Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A sad denouement
272 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Camp
Oct 19, 2012, 6:23:37 PM10/19/12
to
Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my-creation-web-pages-down&s=f194ff71d77afc68d75f300e5f81c8a3
Tiny url - http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
reasons. Glenn Morton, as it turns out, is a petty, right-wing
conspiracy-monger. In his post he goes on at length about the terribly
elitist, leftist, thought police that manage to subvert the truth
about climate change, promote Broadway plays making fun of religion,
and, wait for it, persecute religion by keeping it out of the public
purview,
"These same elites will not grant the religious the courtesy and right
to put up monuments in the public square. They are trying to force
everyone to grant them and them alone the right to exercise their
beliefs in the public square. These radical atheists are using the
power of the public square to ensure the success of THEIR THEOLOGICAL
VIEWS, and make no mistake, atheism is a theological view and they can
no more prove there isn't a god than I can prove there is one. Both
are theological views, but only theirs is allowed to be exercised in
the public square."
Even taking into account his shallow misinterpretation of a Daily Show
skit making fun of Democrats, his one-upping of Limbaugh with a bit of
frothing about Sandra Fluke, and some truly illiterate swipes at the
establishment clause, the quote above marks the most disappointing
aspect of Morton's rant. He reveals himself as yet another benighted
theist who just cannot bring himself to recognize the dominance his
worldview has enjoyed in this country for so many years. He can't
fathom that those who believe differently might justifiably wish to
dial back the influence enjoyed by theists in our society, might
desire a voice of their own. For Morton this cannot be a legitimate
reorientation of skewed priorities, it must be an attack on his
freedom,
"I no longer want to play an [sic] witting or unwitting accomplice to
the religious bigots who are after the destruction of my religion. I
believe in freedom and freedom means the right to be wrong, believe
wrong things, and yes, even do wrong things. And the right to do
almost all those things in the open no matter that I am at a school,
courthouse or other government office, or in office. I will NOT be a
part of the attack on my religion which is happening all throughout
this land."
Fear bleeds through nearly every line in Morton's post. Fear of
submitting his religion to the scrutiny of others, fear of having to
consider that some of the absolutes in which he believes might be
wrong, fear of living in a country where his values do not dominate.
It's the kind of fear that one does not find in the truly faithful -
those who believe, are satisfied that their faith needs no empirical
vindication, and are truly unconcerned with what society and science
think. Morton makes a grand show of just wanting to be left alone, but
that show is an acid bath of resentment and paranoia,
"We are in danger of losing our religious freedom, I will NOT argue
inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
Glenn Morton fought the good fight for a while. And he was a worthy
example of doing so for the right reasons: because integrity lies in
acknowledging the facts even at some cost to personal philosophical
comfort. He had every right to remove himself from the conflict, he'd
obviously taken some psychological wounds and was entitled to the
rest. But instead of demurring in a way that preserved his
intellectual virtue, instead of simply saying, "I think the discussion
has become too strident. I give no credit to YEC but neither can I
countenance anti-theism," and leaving it at that, he decided to
emulate the worst, most ignorant aspects of the religious right and
bowed out by burning any bridges of respectability he'd previously
built.
His legacy deserved better.
circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my-creation-web-pages-down&s=f194ff71d77afc68d75f300e5f81c8a3
Tiny url - http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
reasons. Glenn Morton, as it turns out, is a petty, right-wing
conspiracy-monger. In his post he goes on at length about the terribly
elitist, leftist, thought police that manage to subvert the truth
about climate change, promote Broadway plays making fun of religion,
and, wait for it, persecute religion by keeping it out of the public
purview,
"These same elites will not grant the religious the courtesy and right
to put up monuments in the public square. They are trying to force
everyone to grant them and them alone the right to exercise their
beliefs in the public square. These radical atheists are using the
power of the public square to ensure the success of THEIR THEOLOGICAL
VIEWS, and make no mistake, atheism is a theological view and they can
no more prove there isn't a god than I can prove there is one. Both
are theological views, but only theirs is allowed to be exercised in
the public square."
Even taking into account his shallow misinterpretation of a Daily Show
skit making fun of Democrats, his one-upping of Limbaugh with a bit of
frothing about Sandra Fluke, and some truly illiterate swipes at the
establishment clause, the quote above marks the most disappointing
aspect of Morton's rant. He reveals himself as yet another benighted
theist who just cannot bring himself to recognize the dominance his
worldview has enjoyed in this country for so many years. He can't
fathom that those who believe differently might justifiably wish to
dial back the influence enjoyed by theists in our society, might
desire a voice of their own. For Morton this cannot be a legitimate
reorientation of skewed priorities, it must be an attack on his
freedom,
"I no longer want to play an [sic] witting or unwitting accomplice to
the religious bigots who are after the destruction of my religion. I
believe in freedom and freedom means the right to be wrong, believe
wrong things, and yes, even do wrong things. And the right to do
almost all those things in the open no matter that I am at a school,
courthouse or other government office, or in office. I will NOT be a
part of the attack on my religion which is happening all throughout
this land."
Fear bleeds through nearly every line in Morton's post. Fear of
submitting his religion to the scrutiny of others, fear of having to
consider that some of the absolutes in which he believes might be
wrong, fear of living in a country where his values do not dominate.
It's the kind of fear that one does not find in the truly faithful -
those who believe, are satisfied that their faith needs no empirical
vindication, and are truly unconcerned with what society and science
think. Morton makes a grand show of just wanting to be left alone, but
that show is an acid bath of resentment and paranoia,
"We are in danger of losing our religious freedom, I will NOT argue
inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
Glenn Morton fought the good fight for a while. And he was a worthy
example of doing so for the right reasons: because integrity lies in
acknowledging the facts even at some cost to personal philosophical
comfort. He had every right to remove himself from the conflict, he'd
obviously taken some psychological wounds and was entitled to the
rest. But instead of demurring in a way that preserved his
intellectual virtue, instead of simply saying, "I think the discussion
has become too strident. I give no credit to YEC but neither can I
countenance anti-theism," and leaving it at that, he decided to
emulate the worst, most ignorant aspects of the religious right and
bowed out by burning any bridges of respectability he'd previously
built.
His legacy deserved better.
Glenn
Oct 19, 2012, 7:13:08 PM10/19/12
to
"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
John S. Wilkins
Oct 19, 2012, 7:56:20 PM10/19/12
to
Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Robert Camp
Oct 19, 2012, 8:37:03 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 4:58 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
knowledgeable than others." - Glenn Morton. talk.origins. 2/2/02
(Emphasis mine)
Something about petards comes to mind.
RLC
> Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
"Indeed, the demon makes people feel _morally superior_ and more
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
knowledgeable than others." - Glenn Morton. talk.origins. 2/2/02
(Emphasis mine)
Something about petards comes to mind.
RLC
Mitchell Coffey
Oct 19, 2012, 9:09:13 PM10/19/12
to
I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
Mitchell Coffey
Robert Camp
Oct 19, 2012, 9:36:08 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 4:18 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
You're welcome.
RLC
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
>
> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
> news:85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
RLC
Robert Camp
Oct 19, 2012, 9:44:00 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 6:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Well, it's more disillusioned than informative, but all the same those
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
are very generous comments. Thanks.
RLC
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 6:23:49 PM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
>
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
>
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
>
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
>
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
>
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
>
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
>
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
>
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
>
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
>
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
>
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
>
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
>
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> read more »
Glenn
Oct 19, 2012, 9:44:27 PM10/19/12
to
news:6ae6893e-c104-4c4b...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
You're arrogant.
Dale
Oct 19, 2012, 10:09:51 PM10/19/12
to
On 10/19/2012 06:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
evolution is not a demise of creationism, abiogenesis may be
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
--
Dale
UC
Oct 19, 2012, 10:47:59 PM10/19/12
to
This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
John Harshman
Oct 20, 2012, 12:29:00 AM10/20/12
to
Glenn
Oct 20, 2012, 1:11:59 AM10/20/12
to
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
RAM
Oct 20, 2012, 1:19:42 AM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 12:18�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Glenn
Oct 20, 2012, 1:23:17 AM10/20/12
to
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:410243ac-5a70-46c7...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 12:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
> >
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
> >
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
> >
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
> >
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
> >
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
Got something stuck in your craw there?
> >
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
> >
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
> >
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
> >
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
> >
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 8:27:07 AM10/20/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
Although I almost never post on weekends, it is so sad to see posts
with political axes to grind, with the most of the contributions of
the author completely off-topic and shamelessly one-sided, being
nominated for POTM, that I think it urgent to appeal to all and sundry
to find posts more worthy of the honor before October is over.
It does not surprise me, by the way, to see arch-polemicist Camp being
nominated by a polemicist like Coffey.
On Oct 19, 9:13�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
ASIDE: is it the New Google Groups that is to blame for everything in
Coffey's post being double-spaced when it is replied to? I've removed
some of the double spacing here, but am in too much of a hurry to
remove it all.
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 6:23:49 PM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
>
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
>
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
>
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
>
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
>
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
>
> > remained,
Already descending into deceitful polemic. It is clear that Morton
still believes in evolution; it is just that he will no longer fight
the battles of anti-Christians for them on this particular topic.
Naturally, Camp did NOT quote the following paragraph [breaks added to
enhance readability]:
"But that wasn't why I pulled my web pages down. It was for freedom.
Freedom is important, extremely important. Freedom means you have the
freedom to be wrong, do wrong and think wrong thoughts. If I can't
think, believe and do wrong because someone is there to force me to
hold a particular opinion, then I am not free. If I must think believe
and do what someone else tells me, I am not free.
"When I lived in my father's house, he fed me, clothed me, and gave me
an allowance. What I didn't have was the freedom to do what he didn't
want me to do. "While you live under my roof and eat my food, you will
follow my rules", was the view of my dad. I was a teenager and I
wasn't free. When I became an adult and provided for myself, I gained
the freedom to think for myself and do for myself and that means I
have the freedom to be wrong in my dad's eyes.
"That is what freedom at its heart is, the freedom to believe and do
what I want even if everyone else thinks I am wrong, idiotic or
dangerous, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
And, Camp being the arrogant arch-polemicist that he is, did not quote
the following either:
"No one should doubt my view of YEC is still extremely dim. YEC is
factually wrong, and I think, a detriment to my religion. But I will
stand with them for their God given right to believe and teach what
they want to teach. I do not want a totalitarian government in which
no one is allowed to differ from the bland enforced conformity offered
by the leftists in this country. In my opinion, parents should have
the freedom to teach their kids whatever nonsense they want to teach
their children.
"And if a majority want to teach their kids YEC or that the Martians
are living amongst us, they should have that freedom. And if you
object that this will make those children less able to compete in a
world, that may be true, but it is irrelevant. It isn't your job to
ensure their kids are competitive."
Morton even goes on to cite a Black-supremacist theory, to show that
he is not one-sided in his commitment to freedom:
"The central idea of the Melanin theory is that the levels of melanin
in dark skin naturally enhance intelligence and emotional, psychic and
spiritual sensitivity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
"I think this is nuts, but I will stand by them to fight for their
freedom to teach their children such things, and yes, I will stand by
them that if a majority of people in a school district want to teach
that in the schools, they should be allowed to do it. If a group of
people with the above beliefs or YEC beliefs want to make their
children less competitive in society, why should I stand in their way.
Let them teach whatever nonsense they want to teach."
I do believe that if directed panspermia became widely believed, Camp
would be on the side of those who wanted to suppress the theory in
courts. I will let Glenn [Morton? that would be a great coincidence]
know why I believe this. Stay tuned.
> >and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
>
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
>
> >http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
>
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
>
> > reasons.
Freedom to be wrong is a thoughtless reason?
"Thoughtful" polemic deleted.
[Mitchell hath said that it is thoughtful, and Mitchell is an
honorable man.]
[-- paraphrasal of of-repeated line in Shakespeare's "Julius
Caesar"]
Peter Nyikos
with political axes to grind, with the most of the contributions of
the author completely off-topic and shamelessly one-sided, being
nominated for POTM, that I think it urgent to appeal to all and sundry
to find posts more worthy of the honor before October is over.
It does not surprise me, by the way, to see arch-polemicist Camp being
nominated by a polemicist like Coffey.
On Oct 19, 9:13�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Coffey's post being double-spaced when it is replied to? I've removed
some of the double spacing here, but am in too much of a hurry to
remove it all.
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 6:23:49 PM UTC-4, Robert Camp wrote:
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
>
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
>
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
>
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
>
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
>
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
>
> > remained,
still believes in evolution; it is just that he will no longer fight
the battles of anti-Christians for them on this particular topic.
Naturally, Camp did NOT quote the following paragraph [breaks added to
enhance readability]:
"But that wasn't why I pulled my web pages down. It was for freedom.
Freedom is important, extremely important. Freedom means you have the
freedom to be wrong, do wrong and think wrong thoughts. If I can't
think, believe and do wrong because someone is there to force me to
hold a particular opinion, then I am not free. If I must think believe
and do what someone else tells me, I am not free.
"When I lived in my father's house, he fed me, clothed me, and gave me
an allowance. What I didn't have was the freedom to do what he didn't
want me to do. "While you live under my roof and eat my food, you will
follow my rules", was the view of my dad. I was a teenager and I
wasn't free. When I became an adult and provided for myself, I gained
the freedom to think for myself and do for myself and that means I
have the freedom to be wrong in my dad's eyes.
"That is what freedom at its heart is, the freedom to believe and do
what I want even if everyone else thinks I am wrong, idiotic or
dangerous, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
And, Camp being the arrogant arch-polemicist that he is, did not quote
the following either:
"No one should doubt my view of YEC is still extremely dim. YEC is
factually wrong, and I think, a detriment to my religion. But I will
stand with them for their God given right to believe and teach what
they want to teach. I do not want a totalitarian government in which
no one is allowed to differ from the bland enforced conformity offered
by the leftists in this country. In my opinion, parents should have
the freedom to teach their kids whatever nonsense they want to teach
their children.
"And if a majority want to teach their kids YEC or that the Martians
are living amongst us, they should have that freedom. And if you
object that this will make those children less able to compete in a
world, that may be true, but it is irrelevant. It isn't your job to
ensure their kids are competitive."
Morton even goes on to cite a Black-supremacist theory, to show that
he is not one-sided in his commitment to freedom:
"The central idea of the Melanin theory is that the levels of melanin
in dark skin naturally enhance intelligence and emotional, psychic and
spiritual sensitivity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
"I think this is nuts, but I will stand by them to fight for their
freedom to teach their children such things, and yes, I will stand by
them that if a majority of people in a school district want to teach
that in the schools, they should be allowed to do it. If a group of
people with the above beliefs or YEC beliefs want to make their
children less competitive in society, why should I stand in their way.
