Michael Ruse: Intelligent design is an oxymoron
Jason Spaceman
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of Steve Fuller's defence of intelligent design theory
(ID) is a false analogy. He compares the struggles of the ID
supporters to the travails of the Protestant Reformers. Just as they
stood against the established Catholic church, so the ID supporters
stand against establishment science, specifically Darwinian
evolutionary theory. Where this comparison breaks down is that the
Protestants were no less Christians than the Catholics. It was rather
that they differed over the right way to get to heaven. For the
Protestants it was justification through faith, believing in the Lord,
whereas for Catholics, it was good works. Given that Saint Augustine,
some thousand years before, had labeled the Catholic position the
heresy of Pelagianism, the reformers had a good point.
In the ID case, whatever its supporters may say publicly for political
purposes � in the USA thanks to the First Amendment you cannot teach
religion in state-funded schools � the intention is to bring God into
the causal process. ID claims that there are some phenomena (like the
bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade) are so
"irreducibly complex," that to explain them we must invoke an
"intelligent designer." As they admit among themselves � the
philosopher-mathematician William Dembski is quite clear on this � the
designer is none other than our old friend the God of Christianity.
The logos of the early chapters of the Gospel of Saint John, as
Dembski confidently states.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/05/intelligent-design-fuller-creationism
J. Spaceman
Glenn
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> At the heart of Steve Fuller's defence of intelligent design theory
> (ID) is a false analogy. He compares the struggles of the ID
> supporters to the travails of the Protestant Reformers. Just as they
> stood against the established Catholic church, so the ID supporters
> stand against establishment science, specifically Darwinian
> evolutionary theory. Where this comparison breaks down is that the
> Protestants were no less Christians than the Catholics.
Appears Ruse is implying Fuller's analogy portrays ID supporters as
less or not scientific. While highly doubtful this is the case,
curiously serves the same purpose, since for instance Luther was
excommunicated. Left without supporting argument, "no less Christian"
seems to have been an atheist knee jerk explanation drawn out of thin
air, that backfires.
> It was rather
> that they differed over the right way to get to heaven. For the
> Protestants it was justification through faith, believing in the Lord,
> whereas for Catholics, it was good works. Given that Saint Augustine,
> some thousand years before, had labeled the Catholic position the
> heresy of Pelagianism, the reformers had a good point.
I doubt the Pope would have agreed. The difference between "works" and
"free gift" is of course more than a minor difference of opinion among
"Christians". Thinking you can buy your way into God's good graces is
not a Christian principle, and does not make one a Christian. Many
protestants still today reject Catholic's as being Christians.
>
> In the ID case, whatever its supporters may say publicly for political
> purposes � in the USA thanks to the First Amendment you cannot teach
> religion in state-funded schools � the intention is to bring God into
> the causal process. ID claims that there are some phenomena (like the
> bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade) are so
> "irreducibly complex," that to explain them we must invoke an
> "intelligent designer." As they admit among themselves � the
> philosopher-mathematician William Dembski is quite clear on this � the
> designer is none other than our old friend the God of Christianity.
> The logos of the early chapters of the Gospel of Saint John, as
> Dembski confidently states.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many scientists have held privately that their theories were the
result of religious beliefs, and were quite clear and often insistent
about it. By regurgitating this lame argument Ruse shows himself to be
little more than a common raving atheist loon. The rest of his rant
that is not quoted in the post does nothing to remove him from that
category.
>
> Read it athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/05/intelligen...
>
> J. Spaceman
Kalkidas
"Jason Spaceman" <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:9a7e25c1-972f-4643...@u21g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> From the article:
[snip a suspiciously great deal of talk about God, whom Ruse says doesn't
exist!!!
Ben Stein made a monkey out of him. I can picture him piggy-backing around
on his giant crystals while spewing word salad. A picture right out of Tim
Burton's BeetleRuse.
Ray Martinez
> On May 5, 8:22�am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > At the heart of Steve Fuller's defence of intelligent design theory
> > (ID) is a false analogy. He compares the struggles of the ID
> > supporters to the travails of the Protestant Reformers. Just as they
> > stood against the established Catholic church, so the ID supporters
> > stand against establishment science, specifically Darwinian
> > evolutionary theory. Where this comparison breaks down is that the
> > Protestants were no less Christians than the Catholics.
