Mike, but you're welcome.
>Let's get to the bottom of this one!
>
It appears we are.
John Thompson
You forgot the most important question of all when looking for
non-natural assistance in you life:
"Where should I send the money"
That's all that really matters.
John
Bobby D. Bryant
Maybe that's why I got such a useless answer, though I'm still counting on
Pagano to come through. This is his strong suit.
Mike Goodrich
Thank you. One man's trash is another man's treasure!
cheers,
-mg
Bobby D. Bryant
And vice versa...
AC
Tell me Mike, does ID actually have any real-world application at all?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Tell me Mike, does ID actually have any real-world application at all?
Yeah, it's useful for convincing religious conservatives on school boards
that it's OK to tell kiddies not to believe what scientists have
discovered.
Nantko Schanssema
>I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
>the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
>and troubleshoot it.
>
>I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
>of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
>if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
>ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
>troubleshooting it.
>
>Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
>albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
>nasty?
IANA car healer, so I can't help. If you had trouble with a SCSI
chain, however, a young goat might come in handy.
>Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
>of this one!
Sorry...
regards,
Nantko
--
SCSI is *not* magic. There are *fundamental* *technical* *reasons*
why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then."
John F. Woods
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko
Mike Dworetsky
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
Do a Jason Gastrich and ask God to tell you some jokes while you do the
repairs.
It will pass the time while you wrestle with the problem. But wear thick
rubber-soled shoes and avoid puddles.
Practical advice: Chances are some gunge has built up in the channel. Try
to clear the spray-head using an extremely thin piece of wire. I use a
strand from picture-hanging wire after unravelling it. Works for me.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
catshark
It is intended to convince judges that it is ok for religious conservatives
on school boards to tell kiddies not to believe what scientists have
discovered.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
AC
Pah! Always assuming naturalistic causes. When will you learn?
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> > In article <slrnc0t6on.ic....@namibia.tandem>, AC wrote:
> >
> >> Well... That was helpful.
> >
> > Thank you. One man's trash is another man's treasure!
>
> And vice versa...
>
Andy Groves
Well here's another one for you. My postdoc came to me today with an
unexpected result. When she applies the FGF receptor inhibitor SU5402
to an explant of embryonic chick head, it does not block the induction
of the Pax8 gene.
How can I determine if the lack of response to the inhibitor was due
to supernatural action?
I was thinking of taking my lead from Philip Johnson, who writes in
"Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism".....:
"Science is committed by definition to..... find[ing] truth by
observation, experiment and calculation rather than by studying sacred
books or achieving mystical states of mind. It may well be, however,
that there are certain questions....... that cannot be answered by the
methods available to our science. These may include not only broad
philosophical issues such as whetehr the universe has a purpose, but
also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical,
such as how life began, or how complex biological systems were put
together".
Should I consult sacred books to find out why the experiment didn't
work the way I thought? Or is this not one of Johnson's questions that
could be answered in such a way? How can we tell which questions might
be answered by achieving mystical states of mind?
As an aside, do you think Johnson ever used these techniques when he
was a lawyer? Why not?
Andy
Andy
Rev. Desertphile
<m...@ip68-106-88-75.hr.hr.cox.net> wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
(Trimmed)
>> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to
>> the bottom of this one!
> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
"Whooooish!" it went, right over Mr. Goodrich's headthing.
The issue is thus: Creationists claim that the existance of life here
on Teegeeack ("Earth" for you non-Scientology customers) cannot be
explained through NATURALISTIC, NON-MAGICAL means. If this is true, it
stands to reason that automobile repairs need not rely of depend upon
naturalistic, non-magical means. If not, why not?
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
Mark Isaak
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:55:41 +0000, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D.
>> Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
>>> the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get
>>> out and troubleshoot it.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions ...
You still need to sacrifice some animals on the altar of your
windshield as offerings to the gods. Bombardier beetles will do
splendidly.
It might help to park under a pyramid in the future.
--
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
Rev. Desertphile
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
> the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> and troubleshoot it.
>
> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> troubleshooting it.
>
> Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> nasty?
>
> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> of this one!
Your windshield washer is not working because it has swished (almost
wrote "stepped") out of harmony (Hozo) with the world. Harmony must be
restored before it will work again.
As I am a pseudo-Navajo mystic automobile Healer (what you Anglos
would call a "mechanic"), I am sorry to have to inform you that to
have me effect repairs on your car's squirting device will require a
Nine-Day Sing involving the Ghostway Chant, with eleven sand
paintings. As the owner of the car, you will have to be purged (orally
and anally) of all toxins with certain herbs, and undergo nightly
sweat baths. You will also have to provide a sheep or two to feed the
guests during the last night's Sing. Mutton stew and frybread for 300
of your kin and friends will do nicely.
If you cannot afford a Nine-Day Sing, I can try a Two-Day Beautyway or
Mountaintopway Sing and see if that clears up the problem.
It goes without saying, I hope, that if you are a nubile girl, the
Kinaalda ceremony will be more appropreate: dress accordingly. Just
don't talk to Coyote on your way to the hogan......
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
--
catshark
wrote:
Going to the <cough> FAQ for Chez Watt:
<http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/>
I find only the following:
"The identities of the *posters* of the nominees are not revealed
'to protect the (not so) innocent.'" [Emphasis mine.]
The final call is, of course, Ferrous', but there does not appear to be any
ban against the nominated post referring to individuals, just as long as it
is not to the poster.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Rodjk
> the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> and troubleshoot it.
>
> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> troubleshooting it.
>
> Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> nasty?
>
> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> of this one!
You need a young priest and an old priest...
Rodjk #613
Eros
> > the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> > and troubleshoot it.
> >
> > I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> > of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> > if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> > ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> > troubleshooting it.
> >
> > Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> > albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> > nasty?
> >
> > Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> > of this one!
> >
>
>
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
And the philosophy you describe differs from fundamentalist religious
belief... how??
EROS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take
precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of
Scripture." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research)
catshark
Groves) wrote:
[...]
>
>Should I consult sacred books to find out why the experiment didn't
>work the way I thought? Or is this not one of Johnson's questions that
>could be answered in such a way? How can we tell which questions might
>be answered by achieving mystical states of mind?
>
>As an aside, do you think Johnson ever used these techniques when he
>was a lawyer? Why not?
Well, we don't call them "sacred" but, yes, we often consult musty
authorities rather than the real world when doing law.
[Don't get me started on the "Rule Against Perpetuities" . . . ]
And I swear some judges were in mystical states of mind when they ruled on
my cases.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other.
-- Mark Twain --
Eros
> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >
> > I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
> > the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> > and troubleshoot it.
> >
> > I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> > of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> > if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> > ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> > troubleshooting it.
> >
> > Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> > albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> > nasty?
> >
> > Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> > of this one!
> >
>
>
> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
And the philosophy you describe differs from fundamentalist religious
belief... how??
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eros
John Wilkins
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
> > the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> > and troubleshoot it.
> >
> > I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> > of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> > if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> > ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> > troubleshooting it.
> >
> > Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> > albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> > nasty?
> >
> > Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> > of this one!
>
> You need a young priest and an old priest...
>
> Rodjk #613
and a rabbi?
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
David Horn
What "treasure" did Goodrich provide? All he offered Bobby was a vague
comment when asked for "_practical_ advice." As usual, Goodrich spewed
his "think about it" nonsense, offered nothing of substance, even given
the context of the challenge, and then retreated. In other words, all
Goodrich offered was an empty cardboard box. So much for "treasure."
Bobby D. Bryant
> Rodjk <rjk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting
>> > on the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to
>> > get out and troubleshoot it.
>> >
>> > I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the
>> > basis of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is,
>> > so I wonder if you could give me some advice on how to allow for
>> > super-, extra-, ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes
>> > while I'm troubleshooting it.
>> >
>> > Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I
>> > have an albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something
>> > really nasty?
>> >
>> > Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the
>> > bottom of this one!
>>
>> You need a young priest and an old priest...
>
> and a rabbi?
On an airplane?
R. Baldwin
news:1g7yvwn.d3kuw7x05hm4N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
No, its a priest, a minister and a rabbi. Or a priest, a hippy, and Henry
Kissinger.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:55:41 +0000, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D.
>> Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting
>>> on the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to
>>> get out and troubleshoot it.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>>> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the
>>> basis of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so
>>> I wonder if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-,
>>> extra-, ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
>>> troubleshooting it.
>>>
>>> Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have
>>> an albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something
>>> really nasty?
>>>
>>> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the
>>> bottom of this one!
>>
>> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
>> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
>> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
>
> Of course, if Goodrich ever gives us anything that would qualify as
> "quality" so that we can think about it, it would be another matter. But
> Goodrich never does. But, hey! Here's yet ANOTHER chance for him to do
> so; and he blew it.
It shows all the whingeing about Philosophical Naturalism up for the
intellectually dishonest apologetic posturing that it actually is, doesn't
it. Until someone can offer an actual alternative to methodological
naturalism, your philosophical stance doesn't matter any more than the
color of your underwear. Hardliners at both ends of the spectrum can and
must do science just like everyone else, if they opt to do science at all.
Of course, the whingeing about Philosophical Naturalism is just an
obfuscated claim that "scientists should let my sectarian beliefs trump
their empirical results whenever they are in conflict", as in the AiG/ICR
conformance pledge. The problem with stating that bluntly in an
interactive forum is that you would immediately find yourself challenged
to explain why scientists should accept _your_ sect's beliefs rather than
some other sect's. So they invoke it as a mantra that purportedly reveals
a serious defect in the scientific endeavor, but they hide behind the
mantra ID-style and won't come out to play when asked to ground it in
reality.
Complaining about Philosophical Naturalism is like using a holy symbol to
repel vampires: it makes for great drama (or at least mediocre melodrama),
but doesn't seem to have any real-world applications.
David Sienkiewicz
A rabbi will tell you to take it to a mechanic.
David Sienkiewicz
Excellent, sheldon! How very perceptive of you. It's clumsy, but it
still works.
Would it be fair to assume that you spent your brief hiatus from the
group contemplating intelligent, reasonable and HONEST answers to the
following:
Yes, I think it would be fair - and certainly charitable - to make
that assumption; but I don't think it would be reasonable.
You can prove me wrong, of course.
Kari Tikkanen
: Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
: albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
: nasty?
: Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
: of this one!
This maybe sound blasphemy from educated ID-point of view
but what about deducing by analogy?
Parking near Old Faithful geyser ?
Listening both car and geyser ?
Reading litanies from Morris book about hollow Earth ?
Listening diabolic sounds of geyser ?
Listening diabolic sounds of hollow Earth and car ?
(radio cassette recorder and some manipulation needed to magnify sounds,
consult religious experts)
..in meantime doing some ..praying.. healing..
then deducing: You car is HOLLOOWW and full of damned groaning souls!
..then start even more forceful praying..
catshark
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
[...]
>
>Complaining about Philosophical Naturalism is like using a holy symbol to
>repel vampires: it makes for great drama (or at least mediocre melodrama),
>but doesn't seem to have any real-world applications.
Except, the IDiots hope, in the courts . . .
Staffan S
> the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> and troubleshoot it.
>
> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> troubleshooting it.
>
> albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> nasty?
>
> Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> of this one!
The problem is easy to fix and I have done it hundreds of times
before. Just send me a drop of oil from your car on an unfolded $100
bill and I will heal your car from a distance. Guaranteed!
Staffan S
(Results may vary)
Ferrous Patella
<cats...@yahoo.com>:
I do try to avoid personal attacks in CW. I will allow names of famous
people (i.e. Behe, Darwin). I have allowed Tony before since he is such a
wide ranging net personality but he is a borderline case.
I was thinking of substituting "[a couple of creationist]" for the names
in this nomination.
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
Robert Grumbine
Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>
>>I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
>>the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
>>and troubleshoot it.
>>
>>I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>>which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
>>of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
>>if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
>>ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
>>troubleshooting it.
>>
>>Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
>>albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
>>nasty?
Sure, ask for a demonstration in the real world of their philosophical
anti-realism. What do you think you're going to get? (Er, yes, you
knew that. Good illustration.)
>IANA car healer, so I can't help. If you had trouble with a SCSI
>chain, however, a young goat might come in handy.
>
[snip]
>SCSI is *not* magic. There are *fundamental* *technical* *reasons*
>why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then."
> John F. Woods
Drat! I thought it was chickens. Before I go goat hunting, do you
have the full citation?
--
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
Nantko Schanssema
>In article <68st00pl0nubat11u...@4ax.com>,
>Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>IANA car healer, so I can't help. If you had trouble with a SCSI
>>chain, however, a young goat might come in handy.
>>
>[snip]
>
>>SCSI is *not* magic. There are *fundamental* *technical* *reasons*
>>why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then."
> Drat! I thought it was chickens. Before I go goat hunting, do you
>have the full citation?
The horse's mouth, which is a bit short in details, can be found here:
http://www.funhouse.com/jfw/
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
David Sienkiewicz
> > the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> > and troubleshoot it.
> >
> > I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> > of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> > if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> > ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> > troubleshooting it.
> >
> > Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
> > albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> > nasty?
> >
> > of this one!
>
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
How is Bobby kidding himself, Mike?
What should he be thinking about? What kind of "real quality
thinking" do you recommend? On what subject?
You were asked for practical advice, Mike, and all I see from you in
this thread is your normal sort of vague, unsubstantive commentary,
your whining, and your speech-making.
Elsewhere, I see you again making allusions about the newsgroup.
Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do you bother?
catshark
Sorta like when you see all those Volvos cruising around near the entrance
to the Holland Tunnel . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
Bobby D. Bryant
> How is Bobby kidding himself, Mike?
Maybe he thought I actually expected a straight answer.