Let them teach whatever nonsense they want to teach."
I do believe that if directed panspermia became widely believed, Camp
would be on the side of those who wanted to suppress the theory in
courts. I will let Glenn [Morton? that would be a great coincidence]
know why I believe this. Stay tuned.
> >and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
>
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
>
>
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
>
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
>
> > reasons.
"Thoughtful" polemic deleted.
[Mitchell hath said that it is thoughtful, and Mitchell is an
honorable man.]
[-- paraphrasal of of-repeated line in Shakespeare's "Julius
Caesar"]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 8:42:43 AM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
which thinks of directed panspermia as a stealth form of "God diddit",
and anti-ID which refuses to acknowledge that some forms of ID are
scientific.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 8:38:51 AM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 19, 9:53 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ae6893e-c104-4c4b...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 4:18 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ae6893e-c104-4c4b...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 4:18 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > > > But instead of demurring in a way that preserved his
> > > > intellectual virtue, instead of simply saying, "I think the discussion
> > > > has become too strident. I give no credit to YEC but neither can I
> > > > countenance anti-theism," and leaving it at that, he decided to
> > > > emulate the worst, most ignorant aspects of the religious right and
> > > > bowed out by burning any bridges of respectability he'd previously
> > > > built.
>
> > > > His legacy deserved better.
>
> > > I doubt he would be surprised to hear all that. But thanks for posting the
> url.
>
> > You're welcome.
>
> You're arrogant.
Indeed. Did you know that Camp has consistently run away from the
> > > > intellectual virtue, instead of simply saying, "I think the discussion
> > > > has become too strident. I give no credit to YEC but neither can I
> > > > countenance anti-theism," and leaving it at that, he decided to
> > > > emulate the worst, most ignorant aspects of the religious right and
> > > > bowed out by burning any bridges of respectability he'd previously
> > > > built.
>
> > > > His legacy deserved better.
>
> > > I doubt he would be surprised to hear all that. But thanks for posting the
> url.
>
> > You're welcome.
>
> You're arrogant.
following expose of what a cowardly, deceitful, control-freak
polemicist he is? The topic is directed panspermia, which I mentioned
near the end of my reply to Coffey's post:
______________ begin excerpt_______________
> That doesn't mean it's wrong (in the strict sense), or impossible or
> unscientific...just extraneous. By no means am I suggesting that
> parsimony is a determinative heuristic. But it is a useful tool for
> narrowing the field of research. We don't know for sure why whales
> sing, and it's possible that whale-song may actually be an
> extraterrestrially-seeded means of communication. But, as with
> panspermia, it would be a sucker's bet to devote time or energy to
> that avenue of investigation. There's simply no good reason to go
> there (unless you'd prefer not to have future spaceships messing up
> Golden Gate Park).
> RLC
This time, Robert, I have played the game according to your rules. I
have not inserted anything after your first paragraph, so you can't
accuse me of "irrelevant comments about minutiae," nor have I
inserted anything between sentences anywhere, lest I strengthen your
suspicions that I am indulging in "deliberate evasiveness".
Instead, I've read everything through, to better divine "the substance
of [your] argument" and your "point about the rhetorical foundations
in response to [my] claims."
And, judging from the placement of your real "context" in earlier
posts, the substance and the rhetorical foundations are summarized
thus:
"I, Robert Camp, love to make fun of directed panspermia, because I
believe it is a pile of crap."
NOTE TO OTHER READERS:
You can read about Camp's use of "irrelevant comments about
minutiae," and also how he characterized my rebuttal to "minutiae"
such as you see in his first paragraph above as a "content-free
response", in the following post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1fbcca002ba678bc
This post also features my challenges to these bizarre descriptions of
his. He deleted both his comments and his challenges in his response,
where you can read about "context," as in:
"Please stop chopping up paragraphs and responding to the bits out of
context. It's beginning to suggest deliberate evasiveness."
and
"had you read everything through you would have noticed
"had you read everything through you would have noticed
that my point was about the rhetorical foundation upon which my
comments in response to your claims ("championing of homegrown
abiogenesis") rested."
and
"missing the substance of the
argument and focusing on irrelevant detail."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6513d0883c7709e4?dmod...
Message-ID:
<4560ce2c-2789-44fa-9cfd-70a43f415...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
I challenged him on all this in my reply:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c03c33affbee922
Message-ID: <fdeb4565-650b-4412-
bed4-6167830ac...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
and the post to which I am replying here was his response to that, but
you can't find either his allegations nor my challenges in this post,
because their place at the beginning has been taken by the symbol
string
> <snip>
Peter Nyikos
============= end of excerpt
from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/680932ba1943a802
Message-ID: <67774cd5-45d6-4487-b641-
ac9cfc...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
For those reading this in the old Google Groups: the last three
symbols before the @ in the message-id are 499
Peter Nyikos
Steven L.
Oct 20, 2012, 10:06:51 AM10/20/12
to
On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my-creation-web-pages-down&s=f194ff71d77afc68d75f300e5f81c8a3
> Tiny url - http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> reasons.
You omitted one of Morton's main points:
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my-creation-web-pages-down&s=f194ff71d77afc68d75f300e5f81c8a3
> Tiny url - http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> reasons.
"I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
That's not a "thoughtless reason."
Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
And he's right.
Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
are dominated by creationists and atheists. Theistic evolutionists and
mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
active on this topic.
Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
ask them. But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
--
Steven L.
Louann Miller
Oct 20, 2012, 11:56:26 AM10/20/12
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
news:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
Robert Camp
Oct 20, 2012, 12:55:47 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 7:08 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> >http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
> On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
> You omitted one of Morton's main points:
I referred to the sentiments you quote below by way of my point about
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
> You omitted one of Morton's main points:
Morton shrinking from scrutiny of his beliefs.
> "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> That's not a "thoughtless reason."
Of course there are bigots on lists and elsewhere. I've been on lists,
we've all been on lists. They're just like any other forum; there are
inevitably a small few who are abrasive, but for the most part people
are just trying to have some productive interaction. No one forces
Morton or anyone else with delicate sensitivities to participate in
forums and lists (and remember, he spent some time here in this
group). And anyone with even the most minimal sense of the larger
picture recognizes that such arenas are an entirely self-selected
deviation from the norm.
But the rest of Morton's screed demonstrates that he has very little
apprehension of that larger reality, preferring instead to raise the
paranoid flag of the religious right. "Christophobes," bagging on
Sandra Fluke, gays bullying Chick-fil-A?! Give me a break. Morton
didn't leave the debate because he was offended by bigotry and
arrogance, he left it because his own bigotry and arrogance could no
longer be held back by reason.
> Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
you have.
> And he's right.
>
> Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> are dominated by creationists and atheists. Theistic evolutionists and
> mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> active on this topic.
be an asset to the defense of science (and it's my guess that most TEs
differ greatly with Morton's politics). I have no problem with Morton
sharing his feelings, I have a problem with how ill-considered those
feelings are.
> Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
> EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
> Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> ask them. But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
>
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
nature and value of Faith than you do.
RLC
RAM
Oct 20, 2012, 1:01:46 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 12:28 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Glenn
Oct 20, 2012, 2:19:25 PM10/20/12
to
news:2cfdd39d-d937-4abc...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Peek a boo, I see you.
Rodjk #613
Oct 20, 2012, 2:26:12 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Seconded
> I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Rodjk #613
RAM
Oct 20, 2012, 3:01:09 PM10/20/12
to
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 3:12:58 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 11:58�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
that are laced with double standards. And you can do the same for us
evolutionists when the creationists do that.
I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. On the evolutionist
side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
O'Shea and Camp. On the creationist side I've come down hard on Alan
Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
battle] Ray Martinez.
In all this, one of my main inspirations has been the early 18th
century essayist Joseph Addison, in the following passages from an
essay of his that ought to be taught in every course in English
literature:
"There is one piece of sophistry practiced by both sides, and that is
the taking of any scandalous story that has ever been whispered or
invented of a private man, for a known, undoubted truth, and raising
suitable speculations upon it. Calumnies that have never been proved,
or have been often refuted, are the ordinary *postulatums* of these
infamous scribblers -- upon which they proceed as upon first
principles granted by all men, though in their hearts they know they
are false or at best very doubtful. When they have laid these
foundations of scurrility, it is no wonder that their superstructure
is every way answerable to them. If this shameless practice of the
present age endures much longer, praise and reproach will cease to be
motives of action in good men."
...
For my own part I could heartily wish that all honest men would
enter into an association for the support of one another against the
endeavors of those whom they ought to look upon as their common
enemies, whatsoever side they may belong to. Were there such an
honest body of neutral forces we should never see the worst of men in
the general figures of life, because they are useful to a party; nor
the best unregarded, because they are above practicing those methods
which would be grateful to their faction. We should then single
every criminal out of the herd and hunt him down, however formidable
and overgrown he might appear. On the contrary we should shelter
distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt
or
ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the
man
of merit our friend and the villain our enemy.
--Joseph Addison, "Party Feeling"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>
> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
No. You are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
that are laced with double standards. And you can do the same for us
evolutionists when the creationists do that.
I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. On the evolutionist
side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
O'Shea and Camp. On the creationist side I've come down hard on Alan
Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
battle] Ray Martinez.
In all this, one of my main inspirations has been the early 18th
century essayist Joseph Addison, in the following passages from an
essay of his that ought to be taught in every course in English
literature:
"There is one piece of sophistry practiced by both sides, and that is
the taking of any scandalous story that has ever been whispered or
invented of a private man, for a known, undoubted truth, and raising
suitable speculations upon it. Calumnies that have never been proved,
or have been often refuted, are the ordinary *postulatums* of these
infamous scribblers -- upon which they proceed as upon first
principles granted by all men, though in their hearts they know they
are false or at best very doubtful. When they have laid these
foundations of scurrility, it is no wonder that their superstructure
is every way answerable to them. If this shameless practice of the
present age endures much longer, praise and reproach will cease to be
motives of action in good men."
...
For my own part I could heartily wish that all honest men would
enter into an association for the support of one another against the
endeavors of those whom they ought to look upon as their common
enemies, whatsoever side they may belong to. Were there such an
honest body of neutral forces we should never see the worst of men in
the general figures of life, because they are useful to a party; nor
the best unregarded, because they are above practicing those methods
which would be grateful to their faction. We should then single
every criminal out of the herd and hunt him down, however formidable
and overgrown he might appear. On the contrary we should shelter
distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt
or
ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the
man
of merit our friend and the villain our enemy.
--Joseph Addison, "Party Feeling"
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Message has been deleted
Glenn
Oct 20, 2012, 3:23:31 PM10/20/12
to
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Glenn" wrote
> > "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote
> > > "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrot
> > > > "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 3:34:43 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
in _The Jungle Book_.
> Peek a boo, I see you.
independent thinker.
How do you like the two passages from Addison's essay that I quoted to
LouAnn? Here is a passage from Plato's dialogue "Gorgias" that
inspired me so much in my first few months of "baptism by fire" in
talk.abortion that I surrounded it with asterisks when I posted it:
********************************************************************
* SOCRATES: Not so, my simple friend, but because you will refute *
* after the manner which rhetoricians practice in courts of *
* law. For there the one party think that they refute the *
* other when they bring forth a number of witnesses of good *
* repute in proof of their allegations, and their adversary *
* has only a single one or none at all. But this kind of *
* proof is of no value where truth is the aim; a man may *
* often be sworn down by a multitude of false witnesses who *
* have a great air of respectability. And in this argument *
* nearly every one, Athenian and stranger alike, would be on *
* your side, if you should bring witnesses in disproof of my *
* statement;--you may, if you will, summon...the whole house *
* of Pericles, or any other great Athenian family whom you *
* choose;--they will all agree with you: I only am left and *
* cannot agree, for you do not convince me; although you may *
* produce many false witnesses against me, in the hope of *
* depriving me of my inheritance, which is the truth. But I *
* consider that nothing worth speaking of will have been *
* effected by me unless I make you the one witness of my *
* words; nor by you, unless you make me the one witness of *
* of yours; no matter about the rest of the world. *
* --Plato's "Gorgias," Jowett translation *
********************************************************************
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 3:48:04 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 1:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
either violate their consciences in this manner by providing these
things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
them.
Global warming is very, very real and undeniable. The only room for
argument is how much of it is due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and
CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
> > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
This is a typical Harshman comeback. At least here he didn't use it
to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
believe his explanation.
There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. Next
week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
> Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
Where a lightweight like UC is concerned, John may very well NOT care.
Peter Nyikos
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
either violate their consciences in this manner by providing these
things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
them.
Global warming is very, very real and undeniable. The only room for
argument is how much of it is due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and
CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
> > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
believe his explanation.
There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. Next
week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
> Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Oct 20, 2012, 4:10:06 PM10/20/12
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
subjects for debate.
PS: It is alright to use your own definitions of common words
and phrases such as "intelligent design" and "irreducible
complexity".
Or, as is said, 1 + 1 = 3 for large enough values of 1, at least
by my definition of 1.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
>On Oct 20, 11:58?am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>>
>> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
>No. You are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
>that are laced with double standards. And you can do the same for us
>evolutionists when the creationists do that.
>I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
>it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. On the evolutionist
>side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
>O'Shea and Camp. On the creationist side I've come down hard on Alan
>Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
>battle] Ray Martinez.
[snip]
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>>
>> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>>
>> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
>No. You are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
>that are laced with double standards. And you can do the same for us
>evolutionists when the creationists do that.
>I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
>it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. On the evolutionist
>side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
>O'Shea and Camp. On the creationist side I've come down hard on Alan
>Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
>battle] Ray Martinez.
In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
subjects for debate.
PS: It is alright to use your own definitions of common words
and phrases such as "intelligent design" and "irreducible
complexity".
Or, as is said, 1 + 1 = 3 for large enough values of 1, at least
by my definition of 1.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Oct 20, 2012, 4:12:09 PM10/20/12
to
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Figures. You'd second Ron O in his calumies against me.
>Oh, wait. You already did that.
>See the first of two passages from Addison's "Party Feeling" that I
>posted in reply to LouAnn Miller for an expose of what effect
>calumnies have on me and other targets, the one ending in the words:
> "If this shameless practice of the
>present age endures much longer,
>praise and reproach will cease to be
>motives of action in good men."
>They ceased to be motives of mine somewhere between 1992, when I got
>heavily involved in talk.abortion and 1995, when I got heavily
>involved in talk.origins. That is because the zealots who dominate
>both newsgroups were, and are, heavily involved in calumny, either
>directly or through playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
>evil" about those who are.