>
> Appears Ruse is implying Fuller's analogy portrays ID supporters as
> less or not scientific. While highly doubtful this is the case,
> curiously serves the same purpose, since for instance Luther was
> excommunicated. Left without supporting argument, "no less Christian"
> seems to have been an atheist knee jerk explanation drawn out of thin
> air, that backfires.
>
> > It was rather
> > that they differed over the right way to get to heaven. For the
> > Protestants it was justification through faith, believing in the Lord,
> > whereas for Catholics, it was good works. Given that Saint Augustine,
> > some thousand years before, had labeled the Catholic position the
> > heresy of Pelagianism, the reformers had a good point.
>
> "free gift" is of course more than a minor difference of opinion among
> "Christians". Thinking you can buy your way into God's good graces is
> not a Christian principle, and does not make one a Christian. Many
> protestants still today reject Catholic's as being Christians.
>
>
>
> > In the ID case, whatever its supporters may say publicly for political
> > purposes � in the USA thanks to the First Amendment you cannot teach
> > religion in state-funded schools � the intention is to bring God into
> > the causal process. ID claims that there are some phenomena (like the
> > bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade) are so
> > "irreducibly complex," that to explain them we must invoke an
> > "intelligent designer." As they admit among themselves � the
> > philosopher-mathematician William Dembski is quite clear on this � the
> > designer is none other than our old friend the God of Christianity.
> > The logos of the early chapters of the Gospel of Saint John, as
> > Dembski confidently states.
>
> Many scientists have held privately that their theories were the
> result of religious beliefs, and were quite clear and often insistent
> about it. By regurgitating this lame argument Ruse shows himself to be
> little more than a common raving atheist loon. The rest of his rant
> that is not quoted in the post does nothing to remove him from that
> category.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Read it athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/05/intelligen...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree completely with Glenn's criticism. And Jason (topic author)
spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
not scientific! Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
supernatural causation, especially William Whewell! And the Whewell
quote supports exactly opposite of Ruse's intent! (FYI: when Whewell
accepted "natural laws" his assumption was theistic and not the
atheistic assumption of post-1859.)
Ruse is normally a decent history of science scholar; but Glenn is
correct to observe that "Ruse [in this article] shows himself to be
little more than a common raving atheist loon." It appears that Steve
Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
the egregious errors seen in this article.
Ray
Caranx latus
> spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
> Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
> not scientific! Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
> NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
> There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
> supernatural causation, especially William Whewell! And the Whewell
> quote supports exactly opposite of Ruse's intent! (FYI: when Whewell
> accepted "natural laws" his assumption was theistic and not the
> atheistic assumption of post-1859.)
You clearly read some other article that that linked to by Jason.
'Cause I read it, and it doesn't say what you're claiming it said.
What Ruse said about Whewell is that he believed that the study of the
mystery of creation was *not* the realm of science. Try reading it
again, and this time read the words that are actually there, not the
ones you wish were there.
> Ruse is normally a decent history of science scholar; but Glenn is
> correct to observe that "Ruse [in this article] shows himself to be
> little more than a common raving atheist loon." It appears that Steve
> Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
> the egregious errors seen in this article.
The only egregious error that you've pointed out so far, Ray, is
*yours*. Care to have another go?
> Ray
Reddfrogg
snip
>
> I agree completely with Glenn's criticism. And Jason (topic author)
> spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
> Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
> not scientific!
That is, of course, correct. Goddidit is not scientific, now and in
Victorian times.
>Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
> NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
also, absolutely correct. "Supernatural causation" is not
scientific. It wasn't in Victorian times, and isn't now.
> There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
> supernatural causation, especially William Whewell!
Except that those Victorian scientists understood the difference
between religious belief in supernatural causation, and stating it as
if it were scientific.
> And the Whewell
> quote supports exactly opposite of Ruse's intent! (FYI: when Whewell
> accepted "natural laws" his assumption was theistic and not the
> atheistic assumption of post-1859.)
There's where you are wrong. There isn't any "atheistic assumption of
post 1859" Natural laws are natural laws, no matter if the
"assumption" is theistic, or not. All science can study are
natural causes, for natural effects. There's nothing wrong with
holding a belief that a supernatural being is behind those laws, but
appealing to the supernatural for immediate causation isn't science.