Mike Goodrich
>[snip]
>
>
>Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do you bother?
>
>
>
Because it is compatible with my agenda - of which you may not be fully
aware?
BTW I trust that even tho you can't be certain of my actual agenda, you
can still tell that my posts are designed.
cheers,
-mg
Terence J Rigby
"Mike Goodrich" <michaelsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4011269C...@hotmail.com...
I read the above sentence and said, sotto voce, pillock.
Terry Rigby
WIHIH
by Uncle Roger
>
> cheers,
>
> -mg
>
Cheezits
> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D.
> Bryant wrote:
>> I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>> which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the
>> basis of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is,
>> so I wonder if you could give me some advice on how to allow for
>> super-, extra-, ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes
>> while I'm troubleshooting it.
> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
Gee Mike, you really are a never-ending font of non-answers. :-D The
question is - how can someone solve *any* problem in the real world without
making "naturalistic assumptions"? What other assumptions can they
possibly make that are of any use?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
catshark
<michaelsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>
>
>
>>
>>Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do you bother?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Because it is compatible with my agenda -
Which does not include demonstrating any knowledge of the subject? You
have succeeded beyond your wildest expectations then.
>of which you may not be fully
>aware?
>
>BTW I trust that even tho you can't be certain of my actual agenda, you
>can still tell that my posts are designed.
I'm glad you left out "intelligently".
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The deity described by Creationism is, at a fundamental level,
not the God that sent his Son into the world for the redemption
of sin. It is some mad, fallible, ignorant play-tester squeezed
into the shrinking gaps of human ignorance . . .
- Skitter the Cat -
David Horn
> David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do
>>you bother?
>
> Because it is compatible with my agenda - of which you
> may not be fully aware?
Is this a question or an answer? Goodrich continues to play his
notoriously disingenous games, which is just more evidence of the vacuous
and dishonest nature of his "agenda."
> BTW I trust that even tho you can't be certain of my
> actual agenda, you can still tell that my posts are designed.
Which, of course, is meaningless against the larger context, as usual.
Von Smith
> > the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
> > and troubleshoot it.
> >
> > which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
> > of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
> > if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
> > ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
> > troubleshooting it.
> >
> > albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
> > nasty?
> >
> > Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
> > of this one!
> >
>
>
> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
> '
In other words, your "naturalism-plus" methodology can't even
troubleshoot a simple windshield wiper problem. But you think its the
method we ought to use in science:
Question: How does one verify the value of Avogadro's number?
Answer: Stop kidding yourself and putting on as though it is just
that simple and get down to some real quality thinking on the matter
which is hard work!
Question: Is the earth round, and does it orbit the sun, or does the
sun orbit the earth?
Answer: Stop kidding yourself and putting on as though it is just
that simple and get down to some real quality thinking on the matter
which is hard work!
Question: Does light have finite speed and if so, how does one
determine it?
Answer: Stop kidding yourself and putting on as though it is just
that simple and get down to some real quality thinking on the matter
which is hard work!
Question: How do I build a nuclear reactor?
Answer: Stop kidding yourself and putting on as though it is just
that simple and get down to some real quality thinking on the matter
which is hard work!
Question: How do I determine cause of death during an autopsy?
Answer: Stop kidding yourself and putting on as though it is just
that simple and get down to some real quality thinking on the matter
which is hard work!
Would have made my science classes in school a lot easier. I could
have gotten an 'A' in intro physics *without* having to bust my ass.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Bobby D. Bryant
> David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do you bother?
>
> Because it is compatible with my agenda - of which you may not be fully
> aware?
To discredit creationism?
Or theism in general, for that matter?
Andy Groves
Yes. I think the argument goes something like this:
I see a message in English appearing on my computer screen using a
Newsreader. In my experience, the only entities that make such
messages appear are either English-speaking humans, or machines
programmed by English-speaking humans. Thus, the post was designed by
an English-speaking human.
Now let's run through that with a flagellum, shall we? Or even one of
my strings........
Andy
Bobby D. Bryant
I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
and troubleshoot it.
I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the basis
of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I wonder
if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-, extra-,
ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
troubleshooting it.
Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have an
albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
nasty?
Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the bottom
of this one!
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> David Sienkiewicz wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Really, Mike, if this is such a terrible place, why do you bother?
>
> Because it is compatible with my agenda - of which you may not be fully
> aware?
To discredit creationism?
Or theism in general, for that matter?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> How is Bobby kidding himself, Mike?
Maybe he thought I actually expected a straight answer.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> In article <pan.2004.01.21....@mail.utexas.edu>, Bobby D.
> Bryant wrote:
>>
> Gee Bobby, the best advice I can give you is to stop kidding yourself
> and putting on as though it is just that simple and get down to some
> real quality thinking on the matter which is hard work!
You'll be happy to hear that I got tired of waiting for the theological
opinioins and decided to think it out on my own. It turns out that a
couple of harpies had put a materialistic plug of crud in the naturalistic
spray nozzle on that side, so that whenever I activated the device the
materialistic water squirted out on the driver's side in a most
satisfyingly naturalistic manner, but since the naturalistic passage was
blocked on the passenger's side the materialistic water must perforce go
wherever it is that floodwater goes when there's no naturalistic outlet
for it.
So I naturalistically removed the bit of materialistic crud with a
materialistic pin, cast a spell to keep the harpies away, and came back in
to wash my hands with ordinary materialistic water, since I had gotten
Automotive Black Stuff all over them during the proceedings. (I never
have figured out whether ABS is materialistic or not, but no matter for
now.)
All in all a satisfying adventure. The only thing that troubles me, other
than the possibility of forgetting to renew the spell in seven years, is
that the bit of materialistic crud that I dug out looked alarmingly like a
gigantic bacterial flagellum. I urge everyone to be on the lookout for
supernatural intelligent designers working toward a new world order that
is not as favorable to humans as what we've got right now.
Thanks for the advice, belated as it was. It's the thought that counts.
Hank
Human sacrifice has been know to fix that right up.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
T Pagano
Pagano replies:
Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
history, creationism and logic.
Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem. With regard to the
creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
sufficient. This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
and practical atheists not a scientific one.
The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
mechanic. Sheeesh.
Regards,
T Pagano
"We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
Richard S. Crawford
Funny, I thought Christian theology was about the nature of God and
about God's relationship to mankind. Creationism is a heretical
off-shoot and a deliberate misinterpretation of God's message as
presented in the Bible.
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:3r3r70lkjm68pa1bk...@4ax.com...
>
-- [snip]
>
> Pagano replies:
> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
> recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
> specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
> Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
> history, creationism and logic.
>
actually existed)? But note that Bryant didn't specifically mention
Christian theology. He spoke of "supernaturalism," generally. If you
regard us as unreasonable for not putting aside "naturalism" when examining
the claims of Christian creationism, should not *every* supernaturalist
belief system be entitled to the same? That neither the Discovery Institute
nor Answers in Genesis finds any biblical warrant for attributing automotive
malfunctions to evil spirits does not mean that no one would propose such a
thing.
>
> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
> the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
>
"Christian theology" (by which you mean your own eccentric version of same)
was the only supernaturalist belief in contention with naturalism? Bobby
Bryant was not suggesting that supernaturalists think *every* event in
space-time has a supernatural explanation (that would pretty much put paid
to any distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" events, after all);
he was pointing out that "Tony Pagano has never claimed that X has a
supernatural cause" is not a very useful criterion for deciding which events
might, in fact, be supernatural.
I suppose that you hold that all humans have common ancestry with other
humans -- that "polygenesis" (separate origins of separate human "races") --
is false. There are self-professed Christians who insist that it is gospel
truth. Suppose they confronted biologists' arguments (based on
"naturalistic" interpretations) that there are no distinct human races and
that all humans share a common human ancestor, with the response that this
imposes a "naturalistic" straightjacket on the evidence, and forces it to
fit a pre-ordained evolutionist interpretation of genetic evidence. On what
basis would you urge Bryant that *this* viewpoint is absurd?
>
> Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
> Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem. With regard to the
> creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
> and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
> sufficient. This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
> and practical atheists not a scientific one.
>
It is not at all clear to me that "Christian theology" teaches that the
regularities of nature are insufficient to produce life. In the middle
ages, Christian theology accepted spontaneous generation -- if God could
arrange for life to reproduce itself according to its nature, surely He
could arrange for non-life to produce life according to laws He set in
place. That science rejects medieval conceptions of spontaneous generation
does not, I would think, affect the underlying principle: abiogenesis by
natural means is consistent with a Creator, if He chose to make the universe
that way. Theology is hardly the field for deciding whether or not the
universe *is* in fact that way.
I hope you understand that Bryant's automobile is a synecdoche, here. He
doesn't really expect to run into anyone with a supernaturalistic model of
car repair. Rather, he's asking for a way to tell which supernaturalistic
hypotheses should be considered (and how one would test them), and which
ones should be dismissed out of hand. It's not enough to say that (your
version of) Christian creationism doesn't posit this or that possible
supernatural cause. There are other versions of creationism. There are
other sorts of supernaturalistic beliefs. The League of Women Voters can
decide that, e.g. the Socialist or Libertarian parties have too small a
chance of winning to deserve a lectern in the presidential debates, and have
a good point, but the history of science is full of theories that started
out as the wild ideas of some tiny minority, and won out. If
supernaturalism has a valid place in science, the right supernaturalist
system might turn out to be one very different from yours.
>
> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
>
Tony, you're fond of charging people with "arguing from ignorance." Your
paragraph immediately above *is* an example of the argument from
ignorance -- not because you don't know what you're talking about (though
you don't), but because even if you were right, the mere failure of one
theory (or metaphysic) to explain something is not a reason to suppose that
some rival theory (or theory-wannabee) or metaphysical system can do so.
>
> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
> biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
> necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
> known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
>
ID doesn't have theorists, it has apologists. You can't have a theory by
positing a designer-of-the-gaps, and blithely declaring that we aren't
entitled to any testable hypotheses about the Designer's goals or methods.
And you can't demonstrate anything interesting about "information,"
"novelty," or diversity if you refuse to define those terms.
>
> Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
> mechanic. Sheeesh.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
>
Is that a statement of your intent to live a very long time, or an
anticipation of future hallucinations?
-- Steven J.
Richard Forrest
Note: NOT scientific
>
> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory,
Moribund? Have you made the slightest effort to find out how much
research is currently being carried on these subjects? Obviously not,
or you could not possibly describe the state of research as
'moribund'.
> the
> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change,
Do you mean that genes are not the locus of biological change? Or does
your knowledge of biology end somewhere in the middle of the 19th
century?
> and
> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change
All you are doing now is demonstrating profound ignorance.
> spell trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
>
> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
> biological change occurs.
ID theorists have completely failed to back up their claims with any
sort of scientifically testable theory.
> They have to demonstrate that random
> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism
Natural selection is hardly an 'unknown mechanism'.
> can generate "information"
> necessary to explain novelty and diversity.
Try thinking for yourself instead of parroting such inane and ignorant
arguments. Just have a look through the talk.origins faq'a. You'll
find that nearly all of what you've written here is a load of
bollocks.
> Natural selection
Is conservative
> and
> known genetic mechanisms
Which can be revolutionary
> are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
>
So how does ignorance of the subject support your argument?
> > Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
> mechanic. Sheeesh.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
To be replaced with what?
ID is a non-starter, by the way.
RF
Richard Clayton
Really? You really think we'll see the collapse of "neoDarwinism" if
our lifetime? Seems I offered to place a gentleman's wager on this once
before, and you fled. See the following link:
or
The offer is still open, if you are interested. The bet is a token
amount of one U.S. dollar, and for the purposes of this little wager I
suggest we define "in our lifetime" as "by the end of the year 2047."
(If you feel there is a significant chance that we'll both live longer
than that, I would be happy to extend the date.)
Come on, now. One slim dollar. Put your money where your mouth is.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"I wasn't aware the Tokyo police employed uneducated, paranoid,
delusional foreign delinquents."
"In my case, they made an exception."
-- MegaTokyo
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:27:04 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I noticed today that the windshield washer on my car isn't squirting on
>>the passenger side, so if the weather is nice tomorrow I need to get out
>>and troubleshoot it.
>>
>>I don't want to be blinkered by unjustified naturalistic assumptions,
>>which might lead me to waste a lot of time working to fix it on the
>>basis of a false conclusion about what the cause of the problem is, so I
>>wonder if you could give me some advice on how to allow for super-,
>>extra-, ortho-, meta-, para-, non-, or un- natural causes while I'm
>>troubleshooting it.
>>
>>Should I fast tonight? Will three priests be required? Should I have
>>an albino chipmunk on hand, in case it turns out to be something really
>>nasty?
>>
>>Any _practical_ advice will be much appreciated. Let's get to the
>>bottom of this one!
>
> Pagano replies:
> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during recorded
> history the christian world has definitively declared specific events as
> miraculous in relatively rare instances. So Bryant's request for advise
> implies ignorance of christian theology, history, creationism and logic.
IOW, you "know" that the defect with my car isn't supernatural --
taking the very same position you are always berating scientists for.
How can you justify ruling out supernatural causes a priori? Is appeal to
opinion or tradition sufficient? How do I know which traditions and
opinions are trustworthy?
And could you elaborate on how logic rules it out? That might let
everyone agree on when supernature is involved, even if they don't share
religious opinions.
darth_versive
> T Pagano wrote:
<snip>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
> >
> > "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
> >
>
> Funny, I thought Christian theology was about the nature of God and
> about God's relationship to mankind. Creationism is a heretical
> off-shoot and a deliberate misinterpretation of God's message as
> presented in the Bible.
Heresy is in the mind of the beholder (that is, one person's heresy is
another person's orthodoxy). To me, the fundie/creationist
interpretation is just as legitimate as any other.