>And so, I always rejoice on those very, very rare occasions for when a
>like-minded person joins me in one of these newsgroups, one who shares
>my agreement with Addison in the closing sentences of the second
>paragraph I quoted:
> "On the contrary we should shelter
>distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt or
>ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
>regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the man
>of merit our friend and the villain our enemy."
>Here, instead of "Whigs or Tories," the key words are "evolutionists
>or creationists". In talk.abortion it is "pro-choice or pro-life
>people".
>[BTW I hate the word "evolutionist" because it seems to put us on a
>par with creationists.]
Peter, why does a seconding of a nomination of a post having
nothing to do with you cause such intensity of feeling on your
part? This isn't about you. Chill out.
>Oh, wait. You already did that.
>See the first of two passages from Addison's "Party Feeling" that I
>posted in reply to LouAnn Miller for an expose of what effect
>calumnies have on me and other targets, the one ending in the words:
> "If this shameless practice of the
>present age endures much longer,
>praise and reproach will cease to be
>motives of action in good men."
>heavily involved in talk.abortion and 1995, when I got heavily
>involved in talk.origins. That is because the zealots who dominate
>both newsgroups were, and are, heavily involved in calumny, either
>directly or through playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
>evil" about those who are.
>And so, I always rejoice on those very, very rare occasions for when a
>like-minded person joins me in one of these newsgroups, one who shares
>my agreement with Addison in the closing sentences of the second
>paragraph I quoted:
> "On the contrary we should shelter
>distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt or
>ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
>regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the man
>of merit our friend and the villain our enemy."
>or creationists". In talk.abortion it is "pro-choice or pro-life
>people".
>[BTW I hate the word "evolutionist" because it seems to put us on a
>par with creationists.]
Peter, why does a seconding of a nomination of a post having
nothing to do with you cause such intensity of feeling on your
part? This isn't about you. Chill out.
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 4:20:29 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
> > "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> > anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> > jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> > comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> > That's not a "thoughtless reason."
>
> That is, to borrow Louann's word, a spineless reason.
jellyfish when someone stands up to him like I did.
See my first reply to Glenn about something you've consistently run
away from.
It in turn was in response to a post where you ran away from
challenges to your dirty debating tactics by snipping both the tacts
and my challenge. I put in a little reminder of that snip at the end
of the excerpt that you keep running away from.
> Of course there are bigots on lists and elsewhere. I've been on lists,
behavior here.
> we've all been on lists. They're just like any other forum; there are
> inevitably a small few who are abrasive,
abrasive as you are.
Your behavior all through the thread that ended with the post from
which that excerpt was taken made me wonder whether you often give
your children, or your spouse, or people you supervise, long tongue-
lashings, full of all kinds of put-downs, and not let any of them get
in a word edgewise until the end.
Then, when they rack their memories for all the things you told them,
do they start to dispute something you said, only to be interrupted
with "What are you claiming I said?" ? And when they don't quote you
verbatim, do you reply, "That's not what I said. Don't criticize me
unless you can tell me exactly what I said."?
You did long, many faceted criticisms of me and demanded that I wait
until you are finished before coming in with comments. When I finally
played the game your way, you couldn't stand the heat and got out of
the kitchen.
One of the GREAT virtues of Usenet is that people can insert comments
exactly where they are relevant, but you are such a control freak, you
can't stand it when I do that in a way that neutralizes your unfair
comments. That is what makes me wonder how you treat others face to
face.
> but for the most part people
> are just trying to have some productive interaction.
interpreting the principle of parsimony YOUR way, you turn to
destructive interaction, partly as described above.
> No one forces
> Morton or anyone else with delicate sensitivities to participate in
> forums and lists (and remember, he spent some time here in this
> group). And anyone with even the most minimal sense of the larger
> picture recognizes that such arenas are an entirely self-selected
> deviation from the norm.
the two arch-polemicists of this newsgroup, to the best of my
knowledge.
But you are more dangerous than Ron O in one respect: you've managed
the trick of sounding mature and authoritative. He tries, but he just
can't bring it off.
> But the rest of Morton's screed demonstrates that he has very little
> apprehension of that larger reality, preferring instead to raise the
> paranoid flag of the religious right.
raise the flag of anti-religious-right paranoia.
>"Christophobes,"
They exist; there are several in this newsgroup.
> bagging on
> Sandra Fluke,
...who can't stand to have the conscience rights of devout Roman
Catholics NOT be violated. Your bias sure is showing, Camp.
> gays bullying Chick-fil-A?!
No, obfuscator. Mayors of major cities bullying Chick-fil-A by saying
it is not welcome in their cities.
Davidson College escapes the stigma of violating the First Amendment
since it is not a governmental agency, but their banning of Chick-fil-
A does say something about their commitment to freedom of expression.
>Give me a break. Morton
> didn't leave the debate because he was offended by bigotry and
> arrogance, he left it because his own bigotry and arrogance could no
> longer be held back by reason.
"Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of
view, but it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other
points of view."
~ William F. Buckley
You aren't just shocked, you deny that it is a point of view that
anyone but a bigot would hold.
> > Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> > as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
one of the people in the latter category? They do post to
talk.origins, you know, people who liken faith in God to faith in the
tooth fairy.
> Then he's misread the landscape and overstated the case as badly as
> you have.
would have to resort to dirty debating tactics. You've already
started them in a conversation we are having on another thread.
See you there some time next week.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 4:31:05 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 4:13�ｿｽpm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >that are laced with double standards. �ｿｽAnd you can do the same for us
dishonest as he are dumped upon, as well as hiding behind the general
membeship of this newsgroup.
He loves to pretend, you see, that the few people I've named have not
been caught red-handed in deceit, insincerity, and hypocrisy on a
massive scale, and are just your average talk.origins participants.
Oh. Wait. In an unguarded moment, he may say that Martinez and
Kleinman -- and I --- deserve being attacked by dozens of people just
like he is attacking me right now.
Anyway, It's a good thing I posted a list of close to ten people on
another thread who (AFAIK) are NOT like Gans, etc. but are reasonable,
responsible people. [One of them is Glenn, by the way. Not Glenn
Morton -- our Glenn.]
Now you know why Gans made it his top priority in 1995 to discredit
the posting of lists by me.
> PS: �ｿｽIt is alright to use your own definitions of common words
and myself. Gans especially loves those uses.
Peter Nyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 20, 11:58?am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>
> >> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> >> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
> >No. �ｿｽYou are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
> >On Oct 20, 11:58?am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>
> >> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> >> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
> >that are laced with double standards. �ｿｽAnd you can do the same for us
> >evolutionists when the creationists do that.
> >I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
> >it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. �ｿｽOn the evolutionist
> >I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
> >side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
> >O'Shea and Camp. �ｿｽOn the creationist side I've come down hard on �ｿｽAlan
> >Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
> >battle] Ray Martinez.
>
> [snip]
>
> In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
> obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
> subjects for debate.
In other words, Gans behaves like a pouty little brat when people as
> >battle] Ray Martinez.
>
> [snip]
>
> In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
> obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
> subjects for debate.
dishonest as he are dumped upon, as well as hiding behind the general
membeship of this newsgroup.
He loves to pretend, you see, that the few people I've named have not
been caught red-handed in deceit, insincerity, and hypocrisy on a
massive scale, and are just your average talk.origins participants.
Oh. Wait. In an unguarded moment, he may say that Martinez and
Kleinman -- and I --- deserve being attacked by dozens of people just
like he is attacking me right now.
Anyway, It's a good thing I posted a list of close to ten people on
another thread who (AFAIK) are NOT like Gans, etc. but are reasonable,
responsible people. [One of them is Glenn, by the way. Not Glenn
Morton -- our Glenn.]
Now you know why Gans made it his top priority in 1995 to discredit
the posting of lists by me.
> PS: �ｿｽIt is alright to use your own definitions of common words
> and phrases such as "intelligent design" and "irreducible
> complexity".
Even if they are used to ridicule and misrepresent people like Behe
> complexity".
and myself. Gans especially loves those uses.
Peter Nyikos
Glenn
Oct 20, 2012, 4:51:13 PM10/20/12
to
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dc378d94-6140-4838...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 5:22:52 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 4:13 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Right, it's about things infinitely more important than me: freedom,
justice, fair play.
I realize it must be very difficult for you, steeped in a milieu which
practically idolizes self-centered artists like Woody Allen, to
imagine how anything could be more important for anyone than looking
out for Number One.
It might also be difficult for you to believe me now, seeing as how I
stick up for myself far more often than I do for others, but that's
the unfortunate consequence of the fact that I KNOW when people make
false accusations about me, but have no way of knowing whether 90% of
the accusations made against others are true or not.
Here is a dramatic illustration of all that. It took me six months to
realize that Kevin Darcy, a pro-choicer whom almost every other pro-
choicer in talk.abortion despised, loathed, or hated, was a far, far
better man than the scores of people who loved to denounce him on what
turned out to be trumped-up charges.
Had honesty and integrity meant one-tenth as much to those low-life
zealots as they do to me, they might have been able to discredit Darcy
in my eyes permanently. But it was I who, after sticking up
successfully for him for two years, discovered him indulging in
blatant double standards at one point, and we had a falling out on
account of it.
And none of those abortion rights zealots attacked him for THAT
demonstration, possibly because Darcy was defending a pro-choice MAN
who was defaming a pro-choice WOMAN.
The main difference was, the woman had integrity and the man had
none.
Yes, you read that right, every bit of it. I realize it must fly in
the face of all your stereotypes about abortion rights and the people
involved in that issue, but it's the truth, and I can document most of
it even after over a decade and a half.
Peter Nyikos
justice, fair play.
I realize it must be very difficult for you, steeped in a milieu which
practically idolizes self-centered artists like Woody Allen, to
imagine how anything could be more important for anyone than looking
out for Number One.
It might also be difficult for you to believe me now, seeing as how I
stick up for myself far more often than I do for others, but that's
the unfortunate consequence of the fact that I KNOW when people make
false accusations about me, but have no way of knowing whether 90% of
the accusations made against others are true or not.
Here is a dramatic illustration of all that. It took me six months to
realize that Kevin Darcy, a pro-choicer whom almost every other pro-
choicer in talk.abortion despised, loathed, or hated, was a far, far
better man than the scores of people who loved to denounce him on what
turned out to be trumped-up charges.
Had honesty and integrity meant one-tenth as much to those low-life
zealots as they do to me, they might have been able to discredit Darcy
in my eyes permanently. But it was I who, after sticking up
successfully for him for two years, discovered him indulging in
blatant double standards at one point, and we had a falling out on
account of it.
And none of those abortion rights zealots attacked him for THAT
demonstration, possibly because Darcy was defending a pro-choice MAN
who was defaming a pro-choice WOMAN.
The main difference was, the woman had integrity and the man had
none.
Yes, you read that right, every bit of it. I realize it must fly in
the face of all your stereotypes about abortion rights and the people
involved in that issue, but it's the truth, and I can document most of
it even after over a decade and a half.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 5:29:40 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 4:58�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
I don't get the joke. Please explain.
Peter Nyikos
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Peter Nyikos
Mark Isaak
Oct 20, 2012, 5:39:00 PM10/20/12
to
that exist. I doubt they even predominate, except on specialized
internet fora.
And Ray Martinez would say that Glenn Morton is an atheist.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
jillery
Oct 20, 2012, 5:46:22 PM10/20/12
to
moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
jillery
Oct 20, 2012, 6:08:56 PM10/20/12
to
he insists on "fixing" them. What a self-righteous twit.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Oct 20, 2012, 7:03:19 PM10/20/12
to
> "We are in danger of losing our religious freedom, I will NOT argue
> inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
> danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
> is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
> the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
Truth and honesty are luxury items that are dispensable when there are
people around who wish to not practise and worship the way that you do?
Or is this mainly about abortion?
> inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
> danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
> is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
> the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
Truth and honesty are luxury items that are dispensable when there are
people around who wish to not practise and worship the way that you do?
Or is this mainly about abortion?
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 8:36:35 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 7:03 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Why the loaded question? Who are you talking to? Glenn Morton?
yourself?
> Or is this mainly about abortion?
I see no mention of abortion above.
Peter Nyikos
yourself?
> Or is this mainly about abortion?
Peter Nyikos
Robert Camp
Oct 20, 2012, 8:40:05 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 4:03 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
I'm not sure about his perspective on abortion but I think I might be
able to guess. In any case, I think you nailed it with your first
comment. Of course he doesn't see it that way, but it is the reality
nonetheless.
RLC
able to guess. In any case, I think you nailed it with your first
comment. Of course he doesn't see it that way, but it is the reality
nonetheless.
RLC
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 8:42:04 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 6:08 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:12:09 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:12:09 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
objectionable PoTMs until now. I saw quite a few months when there
were two good nominations and either one looked great to me.
> What a self-righteous twit.
Jillery ought to address these words to herself: she is one of the
most self-righteous twits I have ever encountered.
But, like so many leftist twits, she probably takes "self-righteous"
to be an adjective to be only applicable to people on the right, or
people whose religions are not to her taste.
[I've decided to use feminine pronouns for jillery for the sake of
convenience, and because I've seen one person say 'e is a woman.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 20, 2012, 9:06:16 PM10/20/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
resorting to dirty debating tactics.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Oct 20, 2012, 9:21:55 PM10/20/12
to
in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
UC
Oct 20, 2012, 9:25:36 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 12:33�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
You'll note I did not say 'the theory of evolution' is not science.
> On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
Did you read it that way. EXPLANATIONS are true or false, scientific
or not.
UC
Oct 20, 2012, 9:28:23 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 12:58�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 7:08 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> > >http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> > > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > > reasons.
>
> > You omitted one of Morton's main points:
>
> > > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > > reasons.
>
> > You omitted one of Morton's main points:
>
> I referred to the sentiments you quote below by way of my point about
> Morton shrinking from scrutiny of his beliefs.
>
> Morton shrinking from scrutiny of his beliefs.
>
> > "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> > anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> > jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> > comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> > That's not a "thoughtless reason."
>
> > anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> > jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> > comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> > That's not a "thoughtless reason."
>
> That is, to borrow Louann's word, a spineless reason.
>
>
> Of course there are bigots on lists and elsewhere. I've been on lists,
> we've all been on lists. They're just like any other forum; there are
> inevitably a small few who are abrasive, but for the most part people
> are just trying to have some productive interaction. No one forces
> Morton or anyone else with delicate sensitivities to participate in
> forums and lists (and remember, he spent some time here in this
> group). And anyone with even the most minimal sense of the larger
> picture recognizes that such arenas are an entirely self-selected
> deviation from the norm.