It wasn't science before 1859, or after.
>
> Ruse is normally a decent history of science scholar; but Glenn is
> correct to observe that "Ruse [in this article] shows himself to be
> little more than a common raving atheist loon."
More name calling, when unable to address the actual issue.
> It appears that Steve
> Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
> the egregious errors seen in this article.
Have you considered the explanation that the errors are yours?
DJT
Desertphile
<GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 8:22�am, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > At the heart of Steve Fuller's defence of intelligent design theory
There is no "intelligent design theory."
> > (ID) is a false analogy. He compares the struggles of the ID
> > supporters to the travails of the Protestant Reformers. Just as they
> > stood against the established Catholic church, so the ID supporters
> > stand against establishment science, specifically Darwinian
> > evolutionary theory. Where this comparison breaks down is that the
> > Protestants were no less Christians than the Catholics.
> Appears Ruse is implying Fuller's analogy portrays ID supporters as
> less or not scientific.
Nope: ID supporters portray ID supporters as non-scientific.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Many scientists have held privately that their theories were the
>result of religious beliefs, and were quite clear and often insistent
>about it
a privately held clear and insistent belief....
anyone else find this to be an oxymoron?
bpuharic
ben stein is so pathetic that the only one who would take him
seriously is a guy who thinks cows are more valuable than human
beings...
Ray Martinez
>
> > > Many scientists have held privately that their theories were the
> > > result of religious beliefs, and were quite clear and often insistent
> > > about it. By regurgitating this lame argument Ruse shows himself to be
> > > little more than a common raving atheist loon. The rest of his rant
> > > that is not quoted in the post does nothing to remove him from that
> > > category.
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/05/intelligen...
>
> > > > J. Spaceman
>
> > I agree completely with Glenn's criticism. And Jason (topic author)
> > spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
> > Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
> > not scientific! Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
> > NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
> > There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
> > supernatural causation, especially William Whewell! And the Whewell
> > quote supports exactly opposite of Ruse's intent! (FYI: when Whewell
> > accepted "natural laws" his assumption was theistic and not the
> > atheistic assumption of post-1859.)
>
> You clearly read some other article that that linked to by Jason.
> 'Cause I read it, and it doesn't say what you're claiming it said.
> What Ruse said about Whewell is that he believed that the study of the
> mystery of creation was *not* the realm of science. Try reading it
> again, and this time read the words that are actually there, not the
> ones you wish were there.
>
To quote a very famous Victorian Creationist as supporting Naturalism
epitomizes dishonesty----that's why I said Ruse made a horrendous
error.
> > Ruse is normally a decent history of science scholar; but Glenn is
> > correct to observe that "Ruse [in this article] shows himself to be
> > little more than a common raving atheist loon." It appears that Steve
> > Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
> > the egregious errors seen in this article.
>
> The only egregious error that you've pointed out so far, Ray, is
> *yours*. Care to have another go?
>
>
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On May 5, 1:32�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> > I agree completely with Glenn's criticism. And Jason (topic author)
> > spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
> > Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
> > not scientific!
>
> Victorian �ｿｽtimes.
>
> >Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
> > NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
>
> scientific. �ｿｽ It wasn't in Victorian times, and isn't now.
>
> > There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
> > supernatural causation, especially William Whewell!
>
> Except that those Victorian scientists understood the difference
> between religious belief in supernatural causation, and stating it as
> if it were scientific.
>
Dana has never been able to support this outrageous claim. It simply
asserts that everyone in the past is like the "Christian" scientists
of today. Things were completely different in Victorian times. We
could easily out Dana's motive to lie.
Basic history of science: Virtually all scientific publication prior
to 1859 explicitly said that God-did-it.
General Reader: Simply Google and find out for yourself.
> > And the Whewell
> > quote supports exactly opposite of Ruse's intent! (FYI: when Whewell
> > accepted "natural laws" his assumption was theistic and not the
> > atheistic assumption of post-1859.)
>
> There's where you are wrong. �ｿｽThere isn't any "atheistic assumption of
> post 1859" �ｿｽ �ｿｽ Natural laws are natural laws, no matter if the
> "assumption" is theistic, or not. �ｿｽ �ｿｽ All science can study are
> natural causes, for natural effects. �ｿｽ There's nothing wrong with
> holding a belief that a supernatural being is behind those laws, but
> appealing to the supernatural for immediate causation isn't science.
> It wasn't science before 1859, or after.
>
>
>
> > Ruse is normally a decent history of science scholar; but Glenn is
> > correct to observe that "Ruse [in this article] shows himself to be
> > little more than a common raving atheist loon."
>
> More name calling, when unable to address the actual issue.
>
> > It appears that Steve
> > Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
> > the egregious errors seen in this article.
>
> Have �ｿｽyou considered the explanation that the errors are yours?
>
> DJT
All this says is that Naturalism was always accepted----even before
1859. Before 1859 Supernaturalism was accepted.
No one disputes the basic fact that prior to 1858-59 Creationism was
the paradigm of science. There was not even ONE publishing biologist
in England prior to 1859 who accepted transmutation----not even one.
List names of **publishing biologists in England prior to 1859** who
were evolutionists (include references to their scientifc works
advocating transmutation):
1.
2.
3.
On page 310 of "The Origin" (1859) Darwin lists the nine greatest
scientific authorities up until that time; he specifically says that
each one of them are anti-evolutionists or vehemently against
transmutation.
Dana Tweedy is a brazen liar and of course an evolutionist. This is
why Creationism is accepted by most adults: if the evolutionist would
lie about uncomplicated and undisputed facts then they have lied and
will lie about complicated scientific evidence.
Ray
Caranx latus
The only sentence from the linked article that includes a quote from
Whewell (unless I missed one) is:
--- begin quote ---
In the words of the English historian and philosopher of science,
William Whewell � an ordained Anglican who so disliked evolutionary
speculations that, when he was master of Trinity College, Cambridge,
he would not allow a copy of the Origin of Species in the college
library � when it comes to science on origins: "The mystery of
creation is not within the range of her legitimate territory; she says
nothing, but she points upwards."
--- end quote ---
Would you explain to me how that supports "Naturalism," Ray?
Ray Martinez
Ruse used the quote to say that "even Whewell" rejected God-it-it
(implying that a very famous Victorian Creationist accepted Naturalism
or Deism).
The quote advocates God-did-it----"she points upwards." Ruse admits
that Whewell disallowed "The Origin" shelf space. This fact also
defeats his implication that Whewell accepted Naturalism or Deism.
Ruse has made two very bad errors. I offered a reason why in my first
post in this topic: that Steve Fuller somehow got under his skin. I am
well read in Ruse. He is not himself in the article.
Ray
Caranx latus
Shall I condense down the sentence from Ruse that I quoted above so
that you can read it properly? Here it is:
"In the words of ... Whewell ... when it comes to science ... "The
mystery of creation is not within the range of [science's] legitimate
territory ..."
There is no rejection of God-did-it here, Ray. On the contrary, Ruse
is saying that creation was *not* something that science should study.
That sentence is the only place in the article where Whewell's name
appears.
All this to say that I still don't know why you arrived at your
conclusion, Ray.
Ray Martinez
> mystery of creation is not within the range of [science's] legitimate
> territory ..."
>
> There is no rejection of God-did-it here, Ray. On the contrary, Ruse
> is saying that creation was *not* something that science should study.
> That sentence is the only place in the article where Whewell's name
> appears.
>
> All this to say that I still don't know why you arrived at your
> conclusion, Ray.
>
>
>
> > The quote advocates God-did-it----"she points upwards." Ruse admits
> > that Whewell disallowed "The Origin" shelf space. This fact also
> > defeats his implication that Whewell accepted Naturalism or Deism.
>
> > Ruse has made two very bad errors. I offered a reason why in my first
> > post in this topic: that Steve Fuller somehow got under his skin. I am
> > well read in Ruse. He is not himself in the article.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ruse is saying that Whewell is saying. Whewell said no such thing.
Ruse misunderstood; quote mine. Whewell did not allow "The Origin"
shelf space (= "The Origin" is not scientific). To say that a
Victorian Creationist was arguing against Creationism is self-
evidently false. Refusal to acknowledge the error supports the fact
that you are dishonest.
Ray
Caranx latus
Google for:
"the mystery of creation" Whewell
The first link takes you directly to Whewell's book History of the
Inductive Sciences.
On pages 587 and 588 you'll find the following:
--- begin quote ---
From what has been said, it follows that geology and astronomy are, of
themselves, incapable of giving us any distinct and satisfactory
account of the origin of the universe, or of its parts. We need not
wonder, then, at any particular instance of this incapacity; as for
example, that of which we have been speaking, the impossibility of
accounting by any natural means for the production of all the
successive tribes of plants and animals which have peopled the world
in the various stages of its progress as geology, teaches us. That
they were, like our own animal and vegetable contemporaries,
profoundly adapted to the condition in which they were placed, we have
ample reason to believe; but when we inquire whence they came into
this our world, geology is silent. The mystery of creation is not
within the range of her legitimate territory; she says nothing, but
she points upwards.
--- end quote ---
That's the entire paragraph that contains the quote that Ruse
provided, the quote that Whewell himself wrote. It supports what Ruse
said; that Whewell felt that science couldn't study questions
regarding origins.
> Ruse misunderstood; quote mine.
Misunderstanding is not quote mining, and you've been told that often
enough.
> Whewell did not allow "The Origin"
> shelf space (= "The Origin" is not scientific). To say that a
> Victorian Creationist was arguing against Creationism is self-
> evidently false.
But Whewell is *not* arguing against Creationism, Ray, and Ruse is not
claiming that he is.
> Refusal to acknowledge the error supports the fact
> that you are dishonest.
Another one of Ray's Rules that apply to everyone except you?
Dana Tweedy
> On May 5, 2:49 pm, Reddfrogg<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On May 5, 1:32 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree completely with Glenn's criticism. And Jason (topic author)
>>> spared Ruse the indignity of posting the entire article. In the link
>>> Ruse ASSERTS that Victorian Creationists agreed that God-did-it was
>>> not scientific!
>>
>> Victorian times.
>>
>>> Then he quotes a well known Victorian Creationist as
>>> NOT supporting supernatural causation----ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!
>>
>> scientific. It wasn't in Victorian times, and isn't now.
>>
>>> There was no such thing as a Victorian Creationist who did not accept
>>> supernatural causation, especially William Whewell!
>>
>> Except that those Victorian scientists understood the difference
>> between religious belief in supernatural causation, and stating it as
>> if it were scientific.
>>
>
> Dana has never been able to support this outrageous claim.
The "claim" is hardly outrageous, it's just a simple statement of fact.
> It simply
> asserts that everyone in the past is like the "Christian" scientists
> of today.
Actually, I point out that science operates today like it did in the
past. Scientists such as Newton, Cuvier, Hutton, "Strata" Smith, etc,
etc, were devoutly religious, but made use of the same scientific method
that scientists today make use of.
> Things were completely different in Victorian times. We
> could easily out Dana's motive to lie.
While it's true that Victorian times were somewhat different than today,
stating they were "completely different" is wrong. People in the
Victorian times used science much as it's used today.
The reason why people still use science today is that it works the
same today, as it did in Victorian times( and before). Of course, I
have no "motive to lie", and indeed I have not lied.
Ray, on the other hand would have to admit he's been wrong all along
about his mistaken beliefs. That's a great deal more of a motive to
lie than anything I have.
>
> Basic history of science: Virtually all scientific publication prior
> to 1859 explicitly said that God-did-it.
Like so many of Ray's claims about "basic history", he gets it wrong.
Ray can't cite a single scientific publication from that era that
used "Goddidit" or 'A miracle occurred" as the proximal cause of any
observed phenomena. All scientific publications of the time proposed
natural causes, for natural effects. Most scientists of that time,
being devout Christians, felt that God was the author of the laws of
nature, but they also felt that God acted through natural forces.
No scientist, worthy of the name in Victorian times would have
proposed non-natural causes for observed phenomena. The same is true
today.
Even Paley didn't claim that God created species through "special
creation". While Paley proposed that living things displayed God's
design, he didn't propose a mechanism to explain how the species got here.
>
> General Reader: Simply Google and find out for yourself.
And if Ray had bothered to follow his own advice, he'd find out he was
wrong. See for example:
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science&religion.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/geology.htm
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/evolution_and_creation.html
snip
>>> It appears that Steve
>>> Fuller really got under Ruse's skin. I see no other explanation for
>>> the egregious errors seen in this article.
>>
>> Have you considered the explanation that the errors are yours?
>>
>> DJT
>
> All this says is that Naturalism was always accepted----even before
> 1859. Before 1859 Supernaturalism was accepted.
>
> No one disputes the basic fact that prior to 1858-59 Creationism was
> the paradigm of science.
Actually, anyone who is familiar with science know that Creationism was
never science at all. It was always a religious belief. Ray once
again mistakes the scientific (but ultimately discredited) idea of
fixity of species, for Creationism, ie, the religious belief that God
created through non-material miraculous forces.
> There was not even ONE publishing biologist
> in England prior to 1859 who accepted transmutation----not even one.
As shown to you before, many times, this is false. Even if it were
true, however the idea of fixity of species, and special creation are
not the same thing. Most of the scientists of the time believed that
species were fixed, but had no scientific theory to explain how species
got there in the first place.
Ray also ignores the fact that England was not the only place where
science was conducted in the 19th century.
>
> List names of **publishing biologists in England prior to 1859** who
> were evolutionists (include references to their scientifc works
> advocating transmutation):
>
> 1.
Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia
>
> 2.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Philosophie Zoologique While he wasn't "in
England" his work was widely read in England, and was influential.
>
> 3.
Charles Robert Darwin : Various correspondence with other scientists
before 1859,
>
> On page 310 of "The Origin" (1859) Darwin lists the nine greatest
> scientific authorities up until that time; he specifically says that
> each one of them are anti-evolutionists or vehemently against
> transmutation.
Again, you are mistaking opposition to "transmutation" with scientific
support for the religious belief of Creationism. Did any of those
scientists Darwin mentioned offer any *scientific* theory explaining how
species came to be?
>
> Dana Tweedy is a brazen liar and of course an evolutionist.
Of course, I'm not made of bronze, not a liar, and I don't worship
evolution. Ray simply resorts to his usual name calling rather than
have to support his falsehoods.
> This is
> why Creationism is accepted by most adults:
The ignorance of "most adults" is not my doing.
> if the evolutionist would
> lie about uncomplicated and undisputed facts then they have lied and
> will lie about complicated scientific evidence.
Once again, Ray, your personal and rather bizarre fantasies are not
"undisputed" and are not "facts". You are quite aware that I've never
lied about anything here, and there's no reason to assume that I, or
anyone else who accepts evolution is lying about scientific evidence.
If you cannot support your claims, you need to do better than simply
stoop to name calling.
So, are you willing to discuss why you are wrong, or just hide behind
your juvenile behavior?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> You clearly read some other article that that linked to by Jason.
>> 'Cause I read it, and it doesn't say what you're claiming it said.
>> What Ruse said about Whewell is that he believed that the study of the
>> mystery of creation was *not* the realm of science. Try reading it
>> again, and this time read the words that are actually there, not the
>> ones you wish were there.
>>
>
> To quote a very famous Victorian Creationist as supporting Naturalism
> epitomizes dishonesty----that's why I said Ruse made a horrendous
> error.
Why not just admit you were wrong, Ray? Victorian scientists accepted
methodological naturalism as a tool of science. They would have called
it "empiricism" See:
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/psych/bain.htm
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> The only sentence from the linked article that includes a quote from
>> Whewell (unless I missed one) is:
>>
>> --- begin quote ---
>> In the words of the English historian and philosopher of science,
>> William Whewell � an ordained Anglican who so disliked evolutionary
>> speculations that, when he was master of Trinity College, Cambridge,
>> he would not allow a copy of the Origin of Species in the college
>> library � when it comes to science on origins: "The mystery of
>> creation is not within the range of her legitimate territory; she says
>> nothing, but she points upwards."
>> --- end quote ---
>>
>> Would you explain to me how that supports "Naturalism," Ray?
>>
>
> Ruse used the quote to say that "even Whewell" rejected God-it-it
> (implying that a very famous Victorian Creationist accepted Naturalism
> or Deism).
Of course, deism is not "naturalism". The form of naturalism as used
by science is generally known as "methodological naturalism". Whewell
would have known it as "empiricism".
>
> The quote advocates God-did-it----"she points upwards."
Actually, what he is advocating here is that nature *suggests* that God
was involved somehow. Whewell would have rejected your idea of God
taking a direct, non natural role.
> Ruse admits
> that Whewell disallowed "The Origin" shelf space. This fact also
> defeats his implication that Whewell accepted Naturalism or Deism.