But then again, as a metaphysical naturalist, I hold that all
supernaturalistic theologies rest on false premises, so even the most
legitimate interpretation of a doctrine built upon false premises is a
false view of reality.
I also disagree that fundie/creationist views are a "deliberate
misinterpretation" of the Bible. They are sincerely deluded, in my
view, not "deliberately misinterpreting" something. Think about it:
either they believe in their doctrine, or they don't. If they don't,
then why go to all the trouble? To me, it makes more sense to think
that suicide bombers, etc. are not committing a deliberate hoax to
make us *think* that they believe in militant Islam when they really
don't: they really do believe in it. Nazis were not just
*pretending* to be anti-Semitic: they really were (and are).
And fundies/creationists are not "deliberately misinterpreting" some
clearly obvious interpretation of the Bible to which you hold, and
which they know to be true, but which they are just *pretending* that
they believe is false: they really do believe that their own
interpretation of the Bible is true. At least, that's the sense I've
gotten from talking to them and studying them for many years. For
many believers of some non-fundie interpretation or other, I know how
hard it is to conceive that others do not share your view that your
interpretation is obviously correct, and how easy it is to believe
that nobody could really sincerely disagree with it, and that anyone
who states otherwise is just lying about it, but there really *are*
people out there who sincerely hold to different interpretations. And
those different interpretations really *are* legitimate
interpretations.
Holding fundie/creationist interpretations of the Bible in contempt as
being wrong is fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But not taking
fundie interpretations seriously, as legitimate interpretations that
people can sincerely believe in, is a fatal mistake, in my view.
"Know thy enemy" is a good maxim. If you let your own contempt for
that enemy blind you to their true nature, you're not hurting them at
all. You're only handicapping yourself, and your efforts to defeat
them, in my view.
DV
DS
My Lord Pagano! What is your justification for your unwarranted 'faith
based materialistic assumptions' that Bobby's windshield wiper is for
some reason 'immune' and forever 'isolated' from supernatural forces?
That sounds like a religion to me...
What kind of crazy, atheistic, materialist philosophy, unfairly
dismisses the possibility of magical or divine intervention in Bobby's
car?
I bet you're one of those holier-than-thou materialist's who tried to
argue that any Mechanical Trade School, recieving partial tuition
proceeds from Federal Grant's to students, and which advocates purely
naturalistic causes, while teaching not a single faith based technique
for overhauling a transmission, should be exempt from Federal Mandates
seperating Church. !Gasp!
~DS~
Hank
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:27:04 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> Pagano replies:
> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
> recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
> specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
> Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
> history, creationism and logic.
Actually his request for advice was a joke. Are you ignorant of humor?
> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
> the life in it.
Actually it addresses our relationship to God.
> Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
I see. He makes a joke that you don't understand, so you blame science, which
you also don't understand.
> Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
> Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem. With regard to the
> creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
> and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
> sufficient.
No, it teaches that creationists should ignore evidence.
> This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
> and practical atheists not a scientific one.
Are you claiming that only atheists "believe" evolution? You know that isn't
the case. This sounds awfully close to bearing false witness. Remember that
one?
> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory,
Which theory would that be?
> the
> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
There we go with that atheist stuff again. False witness again?
> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
> biological change occurs.
Um, why? Biological change (or a change in allele frequency) over time =
evolution. Why is that hard for ID "theorists" to understand?
Frank J
>
> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
> the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate.
Even if that's so, Christian theology admits that many stories of past
events are merely allegories, and what actually occurred was
different. AIUI, only the meaning is important, and only with respect
to human souls. So even if a present day ape gave birth to a human
(which as you know would be evidence *against* evolution) it wouldn't
matter one bit.
> Perhaps
> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
>
> Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
> Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem.
What is "the creationist framework?" There are many mutually
contradictory creationisms, and an absurd "intelligent design"
strategy that tries to distance itself from all of them, ironically
all the while indirectly promoting all of them by not challenging any
of them ang just misrepresenting science.
> With regard to the
> creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
> and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
> sufficient.
But if one considers ultimate causes, evolution never mentions them to
begin with, so the (theological) claim that "chance and material
necessity are not sufficient" is consistent with evolution too.
> This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
> and practical atheists not a scientific one.
Don't know what you mean by "us," but theists and atheists agree that
evolution fits the evidence. Other theists, and even some atheists,
however, choose to ignore or misrepresent evolution.
>
> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
There is yet no theory of abiogenesis (I'm amazed that you even
consider it separate from evolution), but work is in progress. That it
occurred, once or at most a few times ~3,8 billion years ago is well
established. As for "neoDarwinian theory," (I assume you mean the
current theory) it is anything but "moribund," as it is better
supported with each passing day. So well supported, in fact that
anti-evolutionists are slowly abandoning even stating their candidate
alternatives. I notice that you rarely state yours. How do we know
that you haven't changed it? Or maybe even privately accept the real
evolution while attacking its caricatute?
>
> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
> biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
> necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
> known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
But conservative (not a quantitative term) doesn't rule out speciation
(which has been observed) or increase in the "information" that IDers
and creationists like to pretend doesn't occur.
>
> Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
> mechanic. Sheeesh.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
Maybe "neoDarwinism," and maybe even "paleoDarwinism," but not
evolution.
T Pagano
<rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:27:04 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
snip
Pagano replies:
I agree, but as I point out this presents a problem for Bryant not I.
Theology is silent about Bryant's man-made window washer and so is
creationism. Bryant and others attempt to create a straw-man
creationist who asserts that direct supernatural action is involved in
every event in space-time. Christian theology asserts no such thing.
Crawford implies what I say outright; that is, that that Bryant is all
wet. Good.
>Creationism is a heretical
>off-shoot
Pagano replies:
To assert that creationism is an offshoot of Christianity is to imply
that creationism is itself a religion. This is nonsense. Creationism
is a framework (like the frameworks of Big Bangism and evolutionism)
for explaining the origin of the world and the life in it.
Creationism does incorporate some theological statements which make up
part of the initial conditions of its framework much as evolutionism
incorporates statements derived from the metaphsical doctrine of
Naturalism.
Finally, to assert that creationism is heretical is to imply that
creationism incorporates statements which formally deny some truth (or
truths) of the christian faith. I doubt this very seriously and
Crawford never provides the details to justify his claim.
>and a deliberate misinterpretation of God's message as
>presented in the Bible.
Pagano replies:
It would be interesting to know exactly how Crawford knows that a
creationist interpretation of a particular part of Scripture is false
let alone that a creationist has intentionally misinterpreted.
The Catholic Church, for example, has made very few doctrinal
statements about Genesis none of which conflict (as far as I know)
with creationist positions. And Protestant sects, whether
individually or collectively, have no central authority for making
binding doctrinal statements over the interpretation of scripture.
For them each individual is considered sufficiently competent to
decide for themselves what Scripture means. Again Crawford leaves out
the details.
Regards.,
T Pagano
Bobby D. Bryant
> I agree, but as I point out this presents a problem for Bryant not I.
> Theology is silent about Bryant's man-made window washer and so is
> creationism. Bryant and others attempt to create a straw-man
> creationist who asserts that direct supernatural action is involved in
> every event in space-time. Christian theology asserts no such thing.
So, how do *you* know when an event or circumstance or thing is
supernatural and when it isn't?
DRosent288
has largely sat on the fence on the issue
of biological evolution. It has said that it
is "worth study", but has not taken a
strong position for or against. Correct me
if I am wrong.
alamo...@aol.com
Boikat
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.17....@mail.utexas.edu...
His e-mail fan club tells him.
Boikat
John Wilkins
It has shifted. St Geogre Mivart, a Catholic scientist who attacked
Darwin's view but was evolutionist, was excommunicated for heresy.
Later, a papal decree allowed it *may* be true, and the current fellow,
Karol whathaveyou, declared it *is* true except for the bit about souls
evolving because they were created by God (which, so far as I know, has
never been discussed under the banner of actual evolutionary biology).
Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a kind of cosmic evolutionism in the
50s which got him told to be quiet or he'd be excommunicated. So far as
I can see, Teilhard's view was just Lamarck all over again...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
TomS
<1gce35x.jtmib17rxgpgN%john...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>DRosent288 <drose...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> My impression is that the Catholic Church
>> has largely sat on the fence on the issue
>> of biological evolution. It has said that it
>> is "worth study", but has not taken a
>> strong position for or against. Correct me
>> if I am wrong.
>> alamo...@aol.com
>
>It has shifted. St Geogre Mivart, a Catholic scientist who attacked
>Darwin's view but was evolutionist, was excommunicated for heresy.
>Later, a papal decree allowed it *may* be true, and the current fellow,
>Karol whathaveyou, declared it *is* true except for the bit about souls
>evolving because they were created by God (which, so far as I know, has
>never been discussed under the banner of actual evolutionary biology).
The part about souls brings up the issue of "creationism" in the
old sense of the word, and "evolution" also in the old sense of the
word.
"Creationism" used to mean (before Darwin) a belief about where
souls come from. That each individual human soul was a direct
creation by God. Rather than, for example, being inherited from one's
parents; or pre-existing the body, just to be infused into the body
at the appropriate time (such as "quickening" of the fetus).
"Evolution" used to be about the development of the individual
body.
I don't understand how these ideas got confused, but they seem
to have been, when Darwin proposed that the human body-plan is the
result of a naturalistic development from a slightly different
body-plan. Darwin certainly didn't have anything to say about souls,
and his innovations didn't relate directly to any scientific
investigation of the development of the individual body.
It seems to me to be an incredible confusion to think that modern
evolutionary biology presents any threat at all to theological ideas
about where the individual soul comes from. I would have thought
that Catholic theologians would have enough familiarity with
scholastic philosophy to avoid a simple logical error such as the
Fallacy of Composition. (In this case, confusion between the
origins of human-kind and the origins of a human.)
IMHO
>
>Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a kind of cosmic evolutionism in the
>50s which got him told to be quiet or he'd be excommunicated. So far as
>I can see, Teilhard's view was just Lamarck all over again...
A late 19th century American Catholic priest, John A. Zahm,
came out with a book reconciling "Darwin" with Catholicism. He had
to shut up about it. I believe that he was the first one who suggested
that Augustine's idea of "rationales seminales" was a precursor of
the idea of evolutionary development. (I think that this was an
over-reach.)
---Tom S.
"...tis as litle to be believ'd ... that such curious Engines as the seeds of
Animalls & Vegetables should emerge from a fortuitous concourse of matter as
that their perfect & full growne body's should ...that meere chance should make
a clock then that it should make a watch." Boyle:Essay on Spontaneous Generation
Bobby D. Bryant
> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects
I seem to recall an ark sealed by a supernatural hand, a couple of cities
destroyed by brimstone, some staffs turning into snakes and back, a staff
striking water from a stone, a golden serpent curing those who looked upon
it, an ark that struck a man dead, a hem that channeled curative power, a
curtain that rent itself, a tombstone that rolled away, and maybe a few
others.
Are you saying that those were all natural occurrences?
> and during recorded history the christian world has definitively
> declared specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances.
So we can invoke probability arguments to rule out supernatural causes,
just like you try to do with natural ones?
That doesn't bode well for your position on other topics.
John Wilkins
Creationism moved from being a doctrine about souls to a doctrine about
everything when modern creationists took a core doctrine of Christian
theology and made it into a statement of a one-time act. Even th eolder
creationism had God create souls all the time...
Evolutionism moved from being a term of the development of the
individual to a term of change of all life when the Great Chain of Being
was applied to temporal progress by Lamarck. In line with the
macrocosm-microcosm doctrine of older philosophy (going back to the
pre-Socratics), it was felt that the entire universe had to be
developing (unfolding = evolutio). Darwin's view, of course, is very
different, but by 1860, evolution was the generic term for
transmutation, which is the *correct* term for that aspect of evolution.
>
> It seems to me to be an incredible confusion to think that modern
> evolutionary biology presents any threat at all to theological ideas
> about where the individual soul comes from. I would have thought
> that Catholic theologians would have enough familiarity with
> scholastic philosophy to avoid a simple logical error such as the
> Fallacy of Composition. (In this case, confusion between the
> origins of human-kind and the origins of a human.)
Or the Genetic Fallacy.
>
> IMHO
>
> >
> >Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a kind of cosmic evolutionism in the
> >50s which got him told to be quiet or he'd be excommunicated. So far as
> >I can see, Teilhard's view was just Lamarck all over again...
>
> A late 19th century American Catholic priest, John A. Zahm,
> came out with a book reconciling "Darwin" with Catholicism. He had
> to shut up about it. I believe that he was the first one who suggested
> that Augustine's idea of "rationales seminales" was a precursor of
> the idea of evolutionary development. (I think that this was an
> over-reach.)
Oh Yes, although Osborn tried to prove that Augustine was a species
transmutationist in 1894. I must get a copy of Butler's Luck of
Cunning...
T Pagano
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
>news:3r3r70lkjm68pa1bk...@4ax.com...
>>
>-- [snip]
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
>> recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
>> specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
>> Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
>> history, creationism and logic.
>>
>Wasn't Noah's Ark a man-made object (assuming, of course, that it ever
>actually existed)?
Pagano replies:
Noah's ark was constructed by the human action of Noah and his family
not supernatural action. Thanks for a great example which makes
Bryant look even more silly.
>But note that Bryant didn't specifically mention
>Christian theology. He spoke of "supernaturalism," generally.
Pagano replies:
This is laughable. The subject line of Bryant's post was "Goodrich,
Pagano -- Advise needed!" Bryant directed the post to Goodrich and I
who are both christians and who both accept the supernaturalism of
Christian theology. Why would he ask us for advise about some other
sort of supernaturalism. Steven J nosed another edicaran aircraft
into the terra firma. But let's pursue this a little...