>
> forums and lists (and remember, he spent some time here in this
> group). And anyone with even the most minimal sense of the larger
> picture recognizes that such arenas are an entirely self-selected
> deviation from the norm.
>
> But the rest of Morton's screed demonstrates that he has very little
> apprehension of that larger reality, preferring instead to raise the
> paranoid flag of the religious right. "Christophobes," bagging on
> apprehension of that larger reality, preferring instead to raise the
> Sandra Fluke, gays bullying Chick-fil-A?! Give me a break. Morton
> didn't leave the debate because he was offended by bigotry and
> arrogance, he left it because his own bigotry and arrogance could no
> longer be held back by reason.
> arrogance, he left it because his own bigotry and arrogance could no
>
> > Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> > as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> > Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> > as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> Then he's misread the landscape and overstated the case as badly as
> you have.
>
> > And he's right.
> you have.
>
>
> > Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> > are dominated by creationists and atheists. Theistic evolutionists and
> > mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> > active on this topic.
>
> Let them speak out, then. My position has always been that they will
> be an asset to the defense of science (and it's my guess that most TEs
> differ greatly with Morton's politics). I have no problem with Morton
> sharing his feelings, I have a problem with how ill-considered those
> feelings are.
>
> > Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
> > EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
> > Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> > ask them. But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
>
> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> Or maybe Theistic Evolutionists simply have a better handle on the
> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> nature and value of Faith than you do.
>
> RLC
Religion is only to be mocked, criticized, and despised. There is
absolutely nothing good about religion. Priests, mullahs, popes, are
all to be despised.
UC
Oct 20, 2012, 9:32:08 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 3:48�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 1:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
What the fuck does working for a Catholic institution have to do with
> On Oct 20, 1:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
health insurance coverage?
> Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
> either violate their consciences
same sentence without vomiting?
> in this manner by providing these
> things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
> insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
> Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
> them.
>
> Global warming is very, very real and undeniable.
> �The only room for
> argument is how much of it is due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and
> CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
> in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
>
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> This is a typical Harshman comeback. �At least here he didn't use it
> to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
> some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
> believe his explanation.
>
> There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. �Next
> week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
>
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
> Where a lightweight like UC is concerned, John may very well NOT care.
>
> Peter Nyikos
I am the only sane man in North America.
> CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
> in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
>
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> This is a typical Harshman comeback. �At least here he didn't use it
> to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
> some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
> believe his explanation.
>
> There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. �Next
> week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
>
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
> Where a lightweight like UC is concerned, John may very well NOT care.
>
> Peter Nyikos
jillery
Oct 20, 2012, 9:55:09 PM10/20/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Oh wait, that
was for a different comic-book character.
was for a different comic-book character.
UC
Oct 20, 2012, 10:00:11 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 9:53�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
abortion. It is an oxymoron. Scalia is often a moron.
Ron O
Oct 21, 2012, 7:46:58 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Isn't this getting just a little sad even for Nyikos?
Normally I just ignore this kind of bogus junk out of Nyikos, but it
is beginning to trouble me that he seems to be degenerating, and from
the little that I have seen in his posts to others that I have read,
it is a general problem that Nyikos has. Nyikos does need to self-
evaluate what he does, and he has to try to stop doing it. Not for
other posters, but for himself.
Start with projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You may want to deal with paranoia first based on your above response,
you can decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
There is a thread on Escalation of Commitment that is a major problem
with you.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7450cf31bfd1b1a?hl=en
And you can't forget the Dunning-Krueger effect.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
These are not your only problems, but they are a start, and one way to
deal with your Dunning-Krueger problem is to learn how to better self-
evaluate yourself. Practicing self-evaluation is the only thing that
I can think of that would help you. Get someone that you trust to go
over the nonsense that you are guilty of and have them tell it to you
straight if you can't trust yourself to do it. Going on as you are
going is just sad.
Ron Okimoto
> On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > Seconded
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Figures. You'd second Ron O in his calumies against me.
>
> Oh, wait. You already did that.
SNIP:
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > Seconded
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Figures. You'd second Ron O in his calumies against me.
>
> Oh, wait. You already did that.
Isn't this getting just a little sad even for Nyikos?
Normally I just ignore this kind of bogus junk out of Nyikos, but it
is beginning to trouble me that he seems to be degenerating, and from
the little that I have seen in his posts to others that I have read,
it is a general problem that Nyikos has. Nyikos does need to self-
evaluate what he does, and he has to try to stop doing it. Not for
other posters, but for himself.
Start with projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You may want to deal with paranoia first based on your above response,
you can decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
There is a thread on Escalation of Commitment that is a major problem
with you.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7450cf31bfd1b1a?hl=en
And you can't forget the Dunning-Krueger effect.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
These are not your only problems, but they are a start, and one way to
deal with your Dunning-Krueger problem is to learn how to better self-
evaluate yourself. Practicing self-evaluation is the only thing that
I can think of that would help you. Get someone that you trust to go
over the nonsense that you are guilty of and have them tell it to you
straight if you can't trust yourself to do it. Going on as you are
going is just sad.
Ron Okimoto
gdgu...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2012, 8:05:16 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 19, 6:23�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> reasons. Glenn Morton, as it turns out, is a petty, right-wing
> The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> conspiracy-monger.
Here's the crux of it:
"I think this [a black supremacist "theory"] is nuts, but I will stand
by them to fight for their freedom to teach their children such
things, and yes, I will stand by them that if a majority of people in
a school district want to teach that in the schools, they should be
allowed to do it....
...Freedom means having the freedom to do what you want. And Freedom
means that a majority should decide what happens. We used believe in
majority rule."
This is the antithesis of "freedom", and contradictory in two adjacent
sentences. Yes, anyone may teach his own children anything he likes,
but Morton extends that "freedom" to the majority's "right" to teach
everyone's children the majority view.
We never believed, at least since the Bill of Rights, in unfettered
majority rule, and no country that would claim itself "free" can do
so.
Frank J
Oct 21, 2012, 8:30:18 AM10/21/12
to
On 19 Oct, 18:23, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
> Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> reasons. Glenn Morton, as it turns out, is a petty, right-wing
> conspiracy-monger. In his post he goes on at length about the terribly
> fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> reasons. Glenn Morton, as it turns out, is a petty, right-wing
> elitist, leftist, thought police that manage to subvert the truth
> about climate change, promote Broadway plays making fun of religion,
> and, wait for it, persecute religion by keeping it out of the public
> purview,
>
> "These same elites will not grant the religious the courtesy and right
> to put up monuments in the public square. They are trying to force
> everyone to grant them and them alone the right to exercise their
> beliefs in the public square. These radical atheists are using the
> power of the public square to ensure the success of THEIR THEOLOGICAL
> VIEWS, and make no mistake, atheism is a theological view and they can
> no more prove there isn't a god than I can prove there is one. Both
> are theological views, but only theirs is allowed to be exercised in
> the public square."
>
> Even taking into account his shallow misinterpretation of a Daily Show
> skit making fun of Democrats, his one-upping of Limbaugh with a bit of
> frothing about Sandra Fluke, and some truly illiterate swipes at the
> establishment clause, the quote above marks the most disappointing
> aspect of Morton's rant. He reveals himself as yet another benighted
> theist who just cannot bring himself to recognize the dominance his
> worldview has enjoyed in this country for so many years. He can't
> fathom that those who believe differently might justifiably wish to
> dial back the influence enjoyed by theists in our society, might
> desire a voice of their own. For Morton this cannot be a legitimate
> reorientation of skewed priorities, it must be an attack on his
> freedom,
>
> "I no longer want to play an [sic] witting or unwitting accomplice to
> the religious bigots who are after the destruction of my religion. I
> believe in freedom and freedom means the right to be wrong, believe
> wrong things, and yes, even do wrong things. And the right to do
> almost all those things in the open no matter that I am at a school,
> courthouse or other government office, or in office. I will NOT be a
> part of the attack on my religion which is happening all throughout
> this land."
>
> Fear bleeds through nearly every line in Morton's post. Fear of
> submitting his religion to the scrutiny of others, fear of having to
> consider that some of the absolutes in which he believes might be
> wrong, fear of living in a country where his values do not dominate.
> It's the kind of fear that one does not find in the truly faithful -
> those who believe, are satisfied that their faith needs no empirical
> vindication, and are truly unconcerned with what society and science
> think. Morton makes a grand show of just wanting to be left alone, but
> that show is an acid bath of resentment and paranoia,
>
> "We are in danger of losing our religious freedom, I will NOT argue
> inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
> danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
> is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
> the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
>
> Glenn Morton fought the good fight for a while. And he was a worthy
> "We are in danger of losing our religious freedom, I will NOT argue
> inconsequential stuff with my co-religionists, ignoring the real
> danger to our religion, you, the religious bigot and Christophobe. YEC
> is a trifle; a mere philosophical debate. Freedom is dear; and you,
> the religious bigot, are a danger to my freedom."
>
> example of doing so for the right reasons: because integrity lies in
> acknowledging the facts even at some cost to personal philosophical
> comfort. He had every right to remove himself from the conflict, he'd
> obviously taken some psychological wounds and was entitled to the
> rest. But instead of demurring in a way that preserved his
> intellectual virtue, instead of simply saying, "I think the discussion
> has become too strident. I give no credit to YEC but neither can I
> countenance anti-theism," and leaving it at that, he decided to
> emulate the worst, most ignorant aspects of the religious right and
> bowed out by burning any bridges of respectability he'd previously
> built.
>
> His legacy deserved better.
Very sad, but not unexpected. Ironically, while I'm the last person in
the Universe who will ever join an organized religion, I feel some of
his pain. In a "goblet or profies" sense, what he sees as "religious
bigots who are after the destruction of my religion" I see as
"constant foot shooting by a vocal minority of 'evolutionists' that
helps anti-evolution activists destroy science." If more people like
Ken Miller did the talking, this would not have happened, and we'd
still one of the best examples of someone recognizing, and discarding,
his demon, and not letting his ideology overrule his defense of
science, and of God's commandment not to bear false witness.
I hate to ask, does he say anything about the ID strategy, positive or
negative?
Frank J
Oct 21, 2012, 8:47:24 AM10/21/12
to
On 20 Oct, 10:08, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
"Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
> --
> Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> >http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
> > creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
> > predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
> > record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
>
> > Glenn was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) before he began to examine
> > the evidence for evolution, and it has always been clear that his
> > acceptance of the science of evolutionary biology, though it presented
> > a challenge, never displaced his faith. Glenn became a Theistic
> > Evolutionist (TE). Still a Christian, he had to accede to the accuracy
> > of the evolutionary account of life on earth.
>
> > But the tension between faith in Biblical inerrancy and rationality
> > remained, and the difficulties it posed for Morton are evident in his
> > latest (and he says last) post about why he took down his web pages.
> >http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my...
> > Tiny url -http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
> You omitted one of Morton's main points:
>
>
> "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> That's not a "thoughtless reason."
>
> anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> That's not a "thoughtless reason."
>
> Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> And he's right.
>
> Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> are dominated by creationists and atheists. � Theistic evolutionists and
> mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> active on this topic.
>
>
> Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> are dominated by creationists and atheists. � Theistic evolutionists and
> mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> active on this topic.
>
> Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
> EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>
> Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> ask them. �But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
>
> EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>
> Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> ask them. �But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
>
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
As I see it, TEs have a model - the same exact one as the atheists -
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
"Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
> --
> Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stephen
Oct 21, 2012, 9:33:15 AM10/21/12
to
obtained by placing constraints on that very same liberty.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 21, 2012, 10:45:54 AM10/21/12
to
upon his school yesterday, students eaten alive in the Florida Swamp by
bloodthirsty reptiles. Such senseless carnage. Sad denouement indeed.
It is rumored all that remained was a chewed up golf visor bearing the
USC logo and a mangled headset.
John S. Wilkins
Oct 21, 2012, 11:02:31 AM10/21/12
to
1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
Mystery.
2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
so that evolution delivers what he wants.
3. Determinism: God set up the universe so that on this planet things
would turn out to deliver human beings.
4. Leibnizianism: God chose to make the world in which evolution
delivered human beings, which he foresaw "before" he created a world.
I think only Leibnizianism is coherent and consistent with what we know
of the world. In fact, I have published a paper arguing just that:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01238.x/abst
ract
>
> The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
> billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
> pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
> is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
> demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
> promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
> hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
> and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
> fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
> causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
> as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
> "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Louann Miller
Oct 21, 2012, 11:21:46 AM10/21/12
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
>
In a quest for brevity, my "grow a spine" to TE's may have come across as
overly flippant. I *want* them to grow a spine. I'm *waiting* for them to
grow a spine. They have nothing to be ashamed of; most of them are a lot
closer to what Jesus taught (as opposed to control-freak Paul) than their
fundie opposite numbers. But as a non-Christian, I can't take part in their
growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only stand by, helpless.
news:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
>
overly flippant. I *want* them to grow a spine. I'm *waiting* for them to
grow a spine. They have nothing to be ashamed of; most of them are a lot
closer to what Jesus taught (as opposed to control-freak Paul) than their
fundie opposite numbers. But as a non-Christian, I can't take part in their
growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only stand by, helpless.
TomS
Oct 21, 2012, 11:34:44 AM10/21/12
to
"On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:02:31 +1100, in article
<1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
[...snip...]
There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
only the appearance of natural causes acting.
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
<1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
[...snip...]
>There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
>
>1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
>Mystery.
>
>2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
>laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
>so that evolution delivers what he wants.
[...snip...]
>
>1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
>Mystery.
>
>2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
>laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
>so that evolution delivers what he wants.
There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
only the appearance of natural causes acting.
--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
TomS
Oct 21, 2012, 11:40:05 AM10/21/12
to
"On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT), in article
<85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Robert Camp
stated..."
My concern is about the status of "The longest running falsehood in
creationism". Does this mean that this collection is now being - to
put it bluntly - censored?
<85808b82-a8db-4089...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Robert Camp
stated..."
>
>Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
>circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
>documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
>creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
>predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
>record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
[...snip...]
>Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
>circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
>documenting what he referred to as "the longest running falsehood in
>creationism" - the fact that the demise of the theory of evolution was
>predicted early, has been predicted often, and stands as a remarkable
>record of wishful-thinking utterly divorced from reason and reality.
My concern is about the status of "The longest running falsehood in
creationism". Does this mean that this collection is now being - to
put it bluntly - censored?