Again, deism is not naturalism. Whewell, like his contemporaries
believed that God acted via natural law, and natural causes. He did
not believe that God regularly violated natural law, and he would have
dismissed as absurd your idea of God creating species by making clay
effigies and animating them
>
> Ruse has made two very bad errors. I offered a reason why in my first
> post in this topic: that Steve Fuller somehow got under his skin.
Your "reason" is mere assumption, and based on a false premise. It
wasn't Ruse that made the error.
> I am
> well read in Ruse. He is not himself in the article.
Here your error is in assuming you know when Ruse is "himself" more than
Ruse does.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On May 7, 1:12 pm, Caranx latus<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On May 7, 3:51 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 7, 12:31 pm, Caranx latus<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 7, 2:26 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 5, 2:43 pm, Caranx latus<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On May 5, 3:32 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 5, 10:38 am, Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On May 5, 8:22 am, Jason Spaceman<jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>> mystery of creation is not within the range of [science's] legitimate
>> territory ..."
>>
>> There is no rejection of God-did-it here, Ray. On the contrary, Ruse
>> is saying that creation was *not* something that science should study.
>> That sentence is the only place in the article where Whewell's name
>> appears.
>>
>> All this to say that I still don't know why you arrived at your
>> conclusion, Ray.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The quote advocates God-did-it----"she points upwards." Ruse admits
>>> that Whewell disallowed "The Origin" shelf space. This fact also
>>> defeats his implication that Whewell accepted Naturalism or Deism.
>>
>>> Ruse has made two very bad errors. I offered a reason why in my first
>>> post in this topic: that Steve Fuller somehow got under his skin. I am
>>> well read in Ruse. He is not himself in the article.
>>
>>> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ruse is saying that Whewell is saying.
actually, Ruse quotes Whewell, not interpreting hims.
> Whewell said no such thing.
Then why did he say it?
> Ruse misunderstood; quote mine. Whewell did not allow "The Origin"
> shelf space (= "The Origin" is not scientific).
That doesn't follow, Ray. Even if Whewell didn't like Origin of
Species, the book is still science.
> To say that a
> Victorian Creationist was arguing against Creationism is self-
> evidently false.
Ray, as I've pointed out before, you really don't understand how science
works, even in Victorian times. Whewell was a devout Christian, and a
strong proponent of fixity of species, but even he knew that creationism
(ie the belief in direct supernatural creation of species) was a
religious belief, not science.
> Refusal to acknowledge the error supports the fact
> that you are dishonest.
Ray, as usual, the error is yours.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ruse's use of Whewell to say that Creationists rejected Creationism as
science is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as someone using the last
paragraph of "The Origin" to say that Darwin was a Creationist.
Once you admit someone to be a Creationist you cannot then claim that
they reject Creationism as science, especially after admitting the
Creationist refused to give shelf space to Darwin's "Origin Of
Species." The refusal means that the Creationist rejected evolution as
science. Of course no Creationist considers "The Origin" scientific----
that's why it is rejected. "The Origin" is Atheism ideology, better
known as Materialism.
Ray
Burkhard
Doesn't really follow. Whewell simply thought that neither "Origins"
or creationism were science. he considered them both to be religious/
philosophical positions, and just happened to believe that the former
was also right. As the quote makes quite clear.
Caranx latus
> On May 7, 1:59�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> > Google for:
> > � � �"the mystery of creation" Whewell
I get it now. You're not upset at Ruse. You're actually upset at
Whewell, who wrote something that you gave him no permission to write.
Do you really not understand that creationism is not science and has
never been science? Simply because some early scientists may have been
Christians does not imply that they arrived at that position through
science or through any other rational means. That they were Christians
is simply because they had been raised as Christians.
> Once you admit someone to be a Creationist you cannot then claim that
> they reject Creationism as science, especially after admitting the
> Creationist refused to give shelf space to Darwin's "Origin Of
> Species." The refusal means that the Creationist rejected evolution as
> science. Of course no Creationist considers "The Origin" scientific----
> that's why it is rejected. "The Origin" is Atheism ideology, better
> known as Materialism.
I have yet to meet a creationist that knows very much at all about
science or nature, Ray. That creationists arrive at creationism
through some kind of rational process is palpably false.