What other religions apart from christianity and judaism assert
supernaturalism? Islam does not and neither does any other major
religion of which I am aware. And since creationism is generally (if
not exclusively) associated with christian sects and their theology I
doubt that I have done Bryant an injustice by associating "christian"
supernaturalism with christian theology.
>If you
>regard us as unreasonable for not putting aside "naturalism" when examining
>the claims of Christian creationism, should not *every* supernaturalist
>belief system be entitled to the same?
Pagano replies:
Secularists don't "put aside Naturalism" (whatever Steven J might mean
by that), they deny explicitly that some of the teachings of
Naturalism are presuppositions of their framework explaining
prehistory. On the other hand creationists make explicit and clear
their metaphysical presuppositions. But we digress...
Contrary to what Steven J implies creationists don't object to having
their theological presuppositions exposed to criticism. We simply
insist that secularists understand correctly what those
presuppositions are. In no way, shape, or form can "christian"
supernaturalism be understood to require its direct action for every
event in space-time. Hence Bryant's request for advise concerning his
broken window washer is either simple ignorance or willful
intellectual dishonesty.
>That neither the Discovery Institute
>nor Answers in Genesis finds any biblical warrant for attributing automotive
>malfunctions to evil spirits does not mean that no one would propose such a
>thing.
Pagano replies:
1. Christian supernaturalism doesn't concern itself with evil
spirits, only with the Creator.
2. The fact that anyone, at any time, can propose any "thing"
doesn't guarrantee that this new "thing" is consistent with the
propositions already accepted. And even if it was consistent see
point "4."
3. Third, christian supernaturalism does not propose nor imply that
the Creator takes a direct supernatural act for every event in
space-time, but proposes that supernatural action is a free-willed,
deliberate act on the part of the Creator and occurred at specific and
limited points in space-time.
4. Christians know when the Creator acted because He has revealed
His willed, deliberate actions to us in Scripture. As such any one
making claims of private revelations of supernatural action (like
attributing automotive malfunctions to supernatural action) would not
be binding on the christian faithful nor would it have any place in
the creationist framework.
>>
>> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
>> the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
>> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
>> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
>> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
>> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
>>
>Where did you establish -- where did you even attempt to argue -- that
>"Christian theology" (by which you mean your own eccentric version of same)
>was the only supernaturalist belief in contention with naturalism?
Pagano replies:
Again, this is pretty laughable. The subject line of Bryant's post
was "Goodrich, Pagano -- Advise needed!" Bryant directed the post to
Goodrich and I who are both christians and who both accept the
supernaturalism of Christian theology. Why would Bryant be directing
his post to Goodrich and I if he was referring to some "generalized"
supernaturalism which according to Steven J is something
significantly different from christian supernaturalism? Steven J
never says...
> Bobby
>Bryant was not suggesting that supernaturalists think *every* event in
>space-time has a supernatural explanation (that would pretty much put paid
>to any distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" events, after all);
>he was pointing out that "Tony Pagano has never claimed that X has a
>supernatural cause" is not a very useful criterion for deciding which events
>might, in fact, be supernatural.
Pagano replies:
Since evolutionism/Big Bangism and creationism are, generally
speaking, frameworks for understanding the PREhistory of life and the
material world, whether or not supernatural action should be
attributed to present events is irrelevent. No christian claims to
know when supernatural action occurred outside of those events
revealed in Scripture. This is well known.
>
>I suppose that you hold that all humans have common ancestry with other
>humans -- that "polygenesis" (separate origins of separate human "races") --
>is false. There are self-professed Christians who insist that it is gospel
>truth.
Pagano replies:
The Catholic Church has taught through its normal teaching office that
polygenesis is contrary to the Catholic Faith. As a result I assert
without fear of contradiction that any such scientific claims are
false. Furthermore the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church also
teaches that the world and life is not the product of material
necessity or of blind fate and chance.
Polygenesis is more or less predicted and required by neoDarwinian
evolution. And evolutionism teaches that material necessity and
chance are sufficient to explain life. Both Catholic teaching and
secular teaching cannot be true at the same time. One (or both) are
false.
> Suppose they confronted biologists' arguments (based on
>"naturalistic" interpretations) that there are no distinct human races and
>that all humans share a common human ancestor, with the response that this
>imposes a "naturalistic" straightjacket on the evidence, and forces it to
>fit a pre-ordained evolutionist interpretation of genetic evidence.
Pagano replies:
There is nothing unusual in scientific activity about initial
conditions, presuppositions and facts admitted to a framework
constraining possibilities. The constraining of possibilities is
what makes scientific activity possible and manageable. But this
should never put the scientist interested in the truth in a straight
jacket.
The scientist interest in the objective truth would search diligently
for one of the possibilities restricted by the framework. If found
then the scientist knows that one of the constraining propositions in
the framework is false.
> On what
>basis would you urge Bryant that *this* viewpoint is absurd?
Pagano replies:
Steven J's example concerning polygenesis (which he admits "is"
accepted as true by christians) introduced into a framework which then
constrains possibilities within the framework. This is how science
works.
On the other hand Bryant implied a proposition----that is, that
supernatural action must be considered for every event in
space-time----which christians consider patently false. This makes
Bryant's request for advise absurd.
Steven J tried to defend against my criticism of absurdity by claiming
that Bryant was not referring to christian supernaturalism but some
"generalized" supernaturalism which he never defined. This defense
collapsed because Bryant specifically directed his post at two
christian (Goodrich and myself) not some non christians.
>>
>> Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
>> Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem. With regard to the
>> creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
>> and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
>> sufficient. This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
>> and practical atheists not a scientific one.
>>
>It is not at all clear to me that "Christian theology" teaches that the
>regularities of nature are insufficient to produce life.
Pagano replies:
I'll retract this claim. Para 295 of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church teaches that the world (and the life in it) was created
according to the wisdom of God and..."It is NOT the product of any
[material] necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." This
doesn't address the sufficiency of necessity and chance but it
unequivocally states that necessity and chance did NOT create the
material world or the life in it.
For christians it makes the sufficiency issue irrelevent.
Furthermore the sufficiency of necessity and chance to create is NOT a
scientific claim but a claim of the unscientific philosophical
doctrine of Naturalism which modern secular scientists have
incorporated as a presupposition of their frameworks. But has this
presupposition proven itself fruitful?
The laws of science themselves do not contain sufficient information
to account for the universe, the genesis of life, or the diversity of
life. All of our best science has shown all known possibilities for
the genesis of life to be fatally flawed. Paleontological evidence
shows unequivocal evidence of stasis and not ubiquitous change. All
the known genetic mechanisms shuffle existing information and conserve
that information they don't generate information. The No Free Lunch
theorems show that there is no possible evolutionary algorithm that is
any better than a blind search. This makes the possibility of the
creation of all the diversity of life in less than a billion years a
virtual impossibility. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
> In the middle
>ages, Christian theology accepted spontaneous generation -- if God could
>arrange for life to reproduce itself according to its nature, surely He
>could arrange for non-life to produce life according to laws He set in
>place. That science rejects medieval conceptions of spontaneous generation
>does not, I would think, affect the underlying principle: abiogenesis by
>natural means is consistent with a Creator, if He chose to make the universe
>that way. Theology is hardly the field for deciding whether or not the
>universe *is* in fact that way.
Pagano replies:
Steven J forgets that the proposition that necessity and chance are
sufficient is NOT a scientific claim but an unscientific metaphysical
claim. Our best secular science disputes it, particularly the No Free
Lunch Theorems.
>
>I hope you understand that Bryant's automobile is a synecdoche, here. He
>doesn't really expect to run into anyone with a supernaturalistic model of
>car repair. Rather, he's asking for a way to tell which supernaturalistic
>hypotheses should be considered (and how one would test them), and which
>ones should be dismissed out of hand.
Pagano replies:
It was absurd because the introduction of supernatural action has
never been capricious or universal. It has been limited to only those
instances in prehistory and history where it has been Revealed in
Scripture.
But this is a double edged sword. How does Steven J or Bryant know
when necessity and chance are sufficient? What scientific tests could
they conduct or has anyone conducted to know when and under what
conditions they are sufficient? The answer is that no one has proved
the claim. It is an unscientific metaphysical claim taken on blind
faith.
>It's not enough to say that (your
>version of) Christian creationism doesn't posit this or that possible
>supernatural cause. There are other versions of creationism.
Pagano replies:
Why would I be obligated to argue positions that are not my own? The
Gould/Eldredge camp is not obligated to argue for the Dawkins camp
version of evolution. Since Bryant directed his post specifically to
me I would be entitled to offer my position not someone elses.
> There are
>other sorts of supernaturalistic beliefs. The League of Women Voters can
>decide that, e.g. the Socialist or Libertarian parties have too small a
>chance of winning to deserve a lectern in the presidential debates, and have
>a good point, but the history of science is full of theories that started
>out as the wild ideas of some tiny minority, and won out. If
>supernaturalism has a valid place in science, the right supernaturalist
>system might turn out to be one very different from yours.
Pagano replies:
True enough but this doesn't require me to defend anyone's position
but my own. Anymore than you would be required to present every
possible evolutionist variation when you defend evolutionism. Such a
requirement is absurd.
>>
>> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
>> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
>> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
>> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
>>
>Tony, you're fond of charging people with "arguing from ignorance." Your
>paragraph immediately above *is* an example of the argument from
>ignorance -- not because you don't know what you're talking about (though
>you don't), but because even if you were right, the mere failure of one
>theory (or metaphysic) to explain something is not a reason to suppose that
>some rival theory (or theory-wannabee) or metaphysical system can do so.
Pagano replies:
Read more carefully. I say nothing about future possibilities; I
simply say that all the current variations are clearly moribund.
>>
>> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
>> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
>> biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
>> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
>> necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
>> known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
>>
>ID doesn't have theorists, it has apologists. You can't have a theory by
>positing a designer-of-the-gaps, and blithely declaring that we aren't
>entitled to any testable hypotheses about the Designer's goals or methods.
>And you can't demonstrate anything interesting about "information,"
>"novelty," or diversity if you refuse to define those terms.
Pagano replies:
Whose arguing from ignorance here. Dembski's application of
probability theory has not been found flawed by anyone. The inventer
of the No Free Lunch theorems has not found any flaws in Dembski's
application. So far his theory has withstood numerous challenges. I
suggest that you haven't read a single full length work by Dembski.
Did I get that right?
>>
>> Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
>> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
>> mechanic. Sheeesh.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>>
>> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
>>
>Is that a statement of your intent to live a very long time, or an
>anticipation of future hallucinations?
Pagano replies:
I thought it was obviously a bold prediction.
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven J.
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
> >news:3r3r70lkjm68pa1bk...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >-- [snip]
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
> >> recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
> >> specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
> >> Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
> >> history, creationism and logic.
> >>
> >Wasn't Noah's Ark a man-made object (assuming, of course, that it ever
> >actually existed)?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Noah's ark was constructed by the human action of Noah and his family
> not supernatural action. Thanks for a great example which makes
> Bryant look even more silly.
>
hold, because of your *theological* views, that it was -- that seems to me a
case of Christian theology addressing a man-made object. But note that many
creationists go a step further -- noting both the verse in Genesis 8 that
God "remembered" Noah, and the arguments against the structural adequacy of
the Ark as described in Genesis, they argue that supernatural intervention
helped maintain the Ark, its crew, and its cargo. The voyage of the Ark was
not a purely naturalistic affair.
>
> >But note that Bryant didn't specifically mention
> >Christian theology. He spoke of "supernaturalism," generally.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is laughable. The subject line of Bryant's post was "Goodrich,
> Pagano -- Advise needed!" Bryant directed the post to Goodrich and I
> who are both christians and who both accept the supernaturalism of
> Christian theology. Why would he ask us for advise about some other
> sort of supernaturalism. Steven J nosed another edicaran aircraft
> into the terra firma. But let's pursue this a little...
>
Goodrich should not say, "scientists accept only naturalistic explanations"
when you actually mean, "scientists refuse to assume that Christian
teachings about geology and biology must be true." If you think that
science can incorporate "supernaturalistic" theories in general, you ought
to be able to give some hint of how to test and distinguish experimentally
among rival supernaturalistic hypotheses. If you think, rather, that
science ought to be utterly naturalistic, except when fundamentalist
Christian dogmas collide with the evidence, then [a] you ought to say so,
and [b], you ought to be able to say why rival supernaturalistic systems
should not be entitled to make the same demand.
>
> What other religions apart from christianity and judaism assert
> supernaturalism? Islam does not and neither does any other major
> religion of which I am aware. And since creationism is generally (if
> not exclusively) associated with christian sects and their theology I
> doubt that I have done Bryant an injustice by associating "christian"
> supernaturalism with christian theology.
>
Gabriel -- as opposed to, e.g. being "naturalistically" composed by
combining pre-existing writings and traditions with opportunistic inventions
of Muhammed's own. Is this not a "supernaturalistic" claim? Are not Muslim
claims that the Qur'an cannot be analyzed like merely human works of
literature on a par with your claim that the geological column cannot be
examined purely on "uniformitarian" assumptions? But then, have you ever
heard of Harun Yahya, or the Muslim creationist sites on the web? Many
Muslims make *exactly* your own claim that "law" and "chance" are
insufficient to explain the complexity and diversity of life, and that a
Designer must be invoked.
But then, the claim that only Christianity and Judaism, of major religions,
makes supernaturalistic claims is so bizarre that one wonders what sort of
mental state could have issued in it. Now, I suppose that, e.g. the Greek
polytheism that produced the flood account of Deucalion is no longer a major
religion -- but when did, to take an example at random, Hindu doctrines like
the transmigration of souls become purely naturalistic?