John S. Wilkins
Oct 21, 2012, 12:01:32 PM10/21/12
to
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:02:31 +1100, in article
> <1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
> >
> >1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> >Mystery.
> >
> >2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> >laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> >so that evolution delivers what he wants.
> [...snip...]
>
> There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
> that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
> only the appearance of natural causes acting.
That was, in fact, the sense I was appealing to.
> "On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:02:31 +1100, in article
> <1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
> >
> >1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> >Mystery.
> >
> >2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> >laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> >so that evolution delivers what he wants.
> [...snip...]
>
> There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
> that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
> only the appearance of natural causes acting.
Mark Isaak
Oct 21, 2012, 12:01:55 PM10/21/12
to
On 10/20/12 6:32 PM, UC wrote:
>
> I am the only sane man in North America.
Are you cogent enough to realize that that sentence is a confession of
>
> I am the only sane man in North America.
insanity?
Burkhard
Oct 21, 2012, 12:08:26 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 4:03�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> --
I'll (re)read the paper tomorrow, but at this point would have a query
on your characterisation of occasonalism above. My take would have
been one that is closer to pan(en) theism - god causes _all_ events,
just in a patterned way that for us is indistinguishable from natural
laws - or rather, they _are_ natural laws. That does not necessitate
any special intervention for evolution (or anything else), and yet you
have direct divine causation.
I'll (re)read the paper tomorrow, but at this point would have a query
on your characterisation of occasonalism above. My take would have
been one that is closer to pan(en) theism - god causes _all_ events,
just in a patterned way that for us is indistinguishable from natural
laws - or rather, they _are_ natural laws. That does not necessitate
any special intervention for evolution (or anything else), and yet you
have direct divine causation.
jillery
Oct 21, 2012, 12:26:13 PM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:47:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Excellent reply. I had wondered what models Steven L. was thinking
about. To the best of my knowledge, YECs have no self-consistent
model, except perhaps "Goddidit", which doesn't qualify. And the ToE
is not an atheist model, except perhaps in the sense that it doesn't
invoke God as an explanation, which makes all scientific theories
atheistic.
wrote:
about. To the best of my knowledge, YECs have no self-consistent
model, except perhaps "Goddidit", which doesn't qualify. And the ToE
is not an atheist model, except perhaps in the sense that it doesn't
invoke God as an explanation, which makes all scientific theories
atheistic.
John S. Wilkins
Oct 21, 2012, 12:34:37 PM10/21/12
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 4:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> On Oct 21, 4:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
> >
> > 1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> > Mystery.
> >
> > 2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> > laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> > so that evolution delivers what he wants.
> >
> > 3. Determinism: God set up the universe so that on this planet things
> > would turn out to deliver human beings.
> >
> > 4. Leibnizianism: God chose to make the world in which evolution
> > delivered human beings, which he foresaw "before" he created a world.
> >
> > I think only Leibnizianism is coherent and consistent with what we know
> > of the world. In fact, I have published a paper arguing just that:
> >
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01238.x/abst
> > ract
> >
>
> > --
>
> I'll (re)read the paper tomorrow, but at this point would have a query
> on your characterisation of occasonalism above. My take would have
> been one that is closer to pan(en) theism - god causes _all_ events,
> just in a patterned way that for us is indistinguishable from natural
> laws - or rather, they _are_ natural laws. That does not necessitate
> any special intervention for evolution (or anything else), and yet you
> have direct divine causation.
And I did not say that God had to make a special intervention, although
> > There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
> >
> > 1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> > Mystery.
> >
> > 2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> > laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> > so that evolution delivers what he wants.
> >
> > 3. Determinism: God set up the universe so that on this planet things
> > would turn out to deliver human beings.
> >
> > 4. Leibnizianism: God chose to make the world in which evolution
> > delivered human beings, which he foresaw "before" he created a world.
> >
> > I think only Leibnizianism is coherent and consistent with what we know
> > of the world. In fact, I have published a paper arguing just that:
> >
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01238.x/abst
> > ract
> >
>
> > --
>
> I'll (re)read the paper tomorrow, but at this point would have a query
> on your characterisation of occasonalism above. My take would have
> been one that is closer to pan(en) theism - god causes _all_ events,
> just in a patterned way that for us is indistinguishable from natural
> laws - or rather, they _are_ natural laws. That does not necessitate
> any special intervention for evolution (or anything else), and yet you
> have direct divine causation.
TEism is often characterised in that fashion in folksy presentations. If
you think God is responsible for everything, then all that happens is
that in cases where "miracles" occur God chooses for his own purposes to
do something he habitually doesn't do.
However, a subclass of occasionalism I call "micromanaging": God has to
intervene because the jobbers aren't quite getting it right. This would
be the Demiurgic theory of TEism.
This is not panentheism, though. The created world is distinct from God.
He just keeps it working against Tiamat/Tihom, the dragon of chaos...
John S. Wilkins
Oct 21, 2012, 12:34:39 PM10/21/12
to
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 10/20/12 6:32 PM, UC wrote:
> >
> > I am the only sane man in North America.
>
> Are you cogent enough to realize that that sentence is a confession of
> insanity?
What would you know? Language Man says you are insane.
> On 10/20/12 6:32 PM, UC wrote:
> >
> > I am the only sane man in North America.
>
> Are you cogent enough to realize that that sentence is a confession of
> insanity?
Mitchell Coffey
Oct 21, 2012, 1:30:29 PM10/21/12
to
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:08:47 AM UTC-4, Steven L. wrote:
> On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
>
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
[snip]
> On 10/19/2012 6:23 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > Glenn Morton has been something of a hero in defense of evolution
>
> > circles for quite some time. His website was justly renowned for
> > http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?153082-Why-I-took-my-creation-web-pages-down&s=f194ff71d77afc68d75f300e5f81c8a3
>
> > Tiny url - http://tinyurl.com/8wp3bx6
>
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
> You omitted one of Morton's main points:
>
> "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> That's not a "thoughtless reason."
[snip]
> > The sad revelation here is not that Morton is withdrawing from the
> > fight for science, it's that he's doing it for such thoughtless
> > reasons.
>
> You omitted one of Morton's main points:
>
> "I watched with growing alarm at the morphing of those lists into
> anti-religion lists, with an authoritarian tinge. Religiously bigotted
> jokes were often put on the list. One could see the disdain, sneering
> comments and arrogant dislike of religion and people who were religious."
>
> That's not a "thoughtless reason."
Perhaps not all of Morton's reasons are thoughtless, though Morton gives no thought to the rhetoric Evangelicals and Fundamentalist routinely aim at evolutionist, secularists, atheists and theistic evolutionist. Morton for instance forgets the stunning vitriol visited upon him in this newsgroup by Jan Peczkis (Under the pseudonym "John Woodmorappe").
In any event, your objection could be remedied simply by changing Camp's "for such thoughtless reasons" to "for mostly thoughtless reasons."
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Oct 21, 2012, 2:10:16 PM10/21/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:48:48 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
This is not wholly accurate. Strictly religious institutions do not have to provide contraceptive coverage. Catholic hospitals (and colleges) and religiously affiliated employers that self-insure do not have to pay for contraception coverage if they object to offering birth control, but its employees will still have access to birth control (using third-party administrators). Your "free of charge" comment is irrelevant. The cost of their contraception coverage (including the co-pay) will be charged to the insurers, spread over the whole insured population, meaning the cost would tend to be passed on to and spread over insurance consumers - if contraception coverage proves a net cost to the insurance system. This will probably not be the case, as contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which are far more costly to the insurance system than provision for contraception.
The rules for non-religiously affiliated self-insured employers have not been settled yet; at the moment it appears they will have to provide contraceptive coverage at their cost. As I said, what you wrote is not wholly accurate.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Oct 20, 1:18�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
[snip]
>
> Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
>
> Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
>
> Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
> either violate their consciences in this manner by providing these
> things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
> insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
> Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
> them.
[snip]
> insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
> Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
> them.
This is not wholly accurate. Strictly religious institutions do not have to provide contraceptive coverage. Catholic hospitals (and colleges) and religiously affiliated employers that self-insure do not have to pay for contraception coverage if they object to offering birth control, but its employees will still have access to birth control (using third-party administrators). Your "free of charge" comment is irrelevant. The cost of their contraception coverage (including the co-pay) will be charged to the insurers, spread over the whole insured population, meaning the cost would tend to be passed on to and spread over insurance consumers - if contraception coverage proves a net cost to the insurance system. This will probably not be the case, as contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which are far more costly to the insurance system than provision for contraception.
The rules for non-religiously affiliated self-insured employers have not been settled yet; at the moment it appears they will have to provide contraceptive coverage at their cost. As I said, what you wrote is not wholly accurate.
Mitchell Coffey
eridanus
Oct 21, 2012, 4:31:06 PM10/21/12
to
El s�bado, 20 de octubre de 2012 03:48:49 UTC+1, UC escribi�:
people to post. Then, it is a forum. A theist that comes here presenting
his arguments cannot be a frail creature persecuted by the wicked atheists.
This idea of the right of using the public place to build religious
monuments is not valid considering that not all have the same religion.
And a few have not any religion. I remember when I was an adolescent, the
catholic hierarchy argued that the protestants could not have the same
rights as the catholics, for the truth must always prevail over the error.
Of course, the idea was also valid for other "fake" religions.
But he is not aware that other religions can feel uneasy, watching other's
people signs of his faith. To show signs of faith, of a class or other,
would had been indifferent if were not for the great number of fanatics
that are aggressive and wanted to impose their way on the other people.
Religion should had to be a private affair. A little like our sexual
activities are. A private matter that cannot be impose on others.
Eridanus
> This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
>
> theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
>
> falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
>
>
> But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
>
> proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
>
> very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
>
>
> But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
>
> I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
>
> what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
nobody care what other people is. But here it is a forum to debate what
>
> theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
>
> falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
>
>
> But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
>
> proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
>
> very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
>
>
> But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
>
> I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
>
> what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
people to post. Then, it is a forum. A theist that comes here presenting
his arguments cannot be a frail creature persecuted by the wicked atheists.
This idea of the right of using the public place to build religious
monuments is not valid considering that not all have the same religion.
And a few have not any religion. I remember when I was an adolescent, the
catholic hierarchy argued that the protestants could not have the same
rights as the catholics, for the truth must always prevail over the error.
Of course, the idea was also valid for other "fake" religions.
But he is not aware that other religions can feel uneasy, watching other's
people signs of his faith. To show signs of faith, of a class or other,
would had been indifferent if were not for the great number of fanatics
that are aggressive and wanted to impose their way on the other people.
Religion should had to be a private affair. A little like our sexual
activities are. A private matter that cannot be impose on others.
Eridanus
Frank J
Oct 21, 2012, 4:44:23 PM10/21/12
to
On 21 Oct, 11:03, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
I lean towards 1. Maybe also 4 if "human beings" are just another
imperfect species, and not the "end all."
Behe seems to embrace 2. But the radical difference between ID and TE
is not in what anyone personally believes regarding either proximate
or ultimate causes, but how one embraces science, if often clumsily,
and how the other constantlty misrepresents it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
> > fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
> > > --
> > > Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
imperfect species, and not the "end all."
Behe seems to embrace 2. But the radical difference between ID and TE
is not in what anyone personally believes regarding either proximate
or ultimate causes, but how one embraces science, if often clumsily,
and how the other constantlty misrepresents it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
> > fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
> > > --
> > > Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Oct 21, 2012, 4:53:04 PM10/21/12
to
On 21 Oct, 12:23, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:47:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
But YECs do have testable statements of "what happened when," as do
day-age, gap and progressive OECs. Unfortunately they are not only
inconsistent among those different groups, they are often inconsistent
*within* any particular group. Ask a YEC or OEC the age of the earth
to define which are the created "kinds" and most will get vague almost
as frantically as an ID peddler. But many will still volunteer enough
answers to show the hopeless confusion. But only if we *ask*, not if
we keep the "debate" over evolution and help them Gish gallop to
another "weakness."
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:47:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
day-age, gap and progressive OECs. Unfortunately they are not only
inconsistent among those different groups, they are often inconsistent
*within* any particular group. Ask a YEC or OEC the age of the earth
to define which are the created "kinds" and most will get vague almost
as frantically as an ID peddler. But many will still volunteer enough
answers to show the hopeless confusion. But only if we *ask*, not if
we keep the "debate" over evolution and help them Gish gallop to
another "weakness."
Mitchell Coffey
Oct 21, 2012, 5:13:23 PM10/21/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:28:48 AM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
> Although I almost never post on weekends, it is so sad to see posts
I just set up a real newsreader, evidently it's mailing my posts to the author I'm responding to, rather than to Talk.Origins. You're the victim of three of these misdirected posts. This is not my intention. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Mitchell Coffey
> Although I almost never post on weekends, it is so sad to see posts
I just set up a real newsreader, evidently it's mailing my posts to the author I'm responding to, rather than to Talk.Origins. You're the victim of three of these misdirected posts. This is not my intention. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Mitchell Coffey
jillery
Oct 21, 2012, 5:43:00 PM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:21:46 -0500, Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It would help me, and hopefully others, if you gave an example of what
you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
wrote:
you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
jillery
Oct 21, 2012, 5:49:29 PM10/21/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:01:32 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:02:31 +1100, in article
>> <1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>> >There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
>> >
>> >1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
>> >Mystery.
>> >
>> >2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
>> >laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
>> >so that evolution delivers what he wants.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
>> that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
>> only the appearance of natural causes acting.
>
>That was, in fact, the sense I was appealing to.
That being the case, would either one of you confirm that
Wilkins) wrote:
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:02:31 +1100, in article
>> <1kscg01.g3nhva26fym4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>> >There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
>> >
>> >1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
>> >Mystery.
>> >
>> >2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
>> >laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
>> >so that evolution delivers what he wants.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> There is an older use of the word "occasionalism", to refer to the idea
>> that God is directly responsible for all that happens, and that there is
>> only the appearance of natural causes acting.
>
>That was, in fact, the sense I was appealing to.
'Occasionalism' could be correctly described as "there are no
coincidences, every action has a purpose"?
Louann Miller
Oct 21, 2012, 5:49:16 PM10/21/12
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:50r888573o0vcdkv7...@4ax.com:
>> But as a non-Christian, I
>>can't take part in their growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only
>>stand by, helpless.
>
>
> It would help me, and hopefully others, if you gave an example of what
> you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
Keeping it on topic for the group, some attempt to publicize "I'm a
Christian and I have no problem with modern science" some significant
fraction of as loudly as the "Real Christians hate eeevilution" school does
theirs.
news:50r888573o0vcdkv7...@4ax.com:
>> But as a non-Christian, I
>>can't take part in their growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only
>>stand by, helpless.