>
> >If you
> >regard us as unreasonable for not putting aside "naturalism" when
examining
> >the claims of Christian creationism, should not *every* supernaturalist
> >belief system be entitled to the same?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Secularists don't "put aside Naturalism" (whatever Steven J might mean
> by that), they deny explicitly that some of the teachings of
> Naturalism are presuppositions of their framework explaining
> prehistory. On the other hand creationists make explicit and clear
> their metaphysical presuppositions. But we digress...
>
I did not say that "secularists" put aside naturalism; I said that you
wished them to. I would think that the meaning of "put aside" in this
context (i.e. conduct science without the assumption that phenomena are to
be explained in terms of consistent, understandable causes) is clear enough.
>
> Contrary to what Steven J implies creationists don't object to having
> their theological presuppositions exposed to criticism. We simply
> insist that secularists understand correctly what those
> presuppositions are. In no way, shape, or form can "christian"
> supernaturalism be understood to require its direct action for every
> event in space-time. Hence Bryant's request for advise concerning his
> broken window washer is either simple ignorance or willful
> intellectual dishonesty.
>
> >That neither the Discovery Institute
> >nor Answers in Genesis finds any biblical warrant for attributing
automotive
> >malfunctions to evil spirits does not mean that no one would propose such
a
> >thing.
>
> Pagano replies:
> 1. Christian supernaturalism doesn't concern itself with evil
> spirits, only with the Creator.
>
So when Jesus cast evil spirits out of people, he was doing ... what?
Something purely naturalistic, that could be duplicated in any good medical
school? I seem to recall quite a few books by authors claiming to be
Christian and presenting a Christian view, that discussed demons as literal,
supernatural entities (spirits, and not good ones, either) acting in the
world today. Are you asserting that evil spirits don't exist, or that they
are purely naturalistic, or what, exactly?
>
> 2. The fact that anyone, at any time, can propose any "thing"
> doesn't guarrantee that this new "thing" is consistent with the
> propositions already accepted. And even if it was consistent see
> point "4."
>
I think that was part of my point. How do we determine of some proposition
is consistent with already accepted propositions -- or, if it is not,
whether to toss out the new proposition or one or more of the old ones --
without accepting "naturalistic" assumptions about the uniformity and
comprehensibility of the universe's operations?
>
> 3. Third, christian supernaturalism does not propose nor imply that
> the Creator takes a direct supernatural act for every event in
> space-time, but proposes that supernatural action is a free-willed,
> deliberate act on the part of the Creator and occurred at specific and
> limited points in space-time.
>
I already conceded this point, explicitly. To repeat it as though I had not
suggests either that you didn't read my post carefully, didn't think about
it, or want to appear to reply to it without the trouble of actually
addressing its points.
>
> 4. Christians know when the Creator acted because He has revealed
> His willed, deliberate actions to us in Scripture. As such any one
> making claims of private revelations of supernatural action (like
> attributing automotive malfunctions to supernatural action) would not
> be binding on the christian faithful nor would it have any place in
> the creationist framework.
>
Now, buried in here is an interesting point. Science does not deal in
binding pronouncements. Common descent and the Big Bang are accepted, not
because any authority binds "secularists" to do so, but because the evidence
(interpreted "naturalistically," if you insist) supports them strongly. You
implicitly seem to be conceding that "supernaturalism" is not something that
can be incorporated into science, but rather is a demand that science simply
stop when its results start to discomfit the holders of some influential
dogma. Why should science accede to this demand?
>
> >>
> >> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
> >> the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
> >> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
> >> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
> >> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
> >> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
> >>
> >Where did you establish -- where did you even attempt to argue -- that
> >"Christian theology" (by which you mean your own eccentric version of
same)
> >was the only supernaturalist belief in contention with naturalism?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Again, this is pretty laughable. The subject line of Bryant's post
> was "Goodrich, Pagano -- Advise needed!" Bryant directed the post to
> Goodrich and I who are both christians and who both accept the
> supernaturalism of Christian theology. Why would Bryant be directing
> his post to Goodrich and I if he was referring to some "generalized"
> supernaturalism which according to Steven J is something
> significantly different from christian supernaturalism? Steven J
> never says...
>
You and Goodrich are the most persistent and prominent critics of
"naturalism" on the newsgroup in the last couple of years. If there were,
say, a Muslim creationist parroting Phillip Johnson's critiques of
"naturalism" several times in the same period, I'm sure Bryant would have
included him. By the same token, Bryant did *not* list any Christian
creationists (e.g. Steve A) who don't present their anti-evolutionism as
anti-naturalism. If you simply want us to do science within the framework
of fundamentalist dogma, then say so, and defend *that* position. If you
want to imply that "naturalism" is an unnecessary addition to the scientific
method, and that methodological supernaturalism can be used to formulate and
test hypotheses, then be prepared to defend *that* position.
>
> > Bobby
> >Bryant was not suggesting that supernaturalists think *every* event in
> >space-time has a supernatural explanation (that would pretty much put
paid
> >to any distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" events, after
all);
> >he was pointing out that "Tony Pagano has never claimed that X has a
> >supernatural cause" is not a very useful criterion for deciding which
events
> >might, in fact, be supernatural.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since evolutionism/Big Bangism and creationism are, generally
> speaking, frameworks for understanding the PREhistory of life and the
> material world, whether or not supernatural action should be
> attributed to present events is irrelevent. No christian claims to
> know when supernatural action occurred outside of those events
> revealed in Scripture. This is well known.
>
Science and creationism are frameworks for deciding what evidence means in
the presence, whether that evidence concerns sediments laid down 250 million
years ago in the Permian (or, you will insist, 4500 years ago in Noah's
flood), or why Bryant's windshield wipers didn't work ten minutes ago.
"Supernaturalism" is about the interpretation of evidence in the present,
and what we should do when that evidence contradicts our presuppositions.
I seem to recall that Mother Theresa was recently beatified (if I am
mistaken, the same point holds for other recently named saints and blesseds)
based on a miracle that is certainly not mentioned in Scripture, since it
supposedly occurred since her death. Is it your claim that the Pope, who
claims to know that this is a supernatural action occurring in the world
today, is not a Christian? You will find company in that belief among some
young-earth creationists, of course, but do you want it? If God can act in
modern times to heal a child, is He constrained from acting to alter the
functions of Bryant's car?
>
> >I suppose that you hold that all humans have common ancestry with other
> >humans -- that "polygenesis" (separate origins of separate human
"races") --
> >is false. There are self-professed Christians who insist that it is
gospel
> >truth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Catholic Church has taught through its normal teaching office that
> polygenesis is contrary to the Catholic Faith. As a result I assert
> without fear of contradiction that any such scientific claims are
> false. Furthermore the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church also
> teaches that the world and life is not the product of material
> necessity or of blind fate and chance.
>
Again, your position here is not that "secularists" are shackled by
unnecessary "naturalistic" assumptions, but that they are shackled by the
assumption that your dogma might possibly be shown wrong by the evidence.
You should not be attacking "secularism" or "naturalism;" you should be
forthrightly attacking "Pagano might be wrongism," which I freely concede is
indeed a fundamental assumption of all of modern "secular" science.
>
> Polygenesis is more or less predicted and required by neoDarwinian
> evolution. And evolutionism teaches that material necessity and
> chance are sufficient to explain life. Both Catholic teaching and
> secular teaching cannot be true at the same time. One (or both) are
> false.
>
How is polygenesis "more or less predicted" by neoDarwinian evolution? This
may supplant the whole mesonychid-bat thing as the weirdest misunderstanding
of evolution you've ever evidenced. Unless, unsuspected by even the most
adamant racists, some human populations are not actually vertebrates, I
don't think any evolutionist from Darwin on has suspected that the human
"races" don't have ancestors in common, or that evolutionary theory could
survive evidence that in fact they did not. "Material necessity" and
"chance" are vague generalities rather far removed from "mutations,"
"selection," "genetic drift," and other explanatory phenomena actually dealt
with in evolutionary theory.
>
> > Suppose they confronted biologists' arguments (based on
> >"naturalistic" interpretations) that there are no distinct human races
and
> >that all humans share a common human ancestor, with the response that
this
> >imposes a "naturalistic" straightjacket on the evidence, and forces it to
> >fit a pre-ordained evolutionist interpretation of genetic evidence.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> There is nothing unusual in scientific activity about initial
> conditions, presuppositions and facts admitted to a framework
> constraining possibilities. The constraining of possibilities is
> what makes scientific activity possible and manageable. But this
> should never put the scientist interested in the truth in a straight
> jacket.
>
I don't see how that answers my question.
>
> The scientist interest in the objective truth would search diligently
> for one of the possibilities restricted by the framework. If found
> then the scientist knows that one of the constraining propositions in
> the framework is false.
>
Or perhaps his observation is flawed. If he knows that one of the
"constraining propositions" is false, that probably doesn't settle which
one. Your prattling here seems an attempt to avoid the questions I'm
putting to you; you might have done better to simply ignore my post.
>
> > On what
> >basis would you urge Bryant that *this* viewpoint is absurd?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Steven J's example concerning polygenesis (which he admits "is"
> accepted as true by christians) introduced into a framework which then
> constrains possibilities within the framework. This is how science
> works.
>
I can't figure out what, if anything, you mean here. My point was that the
evidence -- the degree and nature of genetic differences and similarities
among different human populations -- is consistent with a fairly recent
(within the last couple of thousand centuries) common ancestry for all
living humans. But a "supernaturalistic" racist could argue that the
Creator simply made the "mud people"and true white Aryan Christians using
similar patterns, so that genetic and morphological homologies don't imply
common ancestry for TWACs and, e.g. Black Africans. I asked how someone who
held to pretty much the same proposition regarding humans and chimps could
refute someone who held it about different human "races."
And your answer was that your beliefs are determined ultimately by Church
dogma, not evidence, which is clear enough (except that most Catholics' --
including the Pope's -- understanding of Church dogma doesn't require
rejecting common descent).
>
> On the other hand Bryant implied a proposition----that is, that
> supernatural action must be considered for every event in
> space-time----which christians consider patently false. This makes
> Bryant's request for advise absurd.
>
From which phenomena in space-time, then, is God constrained from acting?
>
> Steven J tried to defend against my criticism of absurdity by claiming
> that Bryant was not referring to christian supernaturalism but some
> "generalized" supernaturalism which he never defined. This defense
> collapsed because Bryant specifically directed his post at two
> christian (Goodrich and myself) not some non christians.
>
See my response above.
You have shown, in past posts, that you don't know what "stasis" means.
Iin discussions of Pearson's _et al._ foram paper, for example, you seem to
regard the clear change over time of the foram species as consistent with
"stasis" because nothing you choose to consider "novelty" emerges. But this
is clearly not what Gould means by the term; "stasis" means no change at all
in the range of variation in a species, not change which does not meet your
personal and highly mobile criteria for "novelty." _Archaeopteryx_ can't be
a transitional fossil because, well, mainly because Church dogma (your own
personal private Church, not the Roman Catholic Church whose dogmas don't
seem to hold any such thing) says such things can't exist, and the fossil is
being wicked if it tries to be. Besides, the Berlin speciman hasn't evolved
into a fossil chicken in the last century or so, so it does so show stasis!
You seem to have missed the widely known genetic mechanism known as
"mutation" -- from single nucleotide substitutions, to deletions,
insertions, or duplications of anywhere from one to many thousands of
sequential nucleotides. You seem to have missed reports of bacteria
aquiring -- from mutations, with known changes to the DNA sequences --
abilities to digest substrates not found in nature and not digestible by
their ancestors. But then, you seemed to have missed that the NFL theorem
shows only that there is no possible evolutionary algorithm that is better
at solving all problems in all circumstances than a blind search. This is
not relevant to evolution, where quite a few problems have evidently gone
unsolved -- ask the next nonavian dinosaur you meet, or the next wheeled
vertebrate.
>
> > In the middle
> >ages, Christian theology accepted spontaneous generation -- if God could
> >arrange for life to reproduce itself according to its nature, surely He
> >could arrange for non-life to produce life according to laws He set in
> >place. That science rejects medieval conceptions of spontaneous
generation
> >does not, I would think, affect the underlying principle: abiogenesis by
> >natural means is consistent with a Creator, if He chose to make the
universe
> >that way. Theology is hardly the field for deciding whether or not the
> >universe *is* in fact that way.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Steven J forgets that the proposition that necessity and chance are
> sufficient is NOT a scientific claim but an unscientific metaphysical
> claim. Our best secular science disputes it, particularly the No Free
> Lunch Theorems.
>
"Necessity and chance" are just, as noted, vague general terms for "anything
science can investigate." Science is limited, in its ability to explain
things, to things that science can investigate. It's funny how that works.
You might note in passing that the formulator of the NFL theorem rejects
Dembski's claim that the theorem applies to evolution. And you might note
also, again, that the claim of science is not that science can explain
everything about the origin of life and biological diversity and complexity
in terms of phenomena that science can study -- it is simply that [a] those
are the only aspects of an explanation science can find and study, and [b]
that science has explained *some* aspects of these things in terms of
"chance" and "necessity."
>
> >I hope you understand that Bryant's automobile is a synecdoche, here. He
> >doesn't really expect to run into anyone with a supernaturalistic model
of
> >car repair. Rather, he's asking for a way to tell which
supernaturalistic
> >hypotheses should be considered (and how one would test them), and which
> >ones should be dismissed out of hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> It was absurd because the introduction of supernatural action has
> never been capricious or universal. It has been limited to only those
> instances in prehistory and history where it has been Revealed in
> Scripture.