>
>
> It would help me, and hopefully others, if you gave an example of what
> you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
Christian and I have no problem with modern science" some significant
fraction of as loudly as the "Real Christians hate eeevilution" school does
theirs.
Glenn
Oct 21, 2012, 5:55:01 PM10/21/12
to
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:A6CdnTcpdZJB8BnN...@giganews.com...
Paul J Gans
Oct 21, 2012, 9:10:20 PM10/21/12
to
>> mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
>> active on this topic.
>>
>> Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
>> EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>>
>> Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
>> ask them. ?But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
>> active on this topic.
>>
>> Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
>> EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>>
>> Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
>>
>> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>As I see it, TEs have a model - the same exact one as the atheists -
>and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
>untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
>edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
>just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
>Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
>fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
>common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
>The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
>billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
>pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
>is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
>demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
>promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
>hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
>and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
>fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
>causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
>as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
>"Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
Well said, but I'm going to take issue with (parts of) it anyway.
>> The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
>> The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>As I see it, TEs have a model - the same exact one as the atheists -
>and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
>untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
>edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
>just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
>Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
>fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
>common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
>The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
>billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
>pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
>is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
>demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
>promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
>hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
>and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
>fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
>causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
>as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
>"Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
As I see it, the problem is that religion and science do not
share any common foundations. They pass by each other like
ships in a heavy fog.
It is only when, in the pro-science frenzy after World War II
that (some) religions badly wanted scientific validation of
their views. That led to the present situation where, to take
a current example, the religion side wants science to validate
Noah's Flood as "real".
And the "fight" has now diffused into the political realm where
there are fights over the funding of science and the teaching
of science because science won't cooperate with the agenda of
(some) religious groups.
I really don't see how this can be settled. In fact I can see
it leading to big trouble in the not so far future.
I am not excusing the science side. Many (including myself)
have at times pushed their non-belief. Worse, in my opinion,
are those who attack religion on the grounds that it is not
scientific. Of course it isn't scientific and they are just
as wrong as the theologically based attacks on science.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 21, 2012, 9:44:40 PM10/21/12
to
On 10/20/2012 03:34 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2cfdd39d-d937-4abc...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 12:28 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:410243ac-5a70-46c7...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2cfdd39d-d937-4abc...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 12:28 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:410243ac-5a70-46c7...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Oct 20, 12:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
>>>>>>>> theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can
>> be
>>>>>>>> falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>>
>>>>>>>> But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity.
>> The
>>>>>>>> proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It
>> looks
>>>>>>>> very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>>
>>>>>>>> But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist,
>>>>>>>> theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can
>> be
>>>>>>>> falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>>
>>>>>>>> But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity.
>> The
>>>>>>>> proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It
>> looks
>>>>>>>> very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>>
>> but
>>>>>>>> I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
>>>>>>>> what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>>
>>>>>>>> what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>>
>>>>>>> No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>>
>>>>>> Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>>
>>>> Got something stuck in your craw there?
>
> RAM is another one of those jackals like Rodjk #613, and like Tabaqui
> in _The Jungle Book_.
>
>> Peek a boo, I see you.
>
> And I'd like to see more of you, Glenn. You've always struck me as an
> independent thinker.
>
> How do you like the two passages from Addison's essay that I quoted to
> LouAnn? Here is a passage from Plato's dialogue "Gorgias" that
>>
>>>>>> Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>>
>>>> Got something stuck in your craw there?
>
> RAM is another one of those jackals like Rodjk #613, and like Tabaqui
> in _The Jungle Book_.
>
>> Peek a boo, I see you.
>
> And I'd like to see more of you, Glenn. You've always struck me as an
> independent thinker.
>
> How do you like the two passages from Addison's essay that I quoted to
> inspired me so much in my first few months of "baptism by fire" in
> talk.abortion that I surrounded it with asterisks when I posted it:
>
> ********************************************************************
> * SOCRATES: Not so, my simple friend, but because you will refute *
> * after the manner which rhetoricians practice in courts of *
> * law. For there the one party think that they refute the *
> * other when they bring forth a number of witnesses of good *
> * repute in proof of their allegations, and their adversary *
> * has only a single one or none at all. But this kind of *
> * proof is of no value where truth is the aim; a man may *
> * often be sworn down by a multitude of false witnesses who *
> * have a great air of respectability. And in this argument *
> * nearly every one, Athenian and stranger alike, would be on *
> * your side, if you should bring witnesses in disproof of my *
> * statement;--you may, if you will, summon...the whole house *
> * of Pericles, or any other great Athenian family whom you *
> * choose;--they will all agree with you: I only am left and *
> * cannot agree, for you do not convince me; although you may *
> * produce many false witnesses against me, in the hope of *
> * depriving me of my inheritance, which is the truth. But I *
> * consider that nothing worth speaking of will have been *
> * effected by me unless I make you the one witness of my *
> * words; nor by you, unless you make me the one witness of *
> * of yours; no matter about the rest of the world. *
> * --Plato's "Gorgias," Jowett translation *
> ********************************************************************
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
To help you and your university in your troubling time of reacting to
the great archosaurian instigated tragedy I provide this comforting
excerpt from the early American naturalist William Bartram when he too
encountered alligators in Florida, yet actually managed to survive the
ordeal. I hope this gator tale helps you cope with the aftermath of
Saturday's unfortunate events. The world weeps for your loss:
http://archive.org/stream/travelsthroughno01bart#page/116/mode/2up
My condolences on the bloodbath. At least they retrieved Spurrier's
visor and headset though barely recognizable as such.
jillery
Oct 21, 2012, 10:50:24 PM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:
My impression is posters have asked Creationists like R.Dean and Ray
Martinez "what happened when", many times over many years. They seem
content to rest on their assertions. What do you suggest to counter
Creationists who say, in effect, they don't have to answer your
steenkin' questions?
wrote:
Martinez "what happened when", many times over many years. They seem
content to rest on their assertions. What do you suggest to counter
Creationists who say, in effect, they don't have to answer your
steenkin' questions?
jillery
Oct 21, 2012, 11:05:15 PM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:49:16 -0500, Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ok. Just so I understand, are you saying that such a statement is
evidence of their lack of spine? I have read this from several
drive-by posters, and with them you might have a case. I have also
read it from Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, and Ken Miller. If I
may pursue this point with you, how does their stated position
demonstrate a lack of spine?
wrote:
evidence of their lack of spine? I have read this from several
drive-by posters, and with them you might have a case. I have also
read it from Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, and Ken Miller. If I
may pursue this point with you, how does their stated position
demonstrate a lack of spine?
Mark Isaak
Oct 21, 2012, 11:49:56 PM10/21/12
to
On 10/21/12 9:34 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/12 6:32 PM, UC wrote:
>>>
>>> I am the only sane man in North America.
>>
>> Are you cogent enough to realize that that sentence is a confession of
>> insanity?
>
> What would you know? Language Man says you are insane.
Mold-smelly brainpatter you say, all in purple darkness -- The voices Oh
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/12 6:32 PM, UC wrote:
>>>
>>> I am the only sane man in North America.
>>
>> Are you cogent enough to realize that that sentence is a confession of
>> insanity?
>
> What would you know? Language Man says you are insane.
the Voices! Um, ahem. No, I'm quite sure I am not insane.
TomS
Oct 22, 2012, 7:00:45 AM10/22/12
to
"On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:23 -0700 (PDT), in article
<ce3e836c-19fc-474a...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
How do the four alternatives account for the origins and existence of
individual humans, their individual souls, their individual salvation
(as distinguished from universal salvation of "mankind", for example)?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
>> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
>> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
>> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
>> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
>> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
>> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
>> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
>> > fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
>> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
>> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
>> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
--
<ce3e836c-19fc-474a...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
individual humans, their individual souls, their individual salvation
(as distinguished from universal salvation of "mankind", for example)?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
>> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
>> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
>> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
>> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
>> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
>> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
>> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
>> > fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
>> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
>> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
>> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
--
Burkhard
Oct 22, 2012, 8:04:22 AM10/22/12
to
On 21 Oct, 23:03, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:A6CdnTcpdZJB8BnN...@giganews.com...
>
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in
variety. As for "lack of spine", I'd feel the opposite - the very fact
of making statements of the type requested acknowledges that there is
a statement to be made. (bit like asking your political opponent to
"swear and put down in writing" that he is not a racist, or to
"promise to abstain from violence", when nothing in his behaviour
indicates a willingness to engage in violence, or racist ideas)
So for me it is patrolling the demilitarised zone between the
magisteria, and to object against _any_ metaphysical over-reaching
(border violation) of scientific theories, be it by religions folks or
certain atheists., not so much in the interests of my metaphysical
belief system, but because it will inevitably harm science if it
becomes embroiled in matters non-scientific.
> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:A6CdnTcpdZJB8BnN...@giganews.com...
>
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:50r888573o0vcdkv7...@4ax.com:
>
> > >> But as a non-Christian, I
> > >>can't take part in their growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only
> > >>stand by, helpless.
>
> > > It would help me, and hopefully others, if you gave an example of what
> > > you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
>
> > Keeping it on topic for the group, some attempt to publicize "I'm a
> > Christian and I have no problem with modern science" some significant
> > fraction of as loudly as the "Real Christians hate eeevilution" school does
> > theirs.
>
> Do such subjects exist here? I've not heard anyone claim to be an TE.
I get pretty close to it, though not necessarily of the Christian
>
> > >> But as a non-Christian, I
> > >>can't take part in their growing a much-longed-for spine; I can only
> > >>stand by, helpless.
>
> > > It would help me, and hopefully others, if you gave an example of what
> > > you mean by TE's lack-of-spine.
>
> > Keeping it on topic for the group, some attempt to publicize "I'm a
> > Christian and I have no problem with modern science" some significant
> > fraction of as loudly as the "Real Christians hate eeevilution" school does
> > theirs.
>
> Do such subjects exist here? I've not heard anyone claim to be an TE.
variety. As for "lack of spine", I'd feel the opposite - the very fact
of making statements of the type requested acknowledges that there is
a statement to be made. (bit like asking your political opponent to
"swear and put down in writing" that he is not a racist, or to
"promise to abstain from violence", when nothing in his behaviour
indicates a willingness to engage in violence, or racist ideas)
So for me it is patrolling the demilitarised zone between the
magisteria, and to object against _any_ metaphysical over-reaching
(border violation) of scientific theories, be it by religions folks or
certain atheists., not so much in the interests of my metaphysical
belief system, but because it will inevitably harm science if it
becomes embroiled in matters non-scientific.
Matchstick
Oct 22, 2012, 8:31:39 AM10/22/12
to
In article <t5l688ptiq90vcbgi...@4ax.com>, 69jpil69
@gmail.com says...
> > [quoted text muted]
> >>It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
> >>moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
> >
> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
>
>
> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Oh wait, that
> was for a different comic-book character.
>
With all due respect comic-book characters are better written and more
believable than him ;)
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
@gmail.com says...
> > [quoted text muted]
> >>It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
> >>moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
> >
> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
>
>
> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Oh wait, that
> was for a different comic-book character.
>
With all due respect comic-book characters are better written and more
believable than him ;)
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 11:43:47 AM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Seconded
>
> Rodjk #613
I apologize for a pair of statements I made in my first reply to this
post. They were due to my not having thought carefully enough about
which thread it was where you backed Ron O against me. The dirty
debating tactics of Ron O that I was exposing there fell well short of
calumny, and so my claims about you were completely unwarranted.
I have deleted the post in question, and am reposting (with one slight
change in the first paragraph below) the parts that I think are still
relevant to this thread.
_________________ repost___________________
See the first of two passages from Addison's "Party Feeling" that I
posted in reply to LouAnn Miller for an expose of what effect
calumnies have on me and an unknown number of other targets
(perhaps only a minority, alas), the one ending in the words:
"If this shameless practice of the
present age endures much longer,
praise and reproach will cease to be
motives of action in good men."
They ceased to be motives of mine somewhere between 1992, when I got
heavily involved in talk.abortion and 1995, when I got heavily
involved in talk.origins. That is because the zealots who dominate
both newsgroups were, and are, heavily involved in calumny, either
directly or through playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
evil" about those who are.
And so, I always rejoice on those very, very rare occasions for when a
like-minded person joins me in one of these newsgroups, one who shares
my agreement with Addison in the closing sentences of the second
paragraph I quoted:
"On the contrary we should shelter
distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt or
ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the man
of merit our friend and the villain our enemy."
Here, instead of "Whigs or Tories," the key words are "evolutionists
or creationists". In talk.abortion it is "pro-choice or pro-life
people".
[BTW I hate the word "evolutionist" because it seems to put us on a
par with creationists.]
Peter Nyikos
================= end of repost
And, in the upcoming election, the key words are "Democrats or
Republicans." I hope everyone here thinks carefully about whom they
are voting for, on an individual basis.
Peter Nyikos
> On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Seconded
>
> Rodjk #613
I apologize for a pair of statements I made in my first reply to this
post. They were due to my not having thought carefully enough about
which thread it was where you backed Ron O against me. The dirty
debating tactics of Ron O that I was exposing there fell well short of
calumny, and so my claims about you were completely unwarranted.
I have deleted the post in question, and am reposting (with one slight
change in the first paragraph below) the parts that I think are still
relevant to this thread.
_________________ repost___________________
See the first of two passages from Addison's "Party Feeling" that I
posted in reply to LouAnn Miller for an expose of what effect
calumnies have on me and an unknown number of other targets
(perhaps only a minority, alas), the one ending in the words:
"If this shameless practice of the
present age endures much longer,
praise and reproach will cease to be
motives of action in good men."
They ceased to be motives of mine somewhere between 1992, when I got
heavily involved in talk.abortion and 1995, when I got heavily
involved in talk.origins. That is because the zealots who dominate
both newsgroups were, and are, heavily involved in calumny, either
directly or through playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
evil" about those who are.
And so, I always rejoice on those very, very rare occasions for when a
like-minded person joins me in one of these newsgroups, one who shares
my agreement with Addison in the closing sentences of the second
paragraph I quoted:
"On the contrary we should shelter
distressed innocence and defend virtue, however beset with contempt or
ridicule, envy or defamation. In short, we should not any longer
regard our fellow subjects as Whigs or Tories, but should make the man
of merit our friend and the villain our enemy."
Here, instead of "Whigs or Tories," the key words are "evolutionists
or creationists". In talk.abortion it is "pro-choice or pro-life
people".
[BTW I hate the word "evolutionist" because it seems to put us on a
par with creationists.]
Peter Nyikos
================= end of repost
And, in the upcoming election, the key words are "Democrats or
Republicans." I hope everyone here thinks carefully about whom they
are voting for, on an individual basis.
Peter Nyikos
Kermit
Oct 22, 2012, 11:46:29 AM10/22/12
to
On 20 Oct, 12:48, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
promote their religion. Which would be, by the way, unconstitutional.
>
> Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
> either violate their consciences in this manner by providing these
> things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
> insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
> Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
> them.
>
And if they were Jehovah's Witnesses and thought that blood
transfusions were unbiblical?
How about a sect that thought certain ethnic groups should not receive
medical help? Religious freedom in the US has limits. No baby
sacrifices, and no limiting medical treatment for employees for
religious reasons. Priests are still free to tell their parishioners
that condoms or birth control pills will send the users to Hell. JW
churches are still free to tell their congregation to let their
children die rather than allow blood transfusions.
I am not legally or morally obligated to suffer because of someone
else's religious beliefs,
> Global warming is very, very real and undeniable. �The only room for
> argument is how much of it is due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and
> CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
> in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
Those natural processes would have us in a slow cooling period, were
they not overwhelmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. This may be
difficult to believe, but the experts in these fields have thought of
these things, and investigated.
>
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> This is a typical Harshman comeback. �At least here he didn't use it
> to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
> some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
> believe his explanation.
That was only a tight spot in your mind. Peter, you really are upset
about things which other folks don't see or don't care about.
>
> There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. �Next
> week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
They weren't interesting the first time around.
>
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
> Where a lightweight like UC is concerned, John may very well NOT care.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Kermit
> On Oct 20, 1:18 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com...
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> > > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> Too bad UC picked one of Glenn Morton's weakest points to champion,
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
Poor babies, upset because we don't want our tax dollars used to
> instead of places where Morton is on solid ground, like the
> Unconstitutional infringement on Freedom of Religion posed by the
> mandate for people who believe it is murder to use IUDs and
> contraceptives to prevent very early embryos from implanting,
promote their religion. Which would be, by the way, unconstitutional.
>
> Self-insured employers and Catholic hospitals, etc. are forced to
> either violate their consciences in this manner by providing these
> things free of charge (even of CO-PAY, for goodness sake!) via
> insurance policies, or being hit by draconian fines (or, as Chief
> Justice Roberts whimsically called them, "taxes") for not providing
> them.
>
transfusions were unbiblical?
How about a sect that thought certain ethnic groups should not receive
medical help? Religious freedom in the US has limits. No baby
sacrifices, and no limiting medical treatment for employees for
religious reasons. Priests are still free to tell their parishioners
that condoms or birth control pills will send the users to Hell. JW
churches are still free to tell their congregation to let their
children die rather than allow blood transfusions.
I am not legally or morally obligated to suffer because of someone
else's religious beliefs,
> Global warming is very, very real and undeniable. �The only room for
> argument is how much of it is due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and
> CH4, and how much of it is to variations in the solar output, changes
> in the earth's orbit/tilt, and other phenomena beyond our control.
Those natural processes would have us in a slow cooling period, were
they not overwhelmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. This may be
difficult to believe, but the experts in these fields have thought of
these things, and investigated.
>
> > > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> to get out of a tight spot, such as when I called his attention to
> some very strange behavior of his and said I found it very hard to
> believe his explanation.
That was only a tight spot in your mind. Peter, you really are upset
about things which other folks don't see or don't care about.
>
> There's been a rematch about that incident on another thread. �Next
> week should bring some interesting developments on that issue.
They weren't interesting the first time around.
>
> > Then why did you say so. Don't you care what he thinks of what you said?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
Kermit
Kermit
Oct 22, 2012, 11:50:22 AM10/22/12
to
On 20 Oct, 18:28, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Did you read it that way. EXPLANATIONS are true or false, scientific
> or not.
I'm rather under the impression that theories were an integral -
essential - part of science.
Do you think there are theories that *are science, or are none of
them?
Kermit
> On Oct 20, 12:33 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
>
> > On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
>
> > > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
>
> > > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
>
> > > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> You'll note I did not say 'the theory of evolution' is not science.
> > > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
>
> > No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
>
> Did you read it that way. EXPLANATIONS are true or false, scientific
> or not.
I'm rather under the impression that theories were an integral -
essential - part of science.
Do you think there are theories that *are science, or are none of
them?
Kermit
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 11:52:50 AM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 5:43�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>On Oct 20, 11:58?am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>
> >>No. �You are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
> >>that are laced with double standards. �And you can do the same for us
> >>evolutionists when the creationists do that.
>
> >>I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
> >>it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. �On the evolutionist
> >>side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
> >>O'Shea and Camp. �On the creationist side I've come down hard on �Alan
> >>Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
> >>battle] Ray Martinez.
>
> >[snip]
>
> >In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
> >obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
> >subjects for debate.
>
> >PS: �It is alright to use your own definitions of common words
> >and phrases such as "intelligent design" and "irreducible
> >complexity".
>
> >Or, as is said, 1 + 1 = 3 for large enough values of 1, at least
> >by my definition of 1.
Not only do I not hold it against people who sincerely disagree with
me, I don't even hold it against people who heap vitriol on me as long
as they seem sincere about it. Arkalen fits both categories. I've
mentioned the relevant incidents several times and will by glad to
give the details to anyone who is interested.
Jillery fit the first category for a while in a thread where we were
discussing a foolish claim that clotting expert Doolittle had made
about Behe. I was very patient and did not make any nasty personal
remarks in my last two posts to that thread.
But then [s]he disappeared from the thread after I made the last post,
which made it clear that Doolittle did not have a leg to stand on.
Perhaps [s]he still thinks Doolittle was right.
Peter Nyikos
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>On Oct 20, 11:58?am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:gZKdnRGEv9raLR_N...@earthlink.com:
>
> >>> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >>> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >>> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> >>> What are we supposed to do, loan them a spine?
> >>> > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >>> > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> >>> > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
>
> >>No. �You are supposed to defend creationists against dishonest attacks
> >>that are laced with double standards. �And you can do the same for us
> >>evolutionists when the creationists do that.
>
> >>I have done both ever since I joined t.o. in 1995, and then re-joined
> >>it in 2010 after an absence of almost a decade. �On the evolutionist
> >>side, I have done that especially to couteract Gans, Ron O, jillery,
> >>O'Shea and Camp. �On the creationist side I've come down hard on �Alan
> >>Kleinman and, more recently [in fact it is an ongoing, intensifying
> >>battle] Ray Martinez.
>
> >[snip]
>
> >In other words, you all, no matter what your view of reality is,
> >obey Peter's rules on how to debate and what are permissible
> >subjects for debate.
>
> >PS: �It is alright to use your own definitions of common words
> >and phrases such as "intelligent design" and "irreducible
> >complexity".
>
> >Or, as is said, 1 + 1 = 3 for large enough values of 1, at least
> >by my definition of 1.
>
> It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
> moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
It's really sad to think jillery is this far gone off the deep end.
> It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
> moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
Not only do I not hold it against people who sincerely disagree with
me, I don't even hold it against people who heap vitriol on me as long
as they seem sincere about it. Arkalen fits both categories. I've
mentioned the relevant incidents several times and will by glad to
give the details to anyone who is interested.
Jillery fit the first category for a while in a thread where we were
discussing a foolish claim that clotting expert Doolittle had made
about Behe. I was very patient and did not make any nasty personal
remarks in my last two posts to that thread.
But then [s]he disappeared from the thread after I made the last post,
which made it clear that Doolittle did not have a leg to stand on.
Perhaps [s]he still thinks Doolittle was right.
Peter Nyikos
Paul J Gans
Oct 22, 2012, 11:55:30 AM10/22/12
to
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 12:14:50 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 9:23 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
[snip rest, having replied to it a few minutes ago]
Below, Paul, readers can see your spin on the following exchange
between us:
___________ begin excerpt_____________
> Peter, why does a seconding of a nomination of a post having
> nothing to do with you cause such intensity of feeling on your
> part? This isn't about you. Chill out.
Right, it's about things infinitely more important than me: freedom,
justice, fair play.
================ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4638b1ee5d51877c
Note the words "Chill out" in what you wrote. They will appear below,
too.
> Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
Do you see anything wrong with aiming for these three goals where the
issue is the reputation of someone [in this case, Glenn Morton]?
I ask because, if you re-read the above excerpt carefully, you are
literally sneering at just that, whether you realize it or not.
Would it be fair to say that the following summarizes a hefty hunk of
your personal philosophy?
"The world is chaos and we cannot understand it,
but we'll try to be nice towards one another, stop
the more obvious atrocities when we can --
or at least refrain from committing them --
and otherwise chill out and `live in the moment.'"
With "understand" in place of "know," the above is taken from a review
of a book by the French philosopher Luc Ferry, _A Brief History of
Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living_, in the November 2012 issue
of _First Things_, by Robert Royal.
Immediately preceding what you see above, Royal wrote:
"It would be easy to mock Ferry's philosophy:"
And immeditately following it, he writes: "Ferry, however, does not
deserve casual dismissal because he clearly wants to preserve
something humanly stronger, truer, and deeper..."
[snip rest, having replied to it a few minutes ago]
Below, Paul, readers can see your spin on the following exchange
between us:
___________ begin excerpt_____________
> Peter, why does a seconding of a nomination of a post having
> nothing to do with you cause such intensity of feeling on your
> part? This isn't about you. Chill out.
Right, it's about things infinitely more important than me: freedom,
justice, fair play.
================ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4638b1ee5d51877c
Note the words "Chill out" in what you wrote. They will appear below,
too.
> Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
issue is the reputation of someone [in this case, Glenn Morton]?
I ask because, if you re-read the above excerpt carefully, you are
literally sneering at just that, whether you realize it or not.
Would it be fair to say that the following summarizes a hefty hunk of
your personal philosophy?
"The world is chaos and we cannot understand it,
but we'll try to be nice towards one another, stop
the more obvious atrocities when we can --
or at least refrain from committing them --
and otherwise chill out and `live in the moment.'"
With "understand" in place of "know," the above is taken from a review
of a book by the French philosopher Luc Ferry, _A Brief History of
Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living_, in the November 2012 issue
of _First Things_, by Robert Royal.
Immediately preceding what you see above, Royal wrote:
"It would be easy to mock Ferry's philosophy:"
And immeditately following it, he writes: "Ferry, however, does not
deserve casual dismissal because he clearly wants to preserve
something humanly stronger, truer, and deeper..."
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 12:22:46 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 20, 9:53�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
There was no announcement fitting the above description. Looks like
Gans does not want jillery [who has killfiled me] to see what I
actually wrote.
I believe he won't want jillery to see what I wrote in reply to his
description either.
> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? �Oh wait, that
> was for a different comic-book character.
I wonder whether jillery thinks Robert Camp was sufficiently mindful
of the five values named above when he wrote what the did about Glenn
Morton.
I wonder whether jillery thinks Mitchell Coffey was sufficiently
mindful of the five values named above when he sought to have Camp's
screed against Morton become a permanent part of the talk.origins
archive.
I wonder whether anyone will join me in opining that both Camp and
Coffey were out of line.
Peter Nyikos
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
Gans does not want jillery [who has killfiled me] to see what I
actually wrote.
I believe he won't want jillery to see what I wrote in reply to his
description either.
> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? �Oh wait, that
> was for a different comic-book character.
of the five values named above when he wrote what the did about Glenn
Morton.
I wonder whether jillery thinks Mitchell Coffey was sufficiently
mindful of the five values named above when he sought to have Camp's
screed against Morton become a permanent part of the talk.origins
archive.
I wonder whether anyone will join me in opining that both Camp and
Coffey were out of line.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 12:47:36 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 21, 7:48�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
apologized publicly for, removing the offending post altogether so no
one will think it reflects my considered opinion.
> Isn't this getting just a little sad even for Nyikos?
Yes, but not in the way and not for the reasons you would like people
to think.
> Normally I just ignore this kind of bogus junk out of Nyikos, but it
> is beginning to trouble me that he seems to be degenerating, and from
> the little that I have seen in his posts to others that I have read,
> it is a general problem that Nyikos has. �Nyikos does need to self-
> evaluate what he does,
Done all the time, and on those rare occasions when I make as bad a
mistake as I did, I do my best to make amends for it.
In contrast, I doubt that you will EVER self-evaluate your dishonest
use of the words "admits" and "admitting" that resulted in at least
two lies by you about me, the first of which easily fits the
expression "calumny".
You have been sticking by your guns on these two dishonest uses, the
first of which was made over a year ago.
> Start with projection.
That is one of the prime things you need to self-evaluate about. Your
bogus use of the word "projection" was instrumental in your second lie
referred to just now.
"Ollie" [OLI, for Okimoto Logic Imitator] has demonstrated its
bogosity many times over, and every time I've seen you talk about
"Ollie," the word "admitting" and its cognates are nowhere to be
seen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> You may want to deal with paranoia first based on your above response,
> you can decide.
Done. Let's see you deal with your bouts of paranoia where the DI
(Discovery Institute) and the whole topic of ID (Intelligent Design)
are concerned. They have resulted in you using the term "switch scam"
because your support of the preamble "bait and" falls pathetically
short of your bizarre idea that you have proven it beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Even Robert Camp, a kindred spirit of yours in so many other ways, did
not agree with your paranoid allegation that the DI is continuing to
claim to have the ID science in a form ready to teach IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AS A SERIOUS COMPETITOR TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN SYNTHESIS.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
>
> There is a thread on Escalation of Commitment that is a major problem
> with you.
I've already cut back quite a bit on the refutations of your calumnies
and other false claims already, and shortly after the 2013, you will
see mainly references to documentations of how completely the most
important ones have been refuted.
You, on the other hand, still keep making the same discredited claims,
posting huge filibusters rather than dealing directly with the
refutations.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7450cf31bfd1b1a?hl=en
>
> And you can't forget the Dunning-Krueger effect.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
>
> These are not your only problems, but they are a start, and one way to
> deal with your Dunning-Krueger problem is to learn how to better self-
> evaluate yourself. �Practicing self-evaluation is the only thing that
> I can think of that would help you. �Get someone that you trust to go
> over the nonsense that you are guilty of and have them tell it to you
> straight if you can't trust yourself to do it. �Going on as you are
> going is just sad.
"Physician, heal thyself!"