>
This is not merely an unsupported assertion by the master of such
assertions, it is arguably a heretical assertion. Again, does not the
Catholic Church hold that God can and has intervened in history since the
canon of scripture was closed?
>
> But this is a double edged sword. How does Steven J or Bryant know
> when necessity and chance are sufficient? What scientific tests could
> they conduct or has anyone conducted to know when and under what
> conditions they are sufficient? The answer is that no one has proved
> the claim. It is an unscientific metaphysical claim taken on blind
> faith.
>
Tony, no one is claiming that "necessity and chance" are sufficient to fully
explain anything. We are claiming that no God worth worshipping would
tamper with the evidence in such a way as to make, e.g. the results of a
global flood look like the results of millions of centuries of sedimentation
under dozens of different environments and conditions. We are claiming that
evidence from the appearance of distant galaxies to isochron dates of rock
samples weren't planted to give the false appearance of a history. And we
are claiming that dogma is inferior to evidence as a means of settling
scientific claims. We are claiming that *some* things are shown to be facts
by the evidence, and that claiming "there *could* be a Designer Who fills
the gaps in current knowledge" is not evidence for such a Designer, much
less for, e.g. a global flood within the last ten millenia.
>
> >It's not enough to say that (your
> >version of) Christian creationism doesn't posit this or that possible
> >supernatural cause. There are other versions of creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Why would I be obligated to argue positions that are not my own? The
> Gould/Eldredge camp is not obligated to argue for the Dawkins camp
> version of evolution. Since Bryant directed his post specifically to
> me I would be entitled to offer my position not someone elses.
>
I am asking you to argue *against* them -- to at least acknowledge that they
exist, and to show that your version is superior, and by what criteria.
Gould did not deal with his critics by pretending that only his account of
evolution and creationism existed -- that there were no critics of his views
among evolutionists. Of course, he could argue with his critics because
they accepted the principle that evidence meant something, even if it ended
up meaning that the evolutionist in question was wrong.
>
>
> > There are
> >other sorts of supernaturalistic beliefs. The League of Women Voters can
> >decide that, e.g. the Socialist or Libertarian parties have too small a
> >chance of winning to deserve a lectern in the presidential debates, and
have
> >a good point, but the history of science is full of theories that started
> >out as the wild ideas of some tiny minority, and won out. If
> >supernaturalism has a valid place in science, the right supernaturalist
> >system might turn out to be one very different from yours.
>
> Pagano replies:
> True enough but this doesn't require me to defend anyone's position
> but my own. Anymore than you would be required to present every
> possible evolutionist variation when you defend evolutionism. Such a
> requirement is absurd.
>
Again, the point is not "presenting every possible variation" -- although
the difference between Gould's and Dawkins's versions of evolution is
trivial compared to the difference between, e.g. Hugh Ross and Ken Ham, to
say nothing of the difference between Behe and and ICR. The point is,
first, that you ought to be able to say, if the question is raised, why your
version is better than someone else's. This is especially true if what
you're asking us is to accept is not an interpretation of the evidence, but
when the evidence ought to take second place to some dogma in determining
the facts. Gould and Dawkins alike answer that question, NEVER. You and
Harun Yahya both say that it certain cases, it ought to -- but you disagree
on the cases. Now, I can try to weigh the evidence to decide between Gould
and Dawkins (if I can figure ought what the huge differences between their
positions are supposed to be) be weighing the evidence. How can I decide
between rival claims of when to ignore the evidence, or interpret it in
"supernaturalistic" ways (which amounts to much the same thing)?
>
> >> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
> >> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
> >> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
> >> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
> >>
> >Tony, you're fond of charging people with "arguing from ignorance." Your
> >paragraph immediately above *is* an example of the argument from
> >ignorance -- not because you don't know what you're talking about (though
> >you don't), but because even if you were right, the mere failure of one
> >theory (or metaphysic) to explain something is not a reason to suppose
that
> >some rival theory (or theory-wannabee) or metaphysical system can do so.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Read more carefully. I say nothing about future possibilities; I
> simply say that all the current variations are clearly moribund.
>
You read more carefully. It would not matter if there were no chance that
science could shed light on these matters, now or in a million years. Mere
ignorance of how "chance" and "necessity" can account for the complexity and
diversity of life does not constitute an argument for a Designer, much less
for your specific dogmas about the Designer.
>
> >> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
> >> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
> >> biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
> >> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
> >> necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
> >> known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
> >>
> >ID doesn't have theorists, it has apologists. You can't have a theory by
> >positing a designer-of-the-gaps, and blithely declaring that we aren't
> >entitled to any testable hypotheses about the Designer's goals or
methods.
> >And you can't demonstrate anything interesting about "information,"
> >"novelty," or diversity if you refuse to define those terms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Whose arguing from ignorance here. Dembski's application of
> probability theory has not been found flawed by anyone. The inventer
> of the No Free Lunch theorems has not found any flaws in Dembski's
> application. So far his theory has withstood numerous challenges. I
> suggest that you haven't read a single full length work by Dembski.
> Did I get that right?
>
Tony, you have this nasty habit of simply asserting that things don't exist,
as though this causes them not to. Transitional fossils, supernaturalistic
faiths other than Christianity, demolitions of Dembski's application of
probability theory -- all these things exist in abundance.
>
> >> Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
> >> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
> >> mechanic. Sheeesh.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
> >>
> >> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
> >>
> >Is that a statement of your intent to live a very long time, or an
> >anticipation of future hallucinations?
>
> Pagano replies:
> I thought it was obviously a bold prediction.
>
I certainly anticipate it being falsified.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
>>news:3r3r70lkjm68pa1bk...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>-- [snip]
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> Christian theology doesn't address man-made objects and during
>>> recorded history the christian world has definitively declared
>>> specific events as miraculous in relatively rare instances. So
>>> Bryant's request for advise implies ignorance of christian theology,
>>> history, creationism and logic.
>>>
>>Wasn't Noah's Ark a man-made object (assuming, of course, that it ever
>>actually existed)?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Noah's ark was constructed by the human action of Noah and his family
> not supernatural action.
You seem to have missed his refutation of your claim about man-made
objects.
> Thanks for a great example which makes Bryant look even more silly.
My car is man-made as well. (So far as I know, at any rate. Do you have
a supernatural methodology that will let me check?)
<snip>
>>If you regard us as unreasonable for not putting aside "naturalism" when
>>examining the claims of Christian creationism, should not *every*
>>supernaturalist belief system be entitled to the same?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Secularists don't "put aside Naturalism" (whatever Steven J might mean
> by that), they deny explicitly that some of the teachings of Naturalism
> are presuppositions of their framework explaining prehistory.
Funny claim from someone making explicit presuppositions about what is or
isn't wrong with my car.
> On the other hand creationists make explicit and clear
> their metaphysical presuppositions. But we digress...
No, we *don't* digress. The inconsistency of those presuppositions is
precisely what my post was designed to bring out.
> Contrary to what Steven J implies creationists don't object to having
> their theological presuppositions exposed to criticism. We simply
> insist that secularists understand correctly what those presuppositions
> are.
Namely, "inconsistent".
> In no way, shape, or form can "christian" supernaturalism be understood
> to require its direct action for every event in space-time. Hence
> Bryant's request for advise concerning his broken window washer is
> either simple ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty.
Not at all. It was attempt to find out how you "know" when your
assumptions apply and when they don't.
(OK, actually it was an attempt to show the inconsistencies and special
pleading involved in the claims you and Goodrich habitually make here. And
it worked: you fell in, and your squirming is making you sink deeper.
Thanks for playing!)
>>That neither the Discovery Institute
>>nor Answers in Genesis finds any biblical warrant for attributing
>>automotive malfunctions to evil spirits does not mean that no one would
>>propose such a thing.
>
> Pagano replies:
> 1. Christian supernaturalism doesn't concern itself with evil spirits,
> only with the Creator.
Do you deny that the Pharoah's magicians' staffs turned into serpents? Was
that the work of God?
Doesn't the New Testament warn against attending the miracles of false
prophets?
> 2. The fact that anyone, at any time, can propose any "thing" doesn't
> guarrantee that this new "thing" is consistent with the propositions
> already accepted. And even if it was consistent see point "4."
>
> 3. Third, christian supernaturalism does not propose nor imply that
> the Creator takes a direct supernatural act for every event in
> space-time, but proposes that supernatural action is a free-willed,
> deliberate act on the part of the Creator and occurred at specific and
> limited points in space-time.
See above.
> 4. Christians know when the Creator acted because He has revealed His
> willed, deliberate actions to us in Scripture. As such any one making
> claims of private revelations of supernatural action (like attributing
> automotive malfunctions to supernatural action) would not be binding on
> the christian faithful nor would it have any place in the creationist
> framework.
So basically all your posts whingeing about scientific methodology and
presumed scientific philosophy, have just been a cover for your
dissapointment that scientists don't just accept *your* interpretation of
*your* sacred texts, regardless of the evidence (to say nothing of
competing sacred texts.
>>> Christian theology addresses the creation of the material world and
>>> the life in it. Bryant's implication that therefore Christian
>>> theology requires the consideration of supernatural explanation for
>>> every event in space-time is both absurd and illegitimate. Perhaps
>>> this illogical reasoning comes from evolutionist thinking which is
>>> built upon making unjustified extrapolations in their own framework.
>>>
>>Where did you establish -- where did you even attempt to argue -- that
>>"Christian theology" (by which you mean your own eccentric version of
>>same) was the only supernaturalist belief in contention with naturalism?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Again, this is pretty laughable. The subject line of Bryant's post was
> "Goodrich, Pagano -- Advise needed!" Bryant directed the post to
> Goodrich and I who are both christians and who both accept the
> supernaturalism of Christian theology. Why would Bryant be directing
> his post to Goodrich and I if he was referring to some "generalized"
> supernaturalism which according to Steven J is something significantly
> different from christian supernaturalism? Steven J never says...
Actually, I directed my post toward you and Goodrich because you two are
always claiming that science gets origins wrong because it doesn't
consider the possiblility of supernatural causes.
I don't recall those whinges being qualified by a particular flavor of
supernaturalism, though of course your ultimate agenda is transparent.
At any rate, if scientists are going to consider supernatural causes, how
do they know *which* to consider? Ask you and Goodrich? No, the
impossibility of a science based on supernaturalism was the whole point of
my post. If you don't have a methodology for investigating supernatural
causes and cures for automotive problems, how can you have a methodology
for investigating supernatural causes and cures for origins questions?
You don't have a methodology, or even a philosophy. All you've got to
offer is an opinion based on tradition.
>> Bobby
>>Bryant was not suggesting that supernaturalists think *every* event in
>>space-time has a supernatural explanation (that would pretty much put
>>paid to any distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" events,
>>after all); he was pointing out that "Tony Pagano has never claimed that
>>X has a supernatural cause" is not a very useful criterion for deciding
>>which events might, in fact, be supernatural.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since evolutionism/Big Bangism and creationism are, generally speaking,
> frameworks for understanding the PREhistory of life and the material
> world,
Uhmmm... evolution is about the *history* of life.
> whether or not supernatural action should be attributed to present
> events is irrelevent.
Evolution is going on in the present; it's *present* cause is very much
relevant.
> No christian claims to know when supernatural action occurred outside of
> those events revealed in Scripture. This is well known.
So when the crops are failing from drought, Christians pray for rain, and
it rains, to they thank God or congratulate themselves on getting lucky?
I can hardly turn on the evening news without seeing a human-interest
story where some Christian explicitly credits divine intervention for
their survival, recovery of health or freedom, etc.
>>I suppose that you hold that all humans have common ancestry with other
>>humans -- that "polygenesis" (separate origins of separate human
>>"races") -- is false. There are self-professed Christians who insist
>>that it is gospel truth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The Catholic Church has taught through its normal teaching office that
> polygenesis is contrary to the Catholic Faith. As a result I assert
> without fear of contradiction that any such scientific claims are false.
> Furthermore the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches
> that the world and life is not the product of material necessity or of
> blind fate and chance.
So your whinge isn't that scientists are ignoring the possibility of
supernatural causes, but rather that they are ignoring a particular sect's
statement of belief.
If you can't even offer a methodology that lets scientists objectively
determine whether some supernatural agency lies behind the defect in my
automobile, what methodology are they supposed to use to determine whose
articles of faith they should bow to?
The whole point of science is to understand the universe by looking at the
universe, rather than taking some authority's traditional opinion about
it.
> Polygenesis is more or less predicted and required by neoDarwinian
> evolution. And evolutionism teaches that material necessity and chance
> are sufficient to explain life. Both Catholic teaching and secular
> teaching cannot be true at the same time. One (or both) are false.
And you suggest taking your sect's opinion rather than looking at the
evidence.
>> Suppose they confronted biologists' arguments (based on
>>"naturalistic" interpretations) that there are no distinct human races
>>and that all humans share a common human ancestor, with the response
>>that this imposes a "naturalistic" straightjacket on the evidence, and
>>forces it to fit a pre-ordained evolutionist interpretation of genetic
>>evidence.
>
> Pagano replies:
> There is nothing unusual in scientific activity about initial
> conditions, presuppositions and facts admitted to a framework
> constraining possibilities. The constraining of possibilities is what
> makes scientific activity possible and manageable. But this should
> never put the scientist interested in the truth in a straight jacket.
For instance, we should never rule out the possibility of supernatural
causes due to arbitrary philosophical or theological dogmas?
Your position isn't even consistent with itself, let alone with the
observable evidence.
> The scientist interest in the objective truth would search diligently
> for one of the possibilities restricted by the framework. If found then
> the scientist knows that one of the constraining propositions in the
> framework is false.
Self-correction is the very foundation of science. (Let us know if we've
missed something.)
Also, how is the scientist to "search diligently" other than by looking at
the universe and seeing what's there?
>> On what basis would you urge Bryant that *this* viewpoint is absurd?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Steven J's example concerning polygenesis (which he admits "is" accepted
> as true by christians) introduced into a framework which then constrains
> possibilities within the framework. This is how science works.
>
> On the other hand Bryant implied a proposition----that is, that
> supernatural action must be considered for every event in
> space-time----which christians consider patently false. This makes
> Bryant's request for advise absurd.
Actually, I derived it from your continual whinges about scientists
ignoring the possibility of supernatural causation. The whole point of my
post was to find out how we would go about investigating such a thing, and
all you've done is dodge the question by saying that you "know" it wasn't
a supernatural effect.
How are scientists to take account of the possibility of supernatural
effects in *anything* ?
> Steven J tried to defend against my criticism of absurdity by claiming
> that Bryant was not referring to christian supernaturalism but some
> "generalized" supernaturalism which he never defined. This defense
> collapsed because Bryant specifically directed his post at two christian
> (Goodrich and myself) not some non christians.
No, as I said before, my post was aimed at you and Goodrich because you
two frequently claim that the conclusions of science are illegitimate
because it does not look into the possibility of supernatural agencies
behind the observable phenomena. And you're making it very clear that you
don't have any answer to my challenge, other than to appeal to something
you perceive as an authority.
How does science go about investigating supernatural causes and effects?
>>> Christian theology and the creationist framework is silent about
>>> Bryant's technological trroubleshooting problem. With regard to the
>>> creation of the universe and the life in it it, however, it clearly
>>> and unequivocally teaches that chance and material necessity are not
>>> sufficient. This is a metaphysical difference of opinion between us
>>> and practical atheists not a scientific one.
>>>
>>It is not at all clear to me that "Christian theology" teaches that the
>>regularities of nature are insufficient to produce life.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I'll retract this claim. Para 295 of the Catechism of the Catholic
> Church teaches that the world (and the life in it) was created according
> to the wisdom of God and..."It is NOT the product of any [material]
> necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." This doesn't address
> the sufficiency of necessity and chance but it unequivocally states that
> necessity and chance did NOT create the material world or the life in
> it.
Is "[material]" part of the catechism, or is it your personal
interpolation?
> For christians it makes the sufficiency issue irrelevent. Furthermore
> the sufficiency of necessity and chance to create is NOT a scientific
> claim but a claim of the unscientific philosophical doctrine of
> Naturalism which modern secular scientists have incorporated as a
> presupposition of their frameworks.
That claim is _hilarious_ in the context of a thread where you're trying
to weasel out of answering the challenge in my post about automotive
failure.
> But has this presupposition proven itself fruitful?
Has the presupposition that there might be a supernatural cause behind my
automotive failure proven itself fruitful?
> The laws of science themselves do not contain sufficient information to
> account for the universe, the genesis of life, or the diversity of life.
> All of our best science has shown all known possibilities for the
> genesis of life to be fatally flawed.
I haven't seen any responses to any of the papers Lilith has posted on the
topic over the past year or so. Would you be so kind as to summarize the
fatal flaws in Martin & Russell (2002)?
> Paleontological evidence shows unequivocal evidence of stasis and not
> ubiquitous change. All the known genetic mechanisms shuffle existing
> information and conserve that information they don't generate
> information. The No Free Lunch theorems show that there is no possible
> evolutionary algorithm that is any better than a blind search.
You don't have the faintest idea what the NFLT says. (Nor does Dembski,
if he actually believes the conclusions he draws from it.)
> This makes the possibility of the
> creation of all the diversity of life in less than a billion years a
> virtual impossibility.
How many years would it take, then? (Please show your math.)
> This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Of ignorance?
>> In the middle
>>ages, Christian theology accepted spontaneous generation -- if God could
>>arrange for life to reproduce itself according to its nature, surely He
>>could arrange for non-life to produce life according to laws He set in
>>place. That science rejects medieval conceptions of spontaneous
>>generation does not, I would think, affect the underlying principle:
>>abiogenesis by natural means is consistent with a Creator, if He chose
>>to make the universe that way. Theology is hardly the field for
>>deciding whether or not the universe *is* in fact that way.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Steven J forgets that the proposition that necessity and chance are
> sufficient is NOT a scientific claim but an unscientific metaphysical
> claim. Our best secular science disputes it, particularly the No Free
> Lunch Theorems.
The NFLT disputes no such thing.
>>I hope you understand that Bryant's automobile is a synecdoche, here.
>>He doesn't really expect to run into anyone with a supernaturalistic
>>model of car repair. Rather, he's asking for a way to tell which
>>supernaturalistic hypotheses should be considered (and how one would
>>test them), and which ones should be dismissed out of hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> It was absurd because the introduction of supernatural action has never
> been capricious or universal. It has been limited to only those
> instances in prehistory and history where it has been Revealed in
> Scripture.
<coldhearted>
So what are we to make of claims about modern-day supernatural events,
such as this one:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8rkstuookke1ugtpe33mnbhtrh0hjj06jj%404ax.com>
? Was it a mass delusion? A natural event mistaken for a supernatural
event?
</coldhearted>
> But this is a double edged sword.
Oh, the irony.
> How does Steven J or Bryant know when necessity and chance are
> sufficient? What scientific tests could they conduct or has anyone
> conducted to know when and under what conditions they are sufficient?
That's what *you* are supposed to tell *us* in response to the windshield-
wiper post.
> The answer is that no one has proved the claim. It is an unscientific
> metaphysical claim taken on blind faith.
No, its a practical matter enforced on us because people like you can't
give us any alternative methodologies, however much you whinge about the
methodologies we've got.
>>It's not enough to say that (your
>>version of) Christian creationism doesn't posit this or that possible
>>supernatural cause. There are other versions of creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Why would I be obligated to argue positions that are not my own? The
> Gould/Eldredge camp is not obligated to argue for the Dawkins camp
> version of evolution. Since Bryant directed his post specifically to me
> I would be entitled to offer my position not someone elses.
The problem is, you're not actually offering anything. Why don't you just
come out and admit that the scienific methodology is the best we've got,
because it's the *only* we've got.
Or are you eventually going to get around to answering the challenge?
>> There are other sorts of supernaturalistic beliefs. The League of
>> Women Voters can
>>decide that, e.g. the Socialist or Libertarian parties have too small a
>>chance of winning to deserve a lectern in the presidential debates, and
>>have a good point, but the history of science is full of theories that
>>started out as the wild ideas of some tiny minority, and won out. If
>>supernaturalism has a valid place in science, the right supernaturalist
>>system might turn out to be one very different from yours.
>
> Pagano replies:
> True enough but this doesn't require me to defend anyone's position but
> my own.
And you've managed to set up a position that's going to require a *heck*
of a lot of defending!
> Anymore than you would be required to present every possible
> evolutionist variation when you defend evolutionism. Such a requirement
> is absurd.
>>>
>>> The moribund state of abiogenesis and neoDarwinian theory, the
>>> inability of atheists to agree on the locus of biological change, and
>>> their inability to produce a testable mechanism for change spell
>>> trouble for Bryant and his merry band of atheists.
>>>
>>Tony, you're fond of charging people with "arguing from ignorance."
>>Your paragraph immediately above *is* an example of the argument from
>>ignorance -- not because you don't know what you're talking about
>>(though you don't), but because even if you were right, the mere failure
>>of one theory (or metaphysic) to explain something is not a reason to
>>suppose that some rival theory (or theory-wannabee) or metaphysical
>>system can do so.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Read more carefully. I say nothing about future possibilities; I simply
> say that all the current variations are clearly moribund.
I'm eagerly awaiting that critique of Martin and Russell.
>>> But matters are much worse than this. ID theorists have shown that
>>> evolutionists have to do a great deal more than show that any sort of
>>> biological change occurs. They have to demonstrate that random
>>> changes coupled to some unknown mechanism can generate "information"
>>> necessary to explain novelty and diversity. Natural selection and
>>> known genetic mechanisms are conservative in nature not revolutionary.
>>>
>>ID doesn't have theorists, it has apologists. You can't have a theory
>>by positing a designer-of-the-gaps, and blithely declaring that we
>>aren't entitled to any testable hypotheses about the Designer's goals or
>>methods. And you can't demonstrate anything interesting about
>>"information," "novelty," or diversity if you refuse to define those
>>terms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Whose arguing from ignorance here. Dembski's application of probability
> theory has not been found flawed by anyone. The inventer of the No Free
> Lunch theorems has not found any flaws in Dembski's application.
I have previously named *lots* of flaws with his application. Do you need
to hear them again, so you can ignore them again?
> So far his theory has withstood numerous challenges. I suggest that you
> haven't read a single full length work by Dembski. Did I get that right?
>>>
>>> Perhaps Bryant should spend more time concerned about these problems
>>> and leave the troubleshooting of his window washer to a qualified
>>> mechanic. Sheeesh.
And leave origins questions to qualified scientists?
>>> "We will see the collapse of neoDarwinism in our lifetime."
>>>
>>Is that a statement of your intent to live a very long time, or an
>>anticipation of future hallucinations?
>
> Pagano replies:
> I thought it was obviously a bold prediction.
Boldness is no excuse for a lack of substance. (Though a devout IDologist
like yourself probably thinks otherwise.)
David Wilson
in talk.origins john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> DRosent288 <drose...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > My impression is that the Catholic Church
> > has largely sat on the fence on the issue
> > of biological evolution. It has said that it
> > is "worth study", but has not taken a
> > strong position for or against. Correct me
> > if I am wrong.
> > alamo...@aol.com
>
> It has shifted. St Geogre Mivart, a Catholic scientist who attacked
> Darwin's view but was evolutionist, was excommunicated for heresy. ...
>
However, the heresy he was excommunicated for does not appear to have
been his evolutionism---see <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htm>.
Since at least the time of my Catholic education in the 50s and 60s, and
probably much earlier, the Catholic Church has disclaimed any special
authority for its pronouncements on scientific matters. That is, Catholics
are not obliged by the Church to consider pronouncements about such things
by the Pope (or by anyone else in the Church for that matter) as anything
other than his own personal opinion, which they are quite free to disagree
with.
The only pronouncements of the Catholic church for which it now claims any
special authority are those on what it calls "matters of faith and morals".
Of course, since it also considers its own opinion on whether something
constitutes a "matter of faith or morals" as the definitive one, it could
still have made an ass of itself by claiming that evolutionary theory was
contrary to the Faith. As far as I know it has never done so.
None of the Catholic clergy or teachers I came in contact with during my
education ever claimed that theories of evolution (as long as they refrained
from making prounouncements about the role of God, the origin of souls, or
other similar matters) were matters of faith. In fact, any whom I can
remember ever mentioning it at all denied quite specifically that they were.
As far as I can tell, the doctrine I was taught as being the official
attitude of the Church towards evolutionary theory was pretty uch the same
as that outlined in the entries on evolution in the 1913 edition of the
Catholic Encyclopedia, available on-line at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
05654a.htm> and <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm>. Of course,
the account of evolutionary theory and its evidentiary support presented in
these articles is now badly out of date, but it's also clear that their
author(s) also had no intention of representing that account to be part of
Catholic dogma.
> Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a kind of cosmic evolutionism in the
> 50s which got him told to be quiet or he'd be excommunicated. So far as
> I can see, Teilhard's view was just Lamarck all over again...
I don't believe Teilhard de Chardin would have had any problems with the
Church if he had stuck to purely scientific matters. However, he tried to
connect various aspects of his theory of evolution (which verged on the
crackpot anyway) with elements of Catholic theology. Given the nature of
the connections he made, it's hardly surprising that results weren't much
to the Church's liking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address.)
Von Smith
I notice you didn't address the central question that underlies Bobby
Bryant's humorous example: How does a non-naturalistic methodology
work? You always complain about how methodological naturalism burdens
scientific practice with unwarranted metaphysical assumptions, and
suggest that science would somehow be better off if this burden were
removed. Here was an excellent opportunity for you to explain how one
could do this. You failed.
But you did accomplish at least one thing with this post: You have
basically come out and admitted that you have no viable alternative to
current scientific methodology. Your difference was never with
scientific method in general, but with its scrupulous refusal to grant
special dispensations to your own particular pet religious claims
about natural history.
Let me ask a more direct question: What methods could a Japanese
scientist with no Christian background use to verify your claims about
origins? How would you demonstrate to such a scientist that your
explanation was the best?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
T Pagano
Pagano replies:
CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN'T MAKE A STAND AGAINST A MOVING TARGET
The Catholic Church has not made a definitive stand for or against
modern day secular theories of creation because such a stand is, at
this point in time, unnecessary. NeoDarwinian evolutionism,
abiogenesis, and Big Bangism are all highly speculative and full of
problems. Furthermore the Church is well aware that even among
scientists who agree that material necessity and chance are (in
principle sufficient to explain every event) can't agree about the
events of prehistory or even the details in their own theories.
For example, not well know among the unwashed masses, there is a deep
divide between the Richard Dawkins camp of evolutionary gradualists
and the Punc Eqers of the Gould/Eldredge camp. And neither one of
their chimeral mechanisms has ever been observed. All forms of
abiogenesis have been unfruitful and the hypothesis has completely
stagnated. And a small and growing number of secularists are even
questioning the constancy of the speed of light which would cause
significant problems for both Einstein's theories of relativity and
Big Bangism. As a result the Church cannot make a stand against a
constantly moving target whose proximity to the truth is unknown.
CHURCH HAS PRONOUNCED POSITIONS CONTRARY TO MODERN SECULAR THEORIES OF
CREATION
On the other hand the Catholic Church has made definitive statements
which directly contradict all current secular theories of creation.
Paragraph 245 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the
world and the life in it are "not the product of any necessity
whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." This directly contradicts the
unscientific claim by modern secularists that material necessity and
chance are sufficient.
In his Encyclical Letter of August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII also issued
some very definitive guidance concerning evolutionism:
Paragraph 5: "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution,
which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural
sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support
the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual
evolution."
Paragraph 35: "In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Cahtolic
religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This
certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts;
but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses,
having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine
contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such
conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the
doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can
in no way be admitted."
Paragraph 36: "...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid
that...research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both
fields take place with regard to the doctrine of Evoluition...However,
this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions,
that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to Evolution, be
weighted and jsudged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and
measure....Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of of
discussion when they act as if the origin of the human body from
pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and
proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by
reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources
of Divine Revelation which demands the greates moderation and caution
in this question."
Paragraph 37: "When, however, there is question of another
conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by
no means enjoy such liberty [of discusssion and research]. For the
faithful CANNOT embrace that opinion which maintains either that after
Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their
origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of
all, or that Adam represens a certain number of first parents."
CONCLUSION
These short statements contract much of what underlies modern secular
evolutionism. And the liberty granted by the Church in Paragraph 36
of the Encyclical Letter came with conditions which scientists who are
nominally Catholic routinely ignore. Polygenesis if flatly denied by
the church as false.
This should disabuse any notion that the Catholic Church is silent
about this issue.
Regards,
T Pagano
H,R.Gruemm
<snip>
The following is another list of falsehoods propagated by Pagano. I'll
address specifically his claims about the No Free Lunch theorem.
> The laws of science themselves do not contain sufficient information
> to account for the universe, the genesis of life, or the diversity of
> life.
False.
All of our best science has shown all known possibilities for
> the genesis of life to be fatally flawed.
False.
Paleontological evidence
> shows unequivocal evidence of stasis and not ubiquitous change.
False
All
> the known genetic mechanisms shuffle existing information and conserve
> that information they don't generate information.
False.
The No Free Lunch
> theorems show that there is no possible evolutionary algorithm that is
> any better than a blind search.
False. The NFL theorem says that no algorithm performs better than any
other *when averaged over a class of functions which is invariant
under all permutations of the state space*. The problems in
evolutionary biology are obviously not of that kind, else a point
mutation would be equally likely to change my eye color as to
transform me into a crustacean (there are many permutations which
exchange "HRG with blue eyes" with "crustacean" ;) ).
This makes the possibility of the
> creation of all the diversity of life in less than a billion years a
> virtual impossibility. This is just the tip of the iceberg
... of the falsehoods that a typical Pagano post contains.
<snip>
Pagano replies:
> Whose arguing from ignorance here. Dembski's application of
> probability theory has not been found flawed by anyone.
Except Wein, Elsberry, Shallit, Wilkins, Wolpert ....
The inventer
> of the No Free Lunch theorems has not found any flaws in Dembski's
> application.
False. Wolpert has said explicitely that Dembski did not understand
the NFL theorem and has misapplied it.
>So far his theory has withstood numerous challenges. I
> suggest that you haven't read a single full length work by Dembski.
And a good thing, too :P
Regards,
HRG.
John Wilkins
> In article <1gce35x.jtmib17rxgpgN%john...@wilkins.id.au> on April 18th
> in talk.origins john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > DRosent288 <drose...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My impression is that the Catholic Church
> > > has largely sat on the fence on the issue
> > > of biological evolution. It has said that it
> > > is "worth study", but has not taken a
> > > strong position for or against. Correct me
> > > if I am wrong.
> > > alamo...@aol.com
> >
> > It has shifted. St Geogre Mivart, a Catholic scientist who attacked
> > Darwin's view but was evolutionist, was excommunicated for heresy. ...
> >
>
> However, the heresy he was excommunicated for does not appear to have
> been his evolutionism---see <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htm>.
They *would* say that, wouldn't they? ;-) It was something to do with
his modernism, wasn't it?
>
> Since at least the time of my Catholic education in the 50s and 60s, and
> probably much earlier, the Catholic Church has disclaimed any special
> authority for its pronouncements on scientific matters. That is, Catholics
> are not obliged by the Church to consider pronouncements about such things
> by the Pope (or by anyone else in the Church for that matter) as anything
> other than his own personal opinion, which they are quite free to disagree
> with.
>
> The only pronouncements of the Catholic church for which it now claims any
> special authority are those on what it calls "matters of faith and morals".
> Of course, since it also considers its own opinion on whether something
> constitutes a "matter of faith or morals" as the definitive one, it could
> still have made an ass of itself by claiming that evolutionary theory was
> contrary to the Faith. As far as I know it has never done so.
On that, as far as I know, you are correct.
>
> None of the Catholic clergy or teachers I came in contact with during my
> education ever claimed that theories of evolution (as long as they refrained
> from making prounouncements about the role of God, the origin of souls, or
> other similar matters) were matters of faith. In fact, any whom I can
> remember ever mentioning it at all denied quite specifically that they were.
>
> As far as I can tell, the doctrine I was taught as being the official
> attitude of the Church towards evolutionary theory was pretty uch the same
> as that outlined in the entries on evolution in the 1913 edition of the
> Catholic Encyclopedia, available on-line at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
> 05654a.htm> and <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm>. Of course,
> the account of evolutionary theory and its evidentiary support presented in
> these articles is now badly out of date, but it's also clear that their
> author(s) also had no intention of representing that account to be part of
> Catholic dogma.
>
> > Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a kind of cosmic evolutionism in the
> > 50s which got him told to be quiet or he'd be excommunicated. So far as
> > I can see, Teilhard's view was just Lamarck all over again...
>
> I don't believe Teilhard de Chardin would have had any problems with the
> Church if he had stuck to purely scientific matters. However, he tried to
> connect various aspects of his theory of evolution (which verged on the
> crackpot anyway) with elements of Catholic theology. Given the nature of
> the connections he made, it's hardly surprising that results weren't much
> to the Church's liking.
>
I believe that most of the concern *any* religious body has with
evolution lies solely in the implications they fear from the science
rather than the science themselves. I was rereading GB Shaw's
Introduction to _Back to Methuselah_ last night and all of his
criticisms are that there are (he thinks) bad conclusions to be drawn
from the biology in the social, moral and religious context. And none of
these are, in fact, part of evolutionary biology.
The Church's objection to Teilhard was to his panentheism, which he
expressed in apparently evolutionary terms (something that I never
understood Julian Huxley's approval of in the intro to The Phenomenon of
Man
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, and Julian Sorell Huxley. 1960. The
phenomenon of man. London: Collins.). So far as I can see, where it is
philosophical, it is not evolutionary, and where it is evolutionary it
is not philosophical (or that deep, either). Teilhard was just confused,
IMO.
macaddicted
> Paragraph 245 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the
> world and the life in it are "not the product of any necessity
> whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
I'm not sure what Pagano was trying to stress, but if you take only one
point away from his post, this is probably the most important.
Essentially, it is saying that God didn't "have" to bring the world into
existence, but he was _responsible_ for bringing into existence.
The Church's primary problem with evolution is, of course, theological
(theology is built on philosophy, so there will be philosophical
differences as well). Its central problem is the soul (how did it come
into being), and, as a corallary, original sin (if there is more than
one "Adam and Eve" what was the original sin, and how did its
consequences spread to the "remainder" of humanity).
JPII has stated that evolution is "more than a theory," a small step
beyond what Pius XII pronounced in _Humani Generis_ (the encyclical
Pagano was quoting). The main proviso, as Wilkins stated in his
response, is the soul. Can a Catholic believe in evolution? Yes, but
within certain limits.
If you would like to get a sense of the debate going on in the Church
around theology as it pertains to evolution do a search on Google for
Pagano and macaddicted (me).
--
macaddicted
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
John Wilkins
Can we now debate if the soul is, in fact, a necessary Christian
doctrine? ;-)
TomS
<1gcg6ij.1wmucmbl2gju3N%macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com>, macaddicted
stated..."
To repeat myself again:
I believe that there is an ongoing problem with the fallacy of
composition. We ought to be careful to distinguish between each
individual human soul -- that each one is created directly by God,
rather than inherited from our parents -- and the abstraction The
Soul.
One can perfectly well accept the idea that each of our souls
is a creature of God, and find the question of the origin of The
Soul to be irrelevant and uninteresting and perhaps meaningless.
The Soul first existed when God created the first soul -- or,
perhaps The Soul is an abstraction or a universal and therefore
always existed as an abstract idea.
And I would also suggest that Original Sin does not have a
problem with evolutionary biology. If it has a problem with
modern science, it is a problem with genetics. How did we
inherit Original Sin? I don't see how that is at all relevant
to the idea that our bodily form is physically related to the
rest of the world of life on earth, or any of the other ideas
covered by evolutionary biology.
It seems to me that people are needlessly identifying
"evolution" as a source of philosophical/theological problems.
Mitch Alsup
> macaddicted <macad...@REMOVETHIScomcast.com> wrote:
> Can we now debate if the soul is, in fact, a necessary Christian
> doctrine? ;-)
Should we not first argue the existance of the soul first?
And start with the measured and observed evidence?
Hank
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:40:51 +0000 (UTC), drose...@aol.com
> (DRosent288) wrote:
>
> >My impression is that the Catholic Church
> >has largely sat on the fence on the issue
> >of biological evolution. It has said that it
> >is "worth study", but has not taken a
> >strong position for or against. Correct me
> >if I am wrong.
> >alamo...@aol.com
>
> Pagano replies:
>
> CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN'T MAKE A STAND AGAINST A MOVING TARGET
> The Catholic Church has not made a definitive stand for or against
> modern day secular theories of creation because such a stand is, at
> this point in time, unnecessary. NeoDarwinian evolutionism,
> abiogenesis, and Big Bangism are all highly speculative and full of
> problems.
Not for the educated among us.
> Furthermore the Church is well aware that even among
> scientists who agree that material necessity and chance are (in
> principle sufficient to explain every event) can't agree about the
> events of prehistory or even the details in their own theories.
Crock.
<snip>
Since evolution is taught in many Catholic schools, I think it's safe to
say the Catholic church has no problem with evolution.
Hank
Nah. The existance or non-existance of a soul is a matter of faith. Physical evidence one way or the other is
irrelevant.
Chris Thompson
From:
http://www.fordham.edu/biology/courses/undergrad.htm
BIRU 1004-Dinosaurs, Mastodons, and Dodos (3 credits)
A course designed for non-majors. Explores the origin and fate of life,
including the evolution and eventual extinction of dinosaurs, Ice Age
mammals, and isolated species. Lectures are complemented by laboratory
exercises emphasizing the study of fossils and environmental change.
BIRU 1005-AIDS: A Conspiracy of Cells (3 credits)
A course designed for non-majors. Emphasizes the biological roots of
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). The disease is discussed in
the context of genetics, cell biology, and evolution. Consideration is
given to fundamental aspects of infection, immunology, and virology.
Laboratory exercises center on agents of opportunistic infection and the
body’s response to them.
BIRU 2561-Ecology (3-hour lecture) (3 credits) An introduction to the
theories and applications of ecology including evolution, resources,
population dynamics, life histories, competition, community structure,
ecosystem processes, island biogeography, human impacts on ecosystems,
and conservation. Corequisite: BIRU 2571.
BIRU 3405-Plant Biology (3-hour lecture) (3 credits)
A survey of the major groups of plants and related organisms. Topics
include physiology, morphology, ecology, taxonomy and systematics, and
human uses of plants. Corequisite: BIRU 3415.
BIRU 4642-Animal Behavior (3 credits)
Introduction to animal behavior; evolution, genetics, physiology and
ecology of behavior; sexual/mating/reproductive behavior; habitat
selection, feeding behavior, anti-predator defenses, social behavior,
human behavior. *****
From:
http://bioserver.georgetown.edu/undergrad/courses.html
001 Genes: Evolution, Immunity and Mind (Prof. Neale) Spring 4 cr
251 Evolutionary Processes (Prof. Hamilton, Braverman) Spring 4 cr
367 Evolutionary Genetics (Prof. Hamilton) Fall 3 cr
*****
From:
Notre Dame allows undergraduate students to specialize in the core area
of Evolution and Organismal Biology:
http://www.science.nd.edu/science_undergrad/bios/bios_BIOS_major_REQ.htm
Core VI: Evolution and Organismal Biology
Students choose among:
General Botany (BIOS 304) (includes lab)
Evolution (BIOS 305)
Evolution and the History of Life (BIOS 310)
Vertebrate Biology (BIOS 404)
General Entomology (BIOS 406; optional lab BIOS 406L)
Animal Behavior (BIOS 407)
Marine Biology (BIOS 422)
Ichthyology (BIOS 524)
and other new courses as developed for Core VI or so designated by the
department. (Note 7)
*****
What? Has evil secular science invaded the three premier Catholic
universities of North America???
Chris
(with apologies to anyone who attended other RC institutions of higher
learning in N.A.; there are many fine ones.) --
"Curiousity is not a theological virtue."
---Lois McMaster Bujold
Andy Groves
All of science is a constantly moving target, Tony. Scientific
conclusions are tentative, provisional, and subject to modification in
the light of new evidence - unlike Catholic dogma, for example. If
you're going talk about evolution in this way, you must accept that
your opinions hold true for all of science.
I won't bother to comment on the rest of your error-riddled post.
However, in the light of your past interest in vestigial structures, I
would refer you to my recent post describing a paper on the loss of
pelvic structures in sticklebacks.
I can send you the article in PDF format if you are interested.
Andy