Peter Nyikos
> On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > Seconded
>
> > > Rodjk #613
Here I've snipped a reprimand to Rodjk which I deeply regret and have
>
> > On Oct 20, 2:28�pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm nominating this because it is such a thoughtful, well-written and important post.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > > Seconded
>
> > > Rodjk #613
apologized publicly for, removing the offending post altogether so no
one will think it reflects my considered opinion.
> Isn't this getting just a little sad even for Nyikos?
Yes, but not in the way and not for the reasons you would like people
to think.
> Normally I just ignore this kind of bogus junk out of Nyikos, but it
> is beginning to trouble me that he seems to be degenerating, and from
> the little that I have seen in his posts to others that I have read,
> it is a general problem that Nyikos has. �Nyikos does need to self-
> evaluate what he does,
Done all the time, and on those rare occasions when I make as bad a
mistake as I did, I do my best to make amends for it.
In contrast, I doubt that you will EVER self-evaluate your dishonest
use of the words "admits" and "admitting" that resulted in at least
two lies by you about me, the first of which easily fits the
expression "calumny".
You have been sticking by your guns on these two dishonest uses, the
first of which was made over a year ago.
> Start with projection.
That is one of the prime things you need to self-evaluate about. Your
bogus use of the word "projection" was instrumental in your second lie
referred to just now.
"Ollie" [OLI, for Okimoto Logic Imitator] has demonstrated its
bogosity many times over, and every time I've seen you talk about
"Ollie," the word "admitting" and its cognates are nowhere to be
seen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> You may want to deal with paranoia first based on your above response,
> you can decide.
Done. Let's see you deal with your bouts of paranoia where the DI
(Discovery Institute) and the whole topic of ID (Intelligent Design)
are concerned. They have resulted in you using the term "switch scam"
because your support of the preamble "bait and" falls pathetically
short of your bizarre idea that you have proven it beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Even Robert Camp, a kindred spirit of yours in so many other ways, did
not agree with your paranoid allegation that the DI is continuing to
claim to have the ID science in a form ready to teach IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AS A SERIOUS COMPETITOR TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN SYNTHESIS.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
>
> There is a thread on Escalation of Commitment that is a major problem
> with you.
I've already cut back quite a bit on the refutations of your calumnies
and other false claims already, and shortly after the 2013, you will
see mainly references to documentations of how completely the most
important ones have been refuted.
You, on the other hand, still keep making the same discredited claims,
posting huge filibusters rather than dealing directly with the
refutations.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7450cf31bfd1b1a?hl=en
>
> And you can't forget the Dunning-Krueger effect.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
>
> These are not your only problems, but they are a start, and one way to
> deal with your Dunning-Krueger problem is to learn how to better self-
> evaluate yourself. �Practicing self-evaluation is the only thing that
> I can think of that would help you. �Get someone that you trust to go
> over the nonsense that you are guilty of and have them tell it to you
> straight if you can't trust yourself to do it. �Going on as you are
> going is just sad.
"Physician, heal thyself!"
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 2:38:21 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 21, 10:48 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 04:51 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:dc378d94-6140-4838...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
I still haven't figured out what Glenn's joke is all about. My best
current guess is that he took the words "I'd like to see more of you"
in the wrong way. I had merely been hoping that he, too, was the sort
of person who would take Addison's words to heart, and that I would
see some posts of his where that was evident.
> Take it easy on him. Let him mourn the great tragedy that had fallen
> upon his school yesterday, students eaten alive in the Florida Swamp by
> bloodthirsty reptiles. Such senseless carnage. Sad denouement indeed.
>
> It is rumored all that remained was a chewed up golf visor bearing the
> USC logo and a mangled headset.
I'm not a football fan.
Back during my first year here, though, I did become an ardent fan of
USC's women's basketball team, and was thrilled when they made the
Final Four in 1980, and came within a heartbeat of defeating Tennessee
in the semifinals, then beat Louisiana Tech in the consolation game.
Except for our baseball team, I don't know of any team sport where USC
has climbed so high.
Trivia: over here, we always refer to the other USC as "Southern Cal"
except occasionally in jest.
One such occasion: In the first round of playoffs in 1980, the Lady
Gamecocks [yup, that's what we call them] were matched up against
Southern Cal. The day of the game, I was eating lunch with two
colleagues and asked the more sports-savvy one, "What do you think of
USC's chances against USC tonight?'
Without batting an eye, he answered, "No problem! USC's gonna win."
And ours did, in its first step towards the Final Four.
Peter Nyikos
> On 10/20/2012 04:51 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:dc378d94-6140-4838...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Peek a boo, I see you.
>
> >> And I'd like to see more of you, Glenn. You've always struck me as an
> >> independent thinker.
>
> >> How do you like the two passages from Addison's essay that I quoted to
> >> LouAnn?
>
> > Did you like take a round of estrogen pills by mistake or something?
> >>> Peek a boo, I see you.
>
> >> And I'd like to see more of you, Glenn. You've always struck me as an
> >> independent thinker.
>
> >> How do you like the two passages from Addison's essay that I quoted to
> >> LouAnn?
>
I still haven't figured out what Glenn's joke is all about. My best
current guess is that he took the words "I'd like to see more of you"
in the wrong way. I had merely been hoping that he, too, was the sort
of person who would take Addison's words to heart, and that I would
see some posts of his where that was evident.
> Take it easy on him. Let him mourn the great tragedy that had fallen
> upon his school yesterday, students eaten alive in the Florida Swamp by
> bloodthirsty reptiles. Such senseless carnage. Sad denouement indeed.
>
> It is rumored all that remained was a chewed up golf visor bearing the
> USC logo and a mangled headset.
I'm not a football fan.
Back during my first year here, though, I did become an ardent fan of
USC's women's basketball team, and was thrilled when they made the
Final Four in 1980, and came within a heartbeat of defeating Tennessee
in the semifinals, then beat Louisiana Tech in the consolation game.
Except for our baseball team, I don't know of any team sport where USC
has climbed so high.
Trivia: over here, we always refer to the other USC as "Southern Cal"
except occasionally in jest.
One such occasion: In the first round of playoffs in 1980, the Lady
Gamecocks [yup, that's what we call them] were matched up against
Southern Cal. The day of the game, I was eating lunch with two
colleagues and asked the more sports-savvy one, "What do you think of
USC's chances against USC tonight?'
Without batting an eye, he answered, "No problem! USC's gonna win."
And ours did, in its first step towards the Final Four.
Peter Nyikos
jillery
Oct 22, 2012, 2:44:17 PM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:31:39 +0100, Matchstick
<match...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>In article <t5l688ptiq90vcbgi...@4ax.com>, 69jpil69
>@gmail.com says...
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >>It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
>> >>moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
>> >
>> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
>> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
>>
>>
>> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Oh wait, that
>> was for a different comic-book character.
>>
>
>With all due respect comic-book characters are better written and more
>believable than him ;)
I mean no disrespect to comic-book characters generally, but the
<match...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>In article <t5l688ptiq90vcbgi...@4ax.com>, 69jpil69
>@gmail.com says...
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >>It's really sad to see a self-righteous twit like rockhead claim the
>> >>moral middle ground simply because he disagees with everybody.
>> >
>> >Wait till you see the post where he announces that he fights on
>> >in the name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
>>
>>
>> What happened to Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Oh wait, that
>> was for a different comic-book character.
>>
>
>With all due respect comic-book characters are better written and more
>believable than him ;)
appellation remains remarkably appropriate.
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 4:31:25 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 21, 11:03�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 20 Oct, 10:08, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> > > as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> > > And he's right.
>
> > > Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> > > are dominated by creationists and atheists. � Theistic evolutionists and
> > > mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> > > active on this topic.
>
> > > Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
> > > EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>
> > > Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> > > ask them. �But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
The situation fits William Butler Yeats's lines like a glove:
> Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 20 Oct, 10:08, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Morton feels he's fighting on alone, caught between YECs who regard him
> > > as a sellout, and atheists who are contemptuous of his religious faith.
>
> > > And he's right.
>
> > > Where the ToE is concerned, the news headlines and most of the Internet
> > > are dominated by creationists and atheists. � Theistic evolutionists and
> > > mainstream churches are barely audible, let alone vocal or politically
> > > active on this topic.
>
> > > Heck, they're rarely even audible on this NG, giving us their view on
> > > EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LONG AGO and EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID (or didn't do).
>
> > > Oh, yes, the Church will say they have no problem with the ToE--if you
> > > ask them. �But otherwise they remain silent and passive.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
written in 1919
rest of poem and notes here:
http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html
And by "the centre" I don't just mean Theistic Evolutionists and the
Churches; I mean everyone who has a great deal of respect for religion
on the one hand and science on the other.
> > > The YECs have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > > The atheists have a model, and they are quite open about it.
> > > The Theistic Evolutionists seem to be content with handwaving.
>
> > As I see it, TEs have a model - the same exact one as the atheists -
> > and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
> > untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
> > edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
> > just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
> > Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
> > fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
> > common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
>
> There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
>
> 1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> Mystery.
>
> 2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> so that evolution delivers what he wants.
In a recent poll, over 30% of responders assented to some variety of
> > and agnostics - who accept evolution. All they do is differ on
> > untestable ultimate causes. Sure, sometimes their spin flirts with the
> > edge, and I guess I'm occasionally guilty as charged. But those are
> > just words. Everyone from Dawkins to Francis Collins recognizes what
> > Pope John Paul II called the "convergence, neither sought nor
> > fabricated" of multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution,
> > common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life on earth.
>
> There are varieties of theistic evolution. I think they are these:
>
> 1. Mysterianism: God is somehow involved in evolution but it's a
> Mystery.
>
> 2. Occasionalism: God usually ensures things happen according to the
> laws of physics but when he needs to he mkes things turn out differently
> so that evolution delivers what he wants.
this, outnumbering all atheists and Neo-Deists combined.
> 3. Determinism: God set up the universe so that on this planet things
> would turn out to deliver human beings.
that it leaves room for God intervening in human history (Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith...).
> 4. Leibnizianism: God chose to make the world in which evolution
> delivered human beings, which he foresaw "before" he created a world.
>
> I think only Leibnizianism is coherent and consistent with what we know
> of the world. In fact, I have published a paper arguing just that:
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01238.x/abstract
>
whether it is a gratuitous fiction. He went on to compare his idea of
what God might be like, if God exists, with a world champion chess
player who knows he can defeat his opponent, but does not know what
moves his opponent will choose in advance.
>
> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
> > fabricated evidence.
Situated as I am, and knowing a few things about Behe, I know that we
(especially Behe) are targets of this kind of behavior a great deal of
the time.
> >They had no option but to confuse proximate
> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
UC
Oct 22, 2012, 4:38:01 PM10/22/12
to
a tentative explanation. A theory is an explanation with good
experimental or empirical support and little or no contrary evidence.
UC
Oct 22, 2012, 4:50:56 PM10/22/12
to
On Oct 22, 11:53 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
approaches that don't work and when you point it out to them they say
you don't know what you are talking about. In doubles, 'poaching' is
crossing over to intercept the return of serve more than one step. In
other words, it's going for a ball that is not within easy reach.
Advanced players use a system of hand signals (the net man puts his
hand behind his back and opens or closes his fist to tell the server
whether he is going to poach or not). College teams and pros, who
practice often, can do this successfully.
In recreational play, the net man often decides to poach on his own.
Note that I am not talking about 'floaters' coming within easy reach,
but low driven balls that the net man has to step across for.
I had rotator cuff surgery in 1996 and had to sit and watch on the
sidelines that summer, and I started keeping track of the percentage
of points won by the poaching team. They lost the point at least 95%
of the time when the net man poached when the serve was going to the
ad court. Yet teaching pros continue to teach people to poach. In the
ad court, the return of serve comes to the net man's backhand when it
is hit crosscourt and he is right-handed. Yet, you will see coaches
telling people to do this, even though you are almost guaranteed to
lose the point.
When you point this out to tennis teachers, they give you that blank
stare of incomprehension. That you have actual statistical grounds for
saying NOT to poach seems to mean nothing to them.
Frank J
Oct 22, 2012, 7:17:25 PM10/22/12
to
On 22 Oct, 07:03, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:23 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <ce3e836c-19fc-474a-b852-86962cd57...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
> "On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:44:23 -0700 (PDT), in article
even assume that our species is any more "special" than any other?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > The handwaving comes from the ID crowd, which either grudgingly admits
> >> > billions of years of life and occasionally common descent, but
> >> > pretends that those conclusions are "unimportant." Their big tent scam
> >> > is a way to prevent people from recognizing their "Morton's
> >> > demon" (including OEC, and geocentrist versions, etc.). Early ID
> >> > promoters knew that Biblical creationism had models, but saw the
> >> > hopelessness in that they (1) came in mutually contradictory versions
> >> > and (2) were only "supported" by seeking (cherry picking) and
> >> > fabricated evidence. They had no option but to confuse proximate
> >> > causes with ultimate causes. And too many of their critics, ironically
> >> > as obsessed with God and religion as the IDers are with their
> >> > "Darwinism" caricature, keep letting them do just that.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
Oct 22, 2012, 7:23:06 PM10/22/12
to
On 21 Oct, 22:48, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> steenkin' questions?-
Only that readers pay attention to their evasion, and wonder what else
they have to hide. Anyone can say "I don't know," but when many
answers have been volunteered by evolution-deniers, one of which has
mountains of evidence to back it up, surely anyone can at least take a
best guess. Especially if they have been following the "debate" for
years.
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
Only that readers pay attention to their evasion, and wonder what else
they have to hide. Anyone can say "I don't know," but when many
answers have been volunteered by evolution-deniers, one of which has
mountains of evidence to back it up, surely anyone can at least take a
best guess. Especially if they have been following the "debate" for
years.
Walter Bushell
Oct 22, 2012, 9:02:19 PM10/22/12
to
In article <VoudnUbkc_0...@giganews.com>,
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
> >
> >
> > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
> >
> > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
> >
> > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
> >
> No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
Except as a source of innocent merriment.
> On 10/19/12 7:47 PM, UC wrote:
> >
> >
> > This poor man is horribly confused. Evolution is not science. The
> > theory of evolution is an explanation of certain phenomena. It can be
> > falsified, but that look seems extremely unlikely.
> >
> > But he is right, to some extent, about the demand for conformity. The
> > proponents of Global Warming have a lot of explaining to do. It looks
> > very weak, and very political. I don't buy a word of it.
> >
> > But this hardly puts me in this poor man's camp. I am an atheist, but
> > I certainly do not go around talking about it. I really don't care
> > what other people think. They are, as he says, 'entrenched'.
> >
> No problem. Other people don't care what you think either.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages