I just read the headline:
'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction.
Who said Creationism is not science? If science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution.
Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells.
Science is now showing that to be accurate... (Read more at ICR)
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Who said Creationism is not science? If science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution."
Seriously? Creationism more science than Evolution? ROFL.
What we have here is the ICR claiming a scientific basis for creation, that a previous prediction that "pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells" makes creation true.
Well done Dan. You can post an article that appears to be science.
But tell me, what makes this article good science, but all the other myriad peer reviewed articles which come to a different conclusion bad science?
Neither I or you can say who is right about this topic. Neither of us are experts. I'm sure both of us could go and do some research on pseudogenes to back our points of view. So who do we defer to?
You defer to the ICR. Because it reinforces your religious beliefs.
I defer to the scientific consensus. Because it isnt constrained by your, or anyone elses, religious beliefs.
And therefore the scientific consensus is at the very least much more likely to be objective than the ICR.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI think you don't realize what you are doing.
You quote articles from ICR, Hugh Ross, Ken Ham, and Discovery institute who are all diametrically opposed.
Last month on the Disco Institute's site they stated:
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."
This month they state:
"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"
Heehee. I think they are having an identity crisis!
It's called moving the goalpost falacy :)) But the thing is the field can only be SO BIG:)) at one point they would have to say i was wrong and we do know how religious people hate the "I'm wrong" or "I don't know" :))
DeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteYour link,Woodmorappe "predicted in 2003" leads to a blank page.
From the article at ICR,
ReplyDelete"Scientists are finding the answer to this question in places they least expected--specifically, in the parts of DNA they thought were useless leftovers from random evolution. Early analyses of all that "junk" revealed that it was not random, and later studies showed patterns in the non-gene-coding DNA, although at the time there were no known functions for them.1
A new study published in Nature disclosed the discovery of a totally new mechanism for gene regulation that uses pseudogenes.2 These look very similar to actual genes, but contain enough differences that they could not be used to properly code for proteins. For example, they often have a genetic "stop sign" buried in the middle of the sequence instead of at the end, where the coding gene has it.
The word pseudogene means "false gene." They were named this because they were considered to be broken, useless copies of real genes that harbored coding errors from a long evolutionary history of genetic mistakes."
Notice that the article says "scientists" are finding the answer. Not the ICR, DI, Ken Ham, or anyone else.
Then they provide no link to the article in Nature. Why? because they are misquoting it, as per usual and don't want their mindless minions to actually read it, which they probably do not have the wherewithal to do in any case.
Also, although certain genes were considered pseudogenes, it has been known for fifteen years that there are intermediate pseudogenes, on their way to becoming full pseudogenes.
Woodemorap knew that when he made his "prediction."
Since your link is broken, I don't know what article you are referring to but I do remember Woodie's "prediction" and it wasn't based on anything scientific.
It was based on the fact that creationists hate the idea of junk DNA because that would mean that God incorporated non useful stuff into the genome, contradicting Intelligent design.
Now though, since it was there was some scant evidence found by the ENCORE project that some junk DNA does have certain purposes they are cumming in their pants.
Too bad though, because new deep sequencing is showing, as we speak, is the genome is mostly dead, transcriptionally. The junk is still junk.
Dan, you really do need to expand your horizons beyond reading the BS from ICR. You always come off as churlish and lazy when it is obvious you did no real evaluation of your topics.
just out of curiousity DI Ken Ham stand for "Deluded Individual" Ken Ham? :)
DeleteIf science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution.
ReplyDeletelolwhut?
Do you have some new, fascinating definition for "testable, repeatable, and verifiable" that I haven't heard of?
I suppose an argument that "pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells" can be made. For example, certain members of one subset of pseudogenes, known as "fossil genes", are still functional enough to provide the fetus with gill slits, a tail and the remains of a yolk sac in the embryo; it's odd that you'd support that idea, since it's evidence of evolution, and I thought you were opposed to that.
But hey, you keep right on plugging away, big fella.
What's YOUR definition of "testable, repeatable, and verifiable"? Can you demonstrate Darwinian Evolution? Give me 1 observable, repeatable example of a change of kinds, as mentioned by Darwin. Just 1. And you know - something I can observe myself.
DeleteGo ahead, I'll wait.
One biological organism changing into another kind. When was it observed, and when will it be repeated?
You believe what you've been taught. You've never witnessed, and you never will, Darwinian Evolution.
Oranges,
ReplyDeleteYou were so close!!!
>>You defer to the ICR. Because it reinforces your religious beliefs.
Amen, indeed I do.
>>I defer to the scientific consensus.
But then you should of been more honest and said Because it reinforces my religious beliefs.
We almost were in agreement there. Meh, maybe next time.
>>And therefore the scientific consensus is at the very least much more likely to be objective than the ICR.
Then you revert to your dogma bias? I thought we were getting somewhere. Oh well...
Froggie,
ReplyDelete>>Your link,Woodmorappe "predicted in 2003" leads to a blank page.
Only if you don't have a PDF reader. Careful, one more outburst like that will get your geek card revoked.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteAren't you going to say anything about what Froggie said in this post:
July 12, 2010 12:09 PM?
As well, you said to Oranges:
>>I defer to the scientific consensus.
But then you should of been more honest and said Because it reinforces my religious beliefs.
Maybe you should do what Froggie does: Actually look at the evidence and debate the issue on the merits of that instead of making shit up about people's motives like you did with Oranges.
You do realize that even xians and other theists accept the process of evolution, right?
What kind of motive would those people have for accepting evolution if their religious beliefs don't have a problem with it, even when it's the same god you worship? (ex. Ken Miller)
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Aren't you going to say anything about what Froggie said in this post:
July 12, 2010 12:09 PM?
What this?
"I do remember Woodie's "prediction" and it wasn't based on anything scientific."
Um, no. Why should I. The absurd doesn't deserve a response.
"Dan, you really do need to expand your horizons beyond reading the BS from ICR. You always come off as churlish and lazy when it is obvious you did no real evaluation of your topics. "
My point has been made. (The absurd doesn't deserve a response) Moving on.
>>Maybe you should do what Froggie does: Actually look at the evidence and debate the issue on the merits of that instead of making shit up about people's motives like you did with Oranges.
In reflection it appears I actually did do what Froggie does. Oh the Irony.
">>You defer to the ICR. Because it reinforces your religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAmen, indeed I do. "
Sad, really. Thats really nothing to be proud of.
Me? I don't have any religious beliefs, as you well know. You can redefine the meaning of words all you want, doesnt make it true. And as we discussed before if evidence was found for a god, or multiuple gods, or the supernatural, or a creator, or even a global flood, I would be quite happy to accept it. I'm happy to admit it's possible.
There just isnt evidence, of any of the myriad gods our race has believed in at one time or another.
You believe only what backs your religion and ignore the rest - despite the evidence. Thats sad, and dishonest.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who said,
"Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells."
Yet he predicted nothing. He merely siezed on the idea of others because they destest the thought of pseudogenes.
He even admits in his paper that he is borrowing others ideas:
"Against the backdrop of the customary negative opinion
of pseudogenes, there have always been a few individuals
who anticipated their functional potential. McCarrey et al.8
were probably the first to suggest that pseudogenes can be
functional in terms of the regulation of the expression of
its paralogous genes."
Then he goes on to totally fracture the actual science as expressed by McCarry, et al.
Now, where is htis prediction? Or were you doing a bit of embellishment?
No, you were quoting the ICR who constantly lie and twist the truth.
Shamers on you Dan.
Shamers.
Shame, shame, shamers. :>
You see Dan, theres a reason you must (if honest) defer to the scientific consensus on a topic you don't understand - anyone can claim anything, couch it in scienc-ey language, and claim evidence and wild conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI could do it. But how would we know if I was misrepresenting science for my own agenda?
Thats why scientific consensus is critical. And scientists laugh at the ICR.
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>You believe only what backs your religion and ignore the rest - despite the evidence. Thats sad, and dishonest.
Well, obviously, I disagree with that claim. We are to bare assertions again? I have indeed examined the evidence out there and I just came to a different conclusion then you. If there is possibly multiple explanations for something (example, origins) I just err on the side of God which you will never do. To me, that is sad and dishonest to yourself. I entertained all the evidence and sided with the Creator as did 95% of this planet. You, on the other had, feels the 95% of us, of all walks of life, are in mass delusion. That is not an appeal to masses either. It is a brute fact. Talk about sad (on your part).
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Well, obviously, I disagree with that claim. We are to bare assertions again? I have indeed examined the evidence out there and I just came to a different conclusion then you."
No, no, no. I think I can say with absolute certainty you have NOT examined the evidence for complex topics such as DNA and pseudogenes (neither have I). Therefore you have to believe someone who claims to know a lot more about it than you, and defer to their opinion.
And in that, you defer to the minority which attempts to warp the facts to fit existing religious beliefs. I defer to the majority, the scientists (experts) in the field, who are looking at what the evidence actually shows.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI just err on the side of God which you will never do. To me, that is sad and dishonest to yourself.
The fact is this isn't about God. Yours or anyone elses. It really isn't. It's about facts, and what the evidence says.
Where the evidence says one thing, and religious dogma says another, you go with religious dogma. Don't you see? In the distant past that would have meant you believed fire was an evil spirit, or the sun was itself a god, or more recently that the sun orbitted the earth?
You believe the things you do because you were born in this era. The things you attribute to god diminish with every generation, those which have not yet been explained by science (and some which have, lol). If you had been born in a past era you would believe something quite different, things you would scorn today. Because science has disproved them unequivocally.
And the things we argue over today, evolution, genes, DNA ... had you been born in 200 years time, you wouldnt argue about them. You'd have moved on to the next in the ever diminishing range of topics to attribute to a god, things not fully explained by science.
You can believe in a god Dan. Everyone can, if they want. Just don't confuse it with science.
"I could do it. But how would we know if I was misrepresenting science for my own agenda?"
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, I have to be able to apply that to anything. A consensus of scientists (let's face it, a consensus is not scientific) may, itself, be misrepresenting science for its own agenda. This makes me highly reluctant to defer to anything.
I fail to see any prediction based on creationism. Dan links to a pdf file that seems to predict that more functions of pseudogenes would be found because they were already finding functions hand-over-fist. I'm not impressed. It's easy to predict rain when you're standing in it.
At this particular point in time, I am not impressed with anyone's asserted explanation for the origins or the diversity of life. I understand people believe various things. But so far, it looks like people come up with what they believe and then look for reasons to support their preconceived notions. Now, that's certainly human. But it's not science.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction."
Does it not bother you one bit that the entire premise of this post is based on a lie?
"Does it not bother you one bit that the entire premise of this post is based on a lie?"
ReplyDeleteBut Froggie, ICR headlines are just as legitimate as all that complicated sciencey stuff, didn't you know?
Yeah, Oranges. People say all kinds of crazy stuff when they're Dan Marvin....
ReplyDeleteBack to reality: Creationists trying to fit an observable part of nature (in this case, light) into their biblical preconceptions.
ReplyDeleteWhearas real scientists are able to just take what they see at face value which gives them another piece of evidence that the universe is billions of years old as opposed to the thousands that the AIG people are trying to "prove".
If creation was true, one would think that this wouldn't be necessary.
You might find this interesting
ReplyDeleteThe Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
.
ReplyDeleteI linked you at my post, thanks for bringing this story to my attention:
Pseudogenes Predicted to Fail by Creationists
.
Papa Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. A slight oversight though.
"Over at Debunking Atheism, there is an ICR update reproduced in part below."
It is called Debunking Atheists, not Debunking Atheism.
Nice posts though, I like the style. At least a 100 geek points for the layout.
Blessings,
Dan
Lol, the blind leading the blind indeed. Or blind linked-to by the blind.
ReplyDeleteIf I may quote Froggie again:
"'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction."
Does it not bother you one bit that the entire premise of this post is based on a lie?
.
ReplyDeleteOranges... and I guess Froggie. I apologize that I am coming in so late on this convo. But I just wanted to get something corrected if I am thinking wrong. The pseudogene argument was one of naturalism's (at least in the neo-Darwinian sense) strongest arguments. It is on TalkOrigins list of evidences, it was on the PBS special about Darwinism, and over a decade ago it was one of the evidences proffered to me by evolutionists in the Discover chat room when they first built their site.
In fact, I have been getting Scientific America, Discover, Astronomy, and Science magazine[s] since 1997, and this argument was one that they used quite a bit in a confirming manner towards the neo-Darwinian view of life. In 2003 the first magazine level stories about this evidence being overturned by science actually setting aside "just so stories" (Rudyard Kiping and others coined this) and getting into the dirty work of discovery. In fact, I have my Scientific American and Discover mags that broke the story (the same month. Here is a scan of my Discover Mag, I keep them like comic books, in cover and all.
In fact, the stories in these magazines mentioned the surprise of scientists in finding out that their vaunted theories of pseudogenes may have been an assumption made too soon. So with these lower level peer-reviewed magazines mentioning that they have to change their thinking on the matter... my question becomes is this:
"We all agree that this (pseudogene argument) was once an argument for the evolutionary paradigm, and now, it is not?" This would be the basic premise we can understand correct? Maybe even more basic than that is what was once used as a solid evidence for evolutionary Darwinism is showing signs of being misapplied and misinterpreted. And not by creationists. Again, as evidenced by evolutionary peer-reviewed magazines and journals.
Much thought and thanks in clearing up whether we can at least agree on my "basic premise."
.
.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the typo error about "Atheism" and Atheists." Fixed.
.
"We all agree that this (pseudogene argument) was once an argument for the evolutionary paradigm, and now, it is not?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Pseudogenes were indeed evidence for evolution, and still are. Why? Not just because of the explanation for why they exist, but because the pseudogenes demonstrate inheritance.
As for the precise explanation of pseudogenes, Froggie pointed out that the it was scientists who suggested some "functional potential" for pseudogenes. This in no way refutes evolution, it is just jumped on by creationists pretending it does exactly that. Another more recent study in 2006 disagreed with that 2003 one, actually. I admit I dont know the current thinking, but it will be done by scientists not apologists....
"There is, of course, also an important lesson about science here: Hirotsune’s provocative, out-of-the-mainstream findings were not rejected on principle, but were given wide exposure, embraced by some as explanatory of certain processes, put to the test by others, and invalidated. Of course, this will apply to Gray’s data as well – it is now up to Hirotsune and his supporters to test the new findings and explain them away, or accept them. Stay tuned."
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/rumors-of-pseud.html
.
ReplyDelete“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind” ~ Plato
Panda's Thumb is similar to TalkOrigins. It is the same as you saying, "But Froggie, ICR headlines are just as legitimate as all that complicated sciencey stuff, didn't you know?" It is written by people who think like this:
Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment -- a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Dinesh D’Souza)
So let me give you a couple of references that were linked through my earlier post (if you followed the link to an earlier debate I had). I mean, you seem to want to play the "date game" without understanding what is presented now as compared to what was presented in the 90's as evidence for evolution:
Watanabe T, Totoki Y, Toyoda A, Kaneda M, Kuramochi-Miyagawa S, Obata Y, Chiba H, Kohara Y, Kono T, Nakano T, Surani MA, Sakaki Y, Sasaki H (May 2008). "Endogenous siRNAs from naturally formed dsRNAs regulate transcripts in mouse oocytes". Nature 453 (7194): 539–43; Tam OH, Aravin AA, Stein P, Girard A, Murchison EP, Cheloufi S, Hodges E, Anger M, Sachidanandam R, Schultz RM, Hannon GJ (May 2008). "Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes". Nature 453 (7194): 534–8.
Take note I didn't send you to:
http://www.trueorigin.org/;
http://creation.com/;
http://www.nwcreation.net/;
http://www.arn.org/;
http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/index.html;
http://www.discovery.org/
or any other of the myriad of places I could pull from like you seem to be pulling from Panda's Thumb or Talk Origins.
Another point you seem to be implicitly making is one evolutionary naturalist Karl Popper made -- that evolution is non-falsifiable. I use this (adapted) to explain persons who believe in conspiracies (9/11 truthers, birthers, etc):
“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.
ReplyDeleteSo the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason….
The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”
From an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.
That evolutionist. Karl Popper. said the same thing... of course he later changed his mind (see "Expelled" to see the main reasoning why).
Just in case the Karl Popper link doesn't work:
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=a9hgb5uSVF8C&pg=PA215&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false
.
“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind” ~ Plato
ReplyDeleteAnd atheism has what exactly to do with DNA pseudogenes and evolution?
Panda's Thumb is similar to TalkOrigins. It is the same as you saying, "But Froggie, ICR headlines are just as legitimate as all that complicated sciencey stuff, didn't you know?"
Lol. ICR is not science, even remotely, thats the point. Panda's Thumb is a blog which promotes science, against sites like ICR who attempt to misuse and undermine it. Theres a huge difference.
Also, I think it's extremely funny you criticise my linking to Panda's Thumb (note - for the opinions of scientists), yet you quote a whole swathe of nonsense from Tom Bethell. Who's expetise in evolutionary biology is staggering, obviously:
Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”
ROFL!
Ah, Expelled. It's like Godwin's Law - bring up Expelled in your argument and all credibility goes out the window.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI have always wanted to see someone ROFL. You have used these statements (lol, ROFL) quite a few times that make me wonder what your age is. Does your mom walk in on you in your room and wonder what your doing rolling on the floor next to you wireless keyboard... arms wrapped around your stomach... rolling. I guess if it were me walking in on my boy I would be happy he wasn't shuffling through a bunch of 70's Playboys he picked up at a garage sale.
At any rate, if you read these sites and their example[s] of Vitamin-C Pseudogene predictions. (They predicted "a" considering their preconceived [a priori] idea of evolutionary naturalism.) Articles were written on this evidence, PBS type documentaries were done touting this pseudogene evidence, etc, etc. The bottom line Oranges is that the ICR article got it right... considering, that is, the weight evolutionary scientists, professor, the media, and sites like Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins put into this argument.
I know this may be tough to swallow, but you have to admit - in the least - that there may have been too many eggs put in this basket. Just maybe? And I say this with the idea that "science is self-correcting." Remember, I am not saying that this collapse of this argument refutes evolution as a whole, just this one example which you see to want to defend rather than just admit what Discover, Scientific American, Nature and others are saying.
So Oranges -- again -- did science self-correct in this case?
Also, out of curiosity, I am wondering something. Allow me to set this up a bit. I have read most Gould, most Mayr, all Darwin, etc. I get most science magazines, and visit sites like Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins. I have watched most specials on Discover, TLC, etc. that take an evolutionary position. So the question is this: what theistic, intelligent design, creationist, or DVD documentaries have you read or watched?
Have you considered at least one book? If you reflect on this and am interested in setting aside some of your biases temporarily, at least for one read, I have a good recommendation: Unshakable Foundations.
Maybe I am wrong and you have set aside your walls or preconceptions and allowed your arguments (not Panda's arguments) to be tried in the marketplace of ideas? If so, I would be interested in which authors you have read.
Much Thought, PapaG
.
*rests chin in fists in anticipation
ReplyDeleteBTW, I often ROFL but its when I am playing with my babies.
ReplyDeleteI also remember a time in my youth when my Mom made my Atheist Dad throw out all his extensive playboy collection. Needless to say, after the word got out to the neighborhood kids, they never made it to the city dump. I stopped seeing kids play hockey outside also for a long time. Maybe just a coincidence.
All joking aside, I am very interested in the response because everyone here knows that I tout dogmatic evolutionists are not scientists. They are Atheists in a lab coat. I call them "Lab Coatauthoritarians" (Google it)
Maybe they will see the danger when they take the philosophical position, and paradigm, of metaphysical naturalism. It's not science. That is why I say that Creation Scientists, or God believing scientists, are more accurate scientists then Evolutionists, evolution believing scientists. Yea, I said it. Creation Scientists are more open to let the evidence drive the conclusion instead of the other way around.
Read my side bar:
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes. Its dogmatic, its not science.
Everyone meet my new friend Papa Giorgio. Make him feel welcome, because he certainly is.
.
ReplyDeleteHaw ha! Very funny input on the "city dump." I would have to agree with you Dan. So would one of the co-authors of one of the most used chemical evolutionary textbooks. The most used textbooks until science self-corrected itself that is. When the interviewer asked Dr. Dean H. Kenyon this, "What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?" Doc Kenyon said this:
“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process. The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process. Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment. If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but you’re going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”
.
ReplyDeleteI build further on this in a paper (proposed chapter) I wrote and have on Scribd:
Technology Junkies
.
Even though I said all joking aside the playboy story was true, and it was back in 1976 or 1977. That is why your comment struck that memory cord.
ReplyDeleteOk moving on. Reading Technology Junkies now.
I hear crickets here. Hmm
It's interesting to see someone divert attention from the discussion. Eloquently, admittedly.
ReplyDeleteFyi, "lol" and "rofl" are indicative of amusement and great amusement respectively, not necessarily literal. But I'm sure you know that. Still, as long as you feel superior, lol. Similarly, if it makes you feel gooey inside to know you've seen more creationist docs than me, feel free. I'm glad to say you're correct.
But wait - I don't watch PBS documentaries either, or Discover, TLC (who?), or any others which take, as you say, an "evolutionary position". You mean they take the current accepted scientific position? Either way, I havent seen them, sorry. I've said before in discussions with Dan and others that I am not a scientist, as Dan is not. I am, I admit, a layman, albeit a moderately well educated one.
But here's the rub - I cannot in all conscience refute the prevailing scientific (apologies to pvblivs) consensus, in biology, physics, or any other area of science. I am not a scientist in those fields. Specifically, I am not a biologist, even less an evolutionary biologist. Neither is Dan. So when Dan claims evolution to be false, as he does repeatedly, he relies on places like ICR, which attempt to pass themselves off as "real science". Actually ICR attempt to cherrypick headlines to back their ideological position. But what do the overwhelming majority of scientists believe? The people who DO the studies ICR misrepresent?
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with atheism. Another diversion in your recent posts, attempting through quotations to link evolution to atheism, and then to politics, communism etc. Many theists are quite happy to accept the scientific fact of evolution (or any other area of science) and realise it does not conflict with their faith. That is primarily a US phenomenon. Here in UK, it really isn't an issue. The US really is a fascinating contradiction - a world leading technical and scientific powerhouse, potentially crippled by repeated attempts by fundamentalists to roll back scientific knowledge, particularly amongst young people and students.
tbc....
continued....
ReplyDeleteSee, in answering your superior and condescending post, I've spent much too long on things which are, frankly, irrelevant. So I'll address the relevant, the science. Have there "been too many eggs put in this [pseudogene] basket"? I have no idea. From the limited reading I have done recently, it appears scientists in this particular field are discovering more over time. Colour me shocked. Does this mean that pseudogenes are evidence for creation? Or Evolution? You yourself seem to be arguing that too much weight was given to prior discoveries. But what is the current thinking amongst the experts in the field? My understanding is that scientists involved in DNA and pseudogene research have not changed their minds in terms of how they occur, but some studies (again by actual scientists ... not ICR) suggest they may have previously unexpected function. Fascinating stuff, for sure.
So? How does this help creationists? That scientists were "wrong" in the past, if true, does not mean you can leap direct to God Did It. Science cannot by its very nature deal in the supernatural, it must deal in evidence. I know Dan seems to have a problem accepting that science cannot deal with the supernatural. The scientific consensus still appears to be that pseudogenes are one of the many evidences for evolution. And if that proves not to be the case, it will be scientists who will discover that fact and reveal it to the world, and I will be delighted to defer to the experts. The ICR misrepresenting studies won't cut it, I'm afraid. If scientists find that pseudogenes do not provide evidence for evolution, fine by me. In fact, if scientists discover proof for a god, or gods, or a creator, I will be equally delighted. I have no investment in evolution. It is simply what the evidence suggests according to the experts. You see, this isn't an argument between me and Dan, or me and you. It's about what the experts in the field think, vs those trying to make the evidence fit religious dogma.
Finally, it's telling that it's actually YOU who displays the greater immaturity, both in terms of sneering at internet slang and questioning my education age and reading. Your quotes which conflate evolution with atheism and social and political crimes just confirms that the preconception and bias is yours.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes. Its dogmatic, its not science."
Science cannot consider supernatural causes or phenonenon. You don't understand science Dan. How can it possibly explain poofing objects into existence, or talking snakes? Thats not to say they didn't happen, just that science can have nothing whatsoever to say about them, and anything supernatural. And it's not "atheists" who cannot consider the supernatural, it is "scientists". Two different things. Theist scientists also cannot consider the supernatural.
"I hear crickets here. Hmm"
Says the man who still hasnt answered Froggie's question, lol. Still, no doubt you've been distracted and entertained by your new friend and his obfuscation.
Oranges,
ReplyDeleteYou go from telling PapaG,
>>In fact, if scientists discover proof [evidence] for a god, or gods, or a creator, I will be equally delighted.
Then telling me,
>>Science cannot consider supernatural causes or phenonenon.
So which is it? Can they or can't they? Would a "happy middle" and more honest to say that:
Scientists will not consider supernatural causes or phenonenon.
Like PapaG's paper (Technology Junkies), that I highly recommend, quoted
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" I. L. Cohen
Let the evidence guide the science, agree? Evidence of design is very easily determined if evolution certainly is falsified. Right? Where else do we go otherwise? You claim that we dogmatically rant in cadence that "God did it" but what the evidence here shows is that it is the evolutionists that dogmatically chant, in cadence, "Nature did it"
>>Theist scientists also cannot consider the supernatural.
*Pfffft, poppycock.
So, is it such a crime to test for and consider God, Creator, as the reason, or primer, of events? I certainly am not saying that science should take it on faith or anything, but science certainly could test for and consider an intelligence orchestrating events as we best can tell at this time. It is an explanation for phenomena, it is falsifiable. To dogmatically say that "Nature did it" without any other consideration and be shown wrong, is certainly not science. You must understand that point. Do you agree?
Why is it perfectly OK to dogmatically say that evolution did it only to be shown wrong many, many, times (such as this case) and not to say God did it and test for that? Seems a little tilted, don't you agree? In doing so, I must concede even, that we may find that God is falsified, once and for all. That is the goal by the secular scientists, BTW. I am confident that will not happen, much like the confidence of the entire, secular, scientific community towards evolution. The only difference is the evidence is showing that the scientific community was/is wrong.
As for the snarkyness, forgive me, as you know all to well I love me some good playful banter, evidenced by the creation of this blog. I take it for granted that I am dealing with mature individuals with tougher skin that is not easily bruised. If I was wrong I will be the first to apologize. I guess now the question is, am I wrong?
I do know how to be gentle with that tender side of you, if you wish. Do you want me to be gentle with you? OK, that sounded real gay.
:7)
.
ReplyDeleteOranges, bear with me and read all of this. No need to respond right away or feel like you are being attacked. Often times genuflecting, facial expressions, pitch in voice all combine to express to the listener our mood. Conversations like these miss out on that and one can interpret or take, easily, something the wrong way. Know that my mood is one of concern and caring for not only the physical you, but the spiritual you. I realize you may not accept the "spiritual" side of you, but know that persons like myself have a deeper care for persons like yourself, not disdain. Which brings me to my point I made earlier.
lol, rofl indicate humoring someone with an aspect of elitism. You should -- if you are going to take the time to debate someone on an issue -- talk to them as if you would be talking to someone face to face - in person. This often times takes practice, but know that when you rofl or lol after a point made -- often -- you are showing signs of immaturity and an adherence to ideology that creates in you a false dichotomy that builds walls that can never be torn down, making you more of a masochist for your time spent here. When you say "answering your superior and condescending post, I've spent much too long on things which are, frankly, irrelevant"... you are only conveying how you come across to the person of this site and visitors to it. [*tooting my own horn now*] I have read 2,000 [+ -] books cover-to-cover, and have about 4,500 books in my meager condo and about 600 DVD documentaries (about 200 copied from my old vhs). So, just maybe you could learn something from me. Just maybe... but you have to come at this conversation with a fresh set of eyes, and I think you are getting them.
Let me explain.
This may surprise you, I agree with you that science, as you define it, Science cannot consider supernatural causes or phenomenon. Agreed.
So what streams of thought then, can you tap into to look for God. That should be your question [and this will be a couple posts]. Again, I think you are mixing historical or origin sciences with true science. I will not belabor the point but ask that you only consider my examples to follow:
1) Although I am back up to about 95% in health and dexterity now, This was not the case a while ago. I was at work a few years back and over a couple of weeks started to get major symptoms that caused me to go to the e-room. They thought it was a stroke (I ended up not being able to brush my teeth with my right hand, write -- which as you can see, is near and dear to me. I am only 1/3 way through this book and you can see from my self-made index that I love to read, and read well). After two MRIs and three spinal taps, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. This leads me to the idea behind this story. The guy who made/invented the MRI, Dr Raymond V. Damadian, is a young earth creationist. Since "creation science" deals with unrepeatable and unobservable instances (like evolution does), he was able easily to separate working science from origins science. Evolutionary thinking had no part in his work, as did creationism either.
Here is a Damadian quote that I like, just to drive my point home: "Dr Damadian says that 'if America is to be rescued, she must be rescued from the pulpit—it is too late for the White House.' He says that Americans need to realize that any country 'runs off its spiritual batteries, not off its bank accounts, and when those batteries are drained, its bank accounts will be empty.'"
...[cont]...
Scientists cannot consider supernatural arguments, because then there would be no science.
ReplyDeleteIf you throw in non-testable step, then you cannot find an answer, and you might as well not bother trying.
See, it's simple. This room over here is where the scientists work. Some of them are theists, but they don't include that in their experiments, because they want to find answers. And this room over here is where the creationists work. They don't make progress, but that's OK, because they don't want to - they don't believe you need anything except a Bronze Age deity who demands that you kill children for talking back to their parents (Lev 20:9)
...
ReplyDelete2) We got to the moon via Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969. One of the major factors that got us there was Wernher von Braun [1912-1977]. If you do not know who he is, here is a short bio:
==========
he was born in Wirsitz (now in Poland) and studied at Berlin and in Switzerland at Zurich. In 1930, he joined a group of scientists who were experimenting with rockets, and in 1938 he became technical director of the Peenemunde military rocket establishment. It was in the 1940’s that he and his team produced the V1 (flying bomb) and the V2 rockets. In the last days of the war, von Braun and his staff, not wishing to be captured by the Soviets, surrendered to US forces. Soon afterwards, von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.
==========
He was a young earth creationist. And here is a quote from him that again drives my point (which is: the separation of science from scientism):
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer... They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
And my 3rd) example is Benjamin Carson. If you go rent the movie (or Pirate Bay it... whatever) "Gifted Hands," you will see a story of one of the most groundbreaking pediatricians. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled "America's Best" as a "super surgeon." Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation's top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 "living-legends" (ICR). He is a young earth creationist as well.
The point is that maybe, just maybe, you have a false dichotomy (subject / object distinction) built up in your mind that is making you argue against straw-men. So the question again is, what other streams of thinking can be tapped into to determine truth, other than philosophical naturalism?
Here I will stop and allow you to respond positively or negatively to this direction of conversation. Sometimes conversations like these are a waste of time and I need to know if I am wasting mine. In the past I use to answer every question thrown at me. In fact, I have a few of my older, unedited debates held indefinitely here: http://disussinggod.blogspot.com/ These larger debates were the last few before I started blogging (first on MySpace, then on Blogger, then on my .com). Now, I will say to a person, "if I can answer two or three of what seem to be your most important [in your mind] objections to Christianity, would you consider accepting Christ into your life?" If the answer is no, I will typically not engage the person that much (unless lead by the Spirit otherwise -- Proverbs 21:2).
So, the question can be tweaked a bit here: "if you think you can learn something from a person like me who comes at life with a theistic worldview?"
...[cont]...
...
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot even dialogue and suspend your pre-conceived biases for this dialogue, then it is throwing pearls before swine. Something I do not do too much anymore. Mind you, you are not a swine, but if you rejects all evidence using the scientific method -- as you understand it -- you do not know history and most ways we get or come to truth. One last pearl I suppose. The following is from a past debate I had with a few person's that were challenging me using your same understanding of what "evidence is" ("what is 'is, in other words):
==========
DEBATE:
==========
Alyeska said: “I don't see enough evidence that God exists therefore [therefore] I don't believe in him.” This is part of the problem; people believe that evidence only constitutes “scientific” evidence. Someone else said that what I posted didn’t constitute "scientific evidence that the Deity exists,” therefore, God, apparently, doesn’t exist. When people hear the word “evidence,” they seem to correlate it to the “scientific method.” I will illustrate from a previous debate a few years back.
Ralson said:
Atheist to Christian: "Prove to me that God exists."
Christian to Atheist: "Prove to me that God does not exist."
Now, the atheist can never have all knowledge and be everywhere in the past to present all at once. So the atheist can never disprove God’s existence. However, the theist, with only one percent of knowledge, can prove God’s existence. How? You might ask. Because there could be enough positive evidence in what we do know to prove a point. However, you need negative evidence to prove your point (the ball is in your court), and this you cannot attain because you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient [God, in other words].
...[cont]...
...[last post]...
ReplyDeleteThe question then is: What evidence do you need? Or better yet: What kind of evidence? Can Science help? Let's see… the scientific method merely shows that if miracles did occur in the past, that science (as currently defined) could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions [of history], excludes laboratory treatment. And Christianity claims to be a historical belief. The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, one that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So how, then, do we deal with the historic claims of Christianity? Like any other historical event, we go to the records.
"What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” (Philosophy for Dummies, by Tom Morris, pp. 57-58)
“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi[2nd ed.], p. 909)
“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, p. 869)
So when Shadow Warchief says, “I haven't seen a single shred of evidence for the existence of God,” is he defining what evidence is and how we get knowledge about past events, and then going to the sources to see if they are credible or not?
.
.
ReplyDeleteNameless Cycnic,
Are you here to throw around straw-men epithets? Or are you here to back up your positions? You are doing what many Leftists do, as Dennis Prager points out:
============
Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
* Racist
* Sexist
* Homophobic
* Islamophobic
* Imperialist
* Bigoted
* Intolerant
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
* Peace
* Fairness
* Tolerance
* The poor
* The disenfranchised
* The environment
These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.
First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.
Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.
Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.
Examples could fill a book.
==========
You are using bad theology (a mis-characterizing of it) to disprove scientism. You make no sense. But you feel if you can prove "evil," which doesn't exist in either science or atheism, you can disprove God. (In other words, you are borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethic to disprove the Judeo-Christian position.) That is nonsensical. (SEE)
.
.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteit's ok, I wasn't accusing you of snarkyness. I did find it amusing you were waiting for my reply when you hadn't replied to Froggie days ago. But thats all it was, amusement. You'll spot when I'm amused, I tend to lol (not literally) or ;-).
Oh, wait, I don't think ;-) is a Papa-approved mode of conversation ...
Papa Giorgio,
"lol, rofl indicate humoring someone with an aspect of elitism. You should -- if you are going to take the time to debate someone on an issue -- talk to them as if you would be talking to someone face to face - in person."
Oh, I should, should I?
.
ReplyDeleteOnly if you wish to be taken seriously. Like your talking about a serious subject to a co-worker. (Or accepting that the person your talking to face-to-face [a great band by-the-by] accepts it as a serious subject/topic). Assuming that is, that you are of a hire-able age (*smile*).
.
Giorgio:
ReplyDeleteThe concepts of good and evil exist outside of judaism and christianity. Anyone who claims that ethical considerations are "borrowing from christianity" may as well be waving a big sign that says "I am lying for Jesus."
"However, the theist, with only one percent of knowledge, can prove [our god's] existence."
All you would have to do is produce him. But no one has. If your god existed, he should be quite evident. There shouldn't be any case of "he might be hiding in the things you don't know." A god that wants us to believe he isn't there or who doesn't care one way or the other might indeed be hiding in the things we don't know. But your god does not exist. If he did, he wouldn't be hiding.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> The concepts of good and evil exist outside of [J]udaism and [C]hristianity.
I have been fighting for years to get you to admit this, but thanks for finally doing so. Thanks for admitting that there is indeed a Creator. Whew, that was a struggle. I applaud your honesty though. Sye would be proud of you.
As you know, "once it can be established that there is a moral law, it follows that there must be a moral law-giver." If Moral law is not subjective, then it is objective. There is a standard. We Christians call that source God.
I am curious though as to what you call that source, or Creator?
.
ReplyDelete(It seems old friends are coming out to play for Dan?)
Pvlivs,
You are wrong. For instance, I will post just a few points and wait for you to tell me how naturalistic evolution accounts for moral evil and right (or ought).
==========
Henry Morris points out that the materialist worldview looks at homosexuality as nature’s way of controlling population numbers as well as a tension lowering device.[1] Lest one think this line of thinking is insane, that is: sexual acts are something from our evolutionary past and advantageous [or part of our adaptation];[2] rape is said to not be a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation – a strategy for maximizing reproductive success....
Ethical Evil?
The first concept that one must understand is that these authors do not view nature alone as imposing a moral “oughtness” into the situation of survival of the fittest. They view rape, for instance, in its historical evolutionary context as neither right nor wrong ethically.[4] Rape, is neither moral nor immoral vis-Ã -vis evolutionary lines of thought, even if ingrained in us from our evolutionary paths of survival.[5] Did you catch that? Even if a rape occurs today, it is neither moral nor immoral, it is merely currently taboo.[6] The biological, amoral, justification of rape is made often times as a survival mechanism bringing up the net “survival status” of a species, usually fraught with examples of homosexual worms, lesbian seagulls, and the like.[7]
[1]Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), 136
[2] Remember, the created order has been rejected in the Roman society as it is today. This leaves us with an Epicurean view of nature, which today is philosophical naturalism expressed in the modern evolutionary theories such as neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium.
[3]Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), 71, 163.
[4] Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 208-209.
[5] Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Penguin, 2002), 162-163.
[6] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 176-180.
[7] Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Touchstone Book, 1995), 492.
(Excerpt from my Roman Epicurian'ism: Natural law & Homosexuality)
==========
So Pvlivs, do you disagree with Dr. William Provine? (Provine is often quoted by Richard Dawkins and is Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University)?
.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think not many here have an "A game."
.
PapaG,
ReplyDeleteAs a disclaimer, Pvb is fascinating to me. Much like Berlinski he doesn't buy into that evolution argument and in that same breath he doesn't buy into that Christian argument either.
.
ReplyDeleteIs he an agnostic? Atheist? Antony Flew has some Aristotelian god in mind, is it something like this? If you break down the 10,000 plus religious and non-religious views in the world, at most they foundationalize into 7-worldviews. Pvb wouldn't be able to escape (neither would Berlinski) from these seven foundational worldviews. Unless he is going to create another prime color in the rainbow?
Origins have two options (well three), either it happened naturally, it was directed, or it existed eternally. Is there a fourth option? Pvb would have to fit in one of those three choices, thus, pigeonholing him in a commitment of some sort. These three views have dire consequences on ethics. How do you say that Mother Teresa is truly right - morally in her actions as compared to Hitler?
Either by consensus (if naturalist consensus - then still determined), which is just as moral as society -- whether micro or macro -- saying vanilla ice-cream is immoral versus chocolate. If by evolutionary conditioning, then it is merely a statement of what is, and produces no oughts.
I am now fascinated myself.
.
.
ReplyDelete“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius as you know has recently made a globe which in its revolution shows the movements of the sun and stars and planets, by day and night, just as they appear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia [barbarians at this time] would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence.”
(Cicero, 106 B.C.–43 B.C.)
.
.
ReplyDelete“Some people, I believe, account for all things which have come to exist, all things which are coming into existence now, and all things which will do so in the future, by attributing them either to nature, … or chance.”
(Plato, 428BC – 347)
.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for admitting that there is indeed a [c]reator."
I have conceded no such thing.
"As you know, 'once it can be established that there is a moral law, it follows that there must be a moral law-giver.' If [m]oral law is not subjective, then it is objective."
Actually, it does not follow that there is a lawgiver. Indeed morality can be objective only if there is no moral lawgiver. If there were a moral lawgiver, then morality would change based on his edicts.
Giorgio:
"You are wrong. For instance, I will post just a few points and wait for you to tell me how naturalistic evolution accounts for moral evil and right (or ought)."
Ooh, it looks like you just swung into the net. I said that morality has existed independently of judaism and christianity. I made no claim that the concept was "borrowed from evolution." That entire line of questioning is invalid.
"I'm starting to think not many here have an 'A game.'"
I suspect that Giorgio might not have one.
"If you break down the 10,000 plus religious and non-religious views in the world, at most they foundationalize into 7-worldviews."
Perhaps, if they are contrived. After all, Dan reduces everything to 2 world views "christianity" and "everything else." However, that is patently contrived.
"Origins have two options (well three), either it happened naturally, it was directed, or it existed eternally. Is there a fourth option? Pvb would have to fit in one of those three choices, thus, pigeonholing him in a commitment of some sort."
Is this where you get your 7 worldviews? Any given worldview can be consistent or inconsistent with the 3 options you stated. That would give eight possible worldviews except that one cannot rule out all the options. One can, however, regard all the options as possible, leading to no commitment whatsoever.
"These three views have dire consequences on ethics."
Origins and ethics are independent of one another. So, those three views have no consequences on ethics.
"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells time by design and not by chance."
Well, I know these things tell time by design because I can watch them being built and because I know people have designed them.
"How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
It might (or might not) be devoid of purpose and intelligence. We have, thus far, been unable to identify any purpose or intelligence.
"Our friend Posidonius as you know has recently made a globe ... Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia [barbarians at this time] would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence?"
They might, if they failed to see the match between the globe and the world it represents. However, a familiarity with the components and the fact that they do not appear without human intervention would suggest a deliberate human artifact.
More generally, we are able to identify human creations because they employ structures that we can verify are not present in the absence of humans. It is the ability to see the "untamed wilderness" that allows us to identify human design.
.
ReplyDeleteI just got back from church and will take a snippet of what you said about worldviews and origins theories. I will post some resources if you or others get the urge to actually read about what you debate about.
There are differing views on this. I like the simplest view versus the seven, but the seven is for the curmudgeon. Here are some examples:
Theism, atheism, deism, finite godism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, see for instance: Doug Powell, The Holman Quick Source Guide to Christian Apologetics (Nashville, TN: Holman Publishers, 2006); and Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers);
Others still reduce it further: Idealism, naturalism, and theism. See L. Russ Bush, A Handbook for Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991).
C.S Lewis dealt with religious worldviews much the same way, comparing philosophical naturalism (atheism), pantheism, and theism - see: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: Macmillan Inc, 1943).
The eternal, began to exist by chance, or began to exist by design fit into all those worldviews. Oh, one last thing. You can see this being built:
Harvard University selected XVIVO to develop an animation that would take their cellular biology students on a journey through the microscopic world of a cell, illustrating mechanisms that allow a white blood cell to sense its surroundings and respond to an external stimulus. This award winning piece was the first topic in a series of animations XVIVO is creating for Harvards educational website BioVisions at Harvard.
When I get some time we will delve into ethics.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteMy, you do go on, don't you?
You left out "agnosticism" (which is odd, since you even mentioned it earlier). I know it pains you to admit it, but not everyone feels that they have all the answers. And many of us are comfortable with this.
Cutting and pasting that much, by the way? It's rude. Filibustering does not win an argument, it just drags it out.
And Ralston's point, incidentally, that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" is ridiculous. It's the "invisible unicorn" argument, fancied up with some pretty language.
Firstly. An agnostic falls in those worldviews (more explained in second post).
ReplyDeleteThat "cut n' paste" was me responding to a similar query. I have about 1,200 of those types of debates/discussions saved in my Microsoft Word from over a decade of talking to persons like yourself. I could retype it, or I could quote myself. (This is now included as well.)
As for agnosticism, there is a difference within even that belief, let me quote [which is much more preferable to "cut n' paste"] from one of my online papers (you may go there for references):
===
To begin, pantheists claim that God is unknowable because it [God] is above and beyond human logic. In other words, we are told that we cannot intellectually comprehend God because he is beyond all understanding. However, this is nonsensical and self-defeating statement. Why? “Because the very act of claiming that God is beyond logic is a logical statement about God.” Also, to say that we cannot know or comprehend God, as do the agnostics, is to say that we know God. How? I will answer this with a response to agnostic claims by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin:
To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him.
===
So the hard agnostic (one who says "I don't know, and you don't either") is really nothing more than an atheist. The soft agnostic (one that says, "I don't know, but you might") is not holding to a worldview, they are in lack of one [sorta].
As for the charge of filibustering. I try and stick to one argument or challenge. I do not ask many disconnected questions - that is filibustering in my minds eye, something atheists are good at. I respect peoples arguments and skepticism and respond with that in mind (if honestly placed). I treat the other person failrly and offer arguments that they can chew on. Too often the skeptic will ask a question, say, "can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it," and not wait for the linear, in-depth, logically sound and reasoned response for it. They want a "yes" or "no" answer, not realizing the question is null due to internal inconsistencies similar to someone asking what the color green smells like. But typically, they are not prepared or willing to engage in challenges or questions they make in any depth. They want a that "yes" or "no" so they can go on rejecting God on false premises.
Pvb, may I be so bold as to say that I think you have already shown your cards and your disrespect for arguments or beliefs from Christians.
...let me explain:
...[cont]...
.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"...but that's OK, because they don't want to - they don't believe you need anything except a Bronze Age deity who demands that you kill children for talking back to their parents"
From this statement I can surmise a few things. One is that you have and use a metanarrative to judge all views, an absolute so-to-speak. In the above statement you show that you have an affinity to the evolutionary version of a metanaarative with views of gods and goddesses and their roots in the "evolution" of religious beliefs.
That you believe -- without a god in mind apparently -- that absolute categories of evil actions exist, and, not only that... ...but that when you make such a statement you expect everyone else to accept these moral categories as well, otherwise, why make the statement? This position disproves any pretense of agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, finite godism, etc. (Albeit unrealized perhaps.)
Take note as well that in the above statement you used logic/reason (the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and the like). Logic and reason are not accounted for in philosophical naturalism [atheism], pantheism, and the like. Again, rightly understood, many of your positions in that small statement presuppose theism... whether you yourself believe in it or not. Or anything at all for that matter. You are borrowing from one worldview to prop up another or no view.
This is why I say the soft agnostic does not have a worldview "sorta". He borrows from differing worldviews (there are only 7 he can choose from) and piece-meals them into a fabric that serves his whims in that particular moment. Not realizing the whole time that some of what he states "here" conflicts with foundationally with what he says "there." If he (when I say "he," I am including both sexes) is truly soft, then he will begin to realize that he can know truth, and by doing so is already on the road to rejecting many of those seven.
I am cleaning a neighbors deck and windows today. I have not worked for over two-years and need all the side-jobs I can get.
I will let you pick a topic from what we discussed already, and let's have at it. We will try to stay focused. You can help me do that, and I you. We could start a book club. I could choose a book and we can read a chapter one week, discuss it the next -- and so on until we finish it. Then you can choose a book. Serious questions demand serious investigations. Let me know.
PapaG
.
.
ReplyDeleteFor some levity:
How To Tell A Joke
.
A quick perusal of your blog(s) Papa Giorgio shows you have discussed these topics many many times in various places, and exasperated many with pages and pages of quotes and philosophical apologetics.
ReplyDeleteGood for you mate, you do put some time into it, that's obvious. I don't doubt your knowledge of the sources you quote, or your belief in creationism.
But it does appear you need these discussions somehow. Long, sprawling, quote-filled discussions. Your motivation appears to be ... the discussion itself? And it continues here it seems, with your challenge to pvblivs.
Which is all fine, but thats quite different from people popping in here to comment on whatever weird thoughts Dan has had that day.
So, I and my elitist acronyms will leave you to it, you're too much work and frankly annoyingly arrogant to boot.
We're actually the same age, btw.
"Take note as well that in the above statement you used logic/reason (the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and the like). Logic and reason are not accounted for in philosophical naturalism [atheism], pantheism, and the like. Again, rightly understood, many of your positions in that small statement presuppose theism... whether you yourself believe in it or not. Or anything at all for that matter. You are borrowing from one worldview to prop up another or no view."
ReplyDeleteOh no here we go again. It been a while since I posted here Dan but I have been lurking. It seems like it was about a year ago we were discussing with you and Sye why a claim like this is flawed.
Papa Giorgio, I too perused your posts here and your blogs and I'm not sure where to begin. What you seem to believe supports your claims in your posts is riddled with presuppositions, pompous rhetoric and subjectivity. Right now it seems more like your here to preach to us not to discuss anything. Maybe if you picked one simple point and kept your posts brief you might get more of a response from the regulars here. If your your interested in a discussion, I look forward to your points even if we agree to disagree. If you still feel you need to preach to us by cutting and pasting your tracts of self-righteous certitudes, I cannot promise I'll bother to read them. Either way, Good luck on your ventures.
~Atomic Chimp
.
ReplyDeleteOranges
I love philosophy, history, religion, theology, apologetics, and the like. I use to like carrying a loaded .45 in my waist band. The energy I exerted building one kingdom I now put elsewhere. Three felonies and a run-in with a Christian Sheriff challenging my worldview led me down a road of education and adventure of mind and me being skeptical and a cynical at first and then realizing my arguments didn't stand up to the weight of the evidence I was railing against in my life style and my spirit.
I come to these types of places when I get the urge to reach out. Reach out? [you say]. Yes, reach out. I come here leaving my mind open enough to be changed. I also come here with the explicit reason to #1, defend the faith at sites like these. And #2, to change peoples minds. Or in the least, challenge their worldview so they will be invigorated to extend their search. (May I insert here that Christ's Kingdom will survive with or without me and it is He who changes the mind ultimately... we are merely conduits for higher thoughts than our own.)
I have my own blog to circle wagons around, so I will not camp out here, or "pop... in here to comment on whatever weird thoughts [Orange] has had that day." Because if I did that with the mindset that I will never accept the opposing argument by taking it serious or not change my mind under the weight of the evidence, by "popping" in here to merely comment on something... I would be a masochist. I would display a need some psychosomatic reasoning or urge for self mutilation in thought.
I wish, if Pvb steps out of his "safe zone" and wants to read a couple of books over the next year (of his and I's choosing), I would hope you would likewise step out of your "safe zone" and join in. The onus is on Pvb, so you can just hold off on any commitment.
So to recap, I am arrogant at times, that's part of the human condition (read my "About Us" on my main blog page). But I have found that when others are use to being such, they are really wanting to make room for theirs. My mind is open to changing, but often I find that the same test for truth I apply to the 10,000[+] religions and modes of thoughts in the world via there foundational premises is something the other person hasn't done. There is a test that I as a believer have applied to my faith (worldview) and other worldviews.
[...]
And Oranges, it isn't "cause the Bible says." Finally, you are more than welcome to graciously bow out. Well... bow out at least. (*!Oh Snap!*)
One thing I don't want to do is chase you away from giving Dan hits on his visitor list. So make sure you stay and hang out in the background.
G.
.
.
ReplyDeleteAtomic Chimp ... the word you were looking for is "polemicist". Which is why when someone asks me about myself, I respond merely that I am a Renaissance man in my own sub-culture. The floor is open.
.
Papa Giorgio said,"Atomic Chimp ... the word you were looking for is "polemicist"."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure those were the words I wanted to post. I don't remember looking for any words but if I were, that definitely wouldn't have been one of them.
Good Luck 'G'!
~Atomic Chimp
.
ReplyDeletePolemicist (or, polemics) is not a bad word, nor does it denote falsity. One of my favorite polemicists is Christopher Hitchens. (NOTE: I am not saying I am equal to him in any way.)
Many of the greatest apologists/theologians throughout church history have used rhetoric and the like (NOTE: I am not saying I am equal to them in any way).
An aside. My old church has a private school that starts teaching Latin and Greek in 3rd grade, rhetoric, logic, Greek thought, polemics, plays, and the like follow. By the time they are graduated... ...well, I wouldn't want one of them in my class if I were a secular professor.
.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteNow, first of all, if you're going to quote me, don't attribute it to Publius. It's rude. Plus, he's not likely to defend my arguments. We are entirely different flavors of agnostic. He's firmly in the center, I'm more off to the doubting side.
Why do you insist on arguing in circles? "You claim you're an atheist, but because you mentioned God, you obviously believe in Him."
Don't be an idiot. This site starts from a central thesis, that Dan believes in God. It would be disingenuous of those of us who come wandering in to claim that we have no idea what he's talking about. I happen to have studied a number of religions. Should I not refer to G-d if I were to be debating a evangelical Jew?
And incidentally, you're losing your audience. Because, frankly, you're verbose and somewhat disinteresting. (Yes, "dis-", not "un-" - even if your arguments have merit, the way you present them is tedious and somewhat generic. So people quickly lose interest, rather than not being interested in the first place.) By cutting and pasting your pat arguments, you're like trying to weed through a textbook (or an entire chapter of "begats").
Your circular arguments and false premises, dressed up in $50 words and obscure philosophical concepts, are merely annoying. You aren't going to change anyone's mind simply by mischaracterizing their argument and deciding that you win because what you claim they said is wrong.
By the time they are graduated... ...well, I wouldn't want one of them in my class if I were a secular professor.
ReplyDeleteWow, a whole education on how to master rhetorical devices. This is what I keep wondering about. If a god is such a great and obvious thing, why do people have to get mastery in deception and trickery to be an apologist?
I would welcome one of them or two in my class. But I would ask them to let us have the discussion out of class, and be honest when I showed their trickery. I doubt they would agree. Surely a trick such as "what are you afraid of professor ..." or other common playground tactics that other students would take seriously ... but it could be fun.
The "prediction" that some pseudogenes would be found to have a function dates from before the 1990s. It is an obvious conclusion that given the rates of duplications and pseudogenizations, these pieces of DNA would be available as evolutionary play dough. Nothing surprising, nothing supporting cdesign proponentists.
ReplyDeleteG.E.
Did I say I had a problem with that word?! I don't think I did. I'm confident I stated my thoughts in a clear and concise manor using all the words I planed on using. I might have had more I could have said but, again I'm sure "Polemicist" would not have been one of the words I would have used.
ReplyDeletePapa Giorgio said,"...I wouldn't want one of them in my class if I were a secular professor." Is that so?
Please continue with your sharing with us. You seem to need to tell us all about you, and I find it diverting & very telling.
.
ReplyDeleteOkay, now I am confused. I apologize Nameless Cynic. I didn't catch the meaning behind -- "You claim you're an atheist, but because you mentioned God, you obviously believe in Him." I apologize that I didn't catch your meaning there. Since this seems to be the only specific item mentioned in your ad homonym, maybe you can restate it if you do not mind verbosity.
Atomic, do you live close? I will have a few Belgium beers with you and talk about myself all night. (As friends... this is not a date!)
Photosynthesis, "Wow, a whole education on how to master rhetorical devices."
These kids need to know rhetoric, deception, and trickery in order to weed out good thinking from bad. For instance [verbosity warning]:
=====
Dr. Duane Gish made this point in a debate with famous anthropologist professor Ashley Montagu (April 12, 1980) at Princeton University:
• Dr. Gish said: “Years and years of embryological research was essentially wasted because people, convinced of the theory of evolution and that embryos recapitulated their evolutionary ancestry, spent much of their time in embryological research trying to develop phylogenies based on the data of embryology. As I mentioned earlier, embryologists have abandoned the theory of embryological recapitulation. They don’t believe it. They know its not true…. It produced bad research rather than the good research that should have been done.”
• Dr. Montagu replied: “The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstand in a famous paper, since when no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.”
• Dr. Gish: “Ladies and gentlemen, I have traveled all over the world. I have debated and lectured on many, many major university campuses, and it is hardly a single university campus that I appear on that some student does not tell me that he is taught the theory of embryological recapitulation right there at that university. I’ve had many evolutionists argue the evidence for evolution from embryological recapitulation. Unfortunately, as Dr. Montagu has said, it is a thoroughly discredited theory, but it is still taught in most biology textbooks and in most universities and school as evidence for evolution.”
• Dr. Montagu: “Well ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, called universities, are not educational institutions at all or universities; they are institutes for mis-education.”
Princeton, at this time (where this debate took place in 1980), taught and used textbooks that showed recapitulation to be true (even though more than a hundred years earlier it was shown to be a fraud). Which I’m sure was very comforting for parents who were forking out multiple thousands for their sons or daughters education only to find that Princeton is an institute for mis-education.
=====
Giorgio:
ReplyDelete"Pvb, may I be so bold as to say that I think you have already shown your cards and your disrespect for arguments or beliefs from Christians."
Well, that's a very bold claim. Too bad you attempt to back it up by attributing to me something I never said. Our resident Cynic called it rude. I call it dishonest. And it raises the spectre of doubt over your entire argument. An argument may be long because it needs to be to reach a particular intricate conclusion in a valid manner. It may also be long because it conceals an exquisitely subtle flaw. Guess which possibility I think to hold for yours.
"I didn't catch the meaning behind -- 'You claim you're an atheist, but because you mentioned God, you obviously believe in Him.'"
He appears to be characterizing your argument style. Indeed it reflects the tactic that you used to claim "pantheism" (which actually identifies god with nature) is self-defeating. But let's take the claim of something being beyond understanding. It does not mean (as you try to suggest) that no claims can be made about the thing. If something is beyond the understanding of a given system then there exist claims about it, the claims being meaningful within the system, that cannot be determined true or false within the system. To say that something is beyond all understanding is to say that, given any system, that thing is incomprehensible within the system are there exists a larger system, encompassing the first, in which that thing is incomprehensible.
Let me use something not in dispute. The concept of truth is ultimately incomprehensible. Sure, we can identify some statements as true, "snow is white," "crows are black." But we cannot give a comprehensive definition of truth. If we could, we could identify whether the statement "this statement is not true" is true or not.
In the same way, when people say that the concept of "god" is incomprehensible, they are saying that any notion one might have of "god" is necessarily incomplete, not that no statements can be made.
Papa Giorgio said,"Atomic, do you live close? I will have a few Belgium beers with you and talk about myself all night. (As friends... this is not a date!)"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you can "G". Thanks for the offer but I'd rather approach this like the late Marlin Perkins:
'As the primate we have affectionately nicknamed "G" begins to perform his daily rituals of self-abuse, Jim & I will be hidden behind the blog manning the Camera.' ;-)
~AC
G,
ReplyDeleteI didn't catch the meaning behind -- "You claim you're an atheist, but because you mentioned God, you obviously believe in Him." I apologize that I didn't catch your meaning there.
I apologize that I wasn't clear. I'm restating your premise.
But you feel if you can prove "evil," which doesn't exist in either science or atheism, you can disprove God. (In other words, you are borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethic to disprove the Judeo-Christian position.) That is nonsensical.
and
That you believe -- without a god in mind apparently -- that absolute categories of evil actions exist, and, not only that... ...but that when you make such a statement you expect everyone else to accept these moral categories as well, otherwise, why make the statement? This position disproves any pretense of agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, finite godism, etc. (Albeit unrealized perhaps.)
How? Why? Because of the ridiculous (but still continuously restated)claim that "atheists have nor morals"? Anyone except a sociopath can accept that some actions are, in their nature, wrong (see, for example, murder, rape, child abuse). So, if you're claiming ownership of the word "evil," and that any use of it defines the user as "Christian," then you are a fool, and your argument is invalid.
Do you object to me calling you "verbose"? You took four posts and over 2000 words to make your argument to Oranges. Which you then followed with another 300 word response to me. Which I didn't see (and am only now responding to) because I zoned out and didn't finish your extended, extensive pummelling of a deceased equine.
I know you hate "lol" and "rofl" - ever seen "tl:dr"?
I'll cheerfully ignore your quote from somebody else's work (it's built on a faulty premise and mischaracterizes secular arguments), to mock this:
You are using bad theology (a mis-characterizing of it) to disprove scientism.
I gave you the reference, from the Old Testament. A requirement that children who talk back to their parents should be killed. Where is the bad theology?
.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of primates Atomic Chimp, you may enjoy the evolutionary in-house debate of Apes being devolved from man, I mention it in my The Vitamin C Pseudogene Argument Crumbles Slowly post a while ago.
So if you are calling me a monkey's uncle. I at least am better than the rock you and I evolved from -- so That could be good. However, if you are lumping me in with Apes, according to a camp of evolutionists, you could be calling me dumb? At either rate. I will take this as a love tap. (This is where Oranges should ROFL, at least at my bad attempts at humor.)
.
.
ReplyDeleteCynic,
I never said atheists have no morals? Your setting up straw men-and tearing them down. What I was arguing there is not that. (Thank you for taking the time to clarify.)
Explaining them ontologically is a whole-nother ballpark. Watch this 37-second summation of an evolutionary biologists debate with I.D. legend, Phillip Johnson:
Atheist and staunch evolutionist Dr. William Provine (who is often quoted by Richard Dawkins and is Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University) admits what life has in stored if Darwinism is true.
So as atheists, you must tell us why -- without merely describing nature -- why we ought not to do this:
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.)
Or why Gandhi is wrong when he says this:
"We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
Or why Mother Teresa's acts were better than those two's actions? Without stating "what is."
.
.
ReplyDeleteTwo things. A great example of some of what we are talking about here. Here is a quick video of Dr. William Lane Craig in the Q&A session of his debate with Dr. Peter Atkins.It is three minutes long.
Combine that with a quote I just added to my "Quote" page on my blog. It is just under the Montaigne quote (which always stays at the top) and is taken from Seeking God In Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. The portion about creation science I am not interested in debating -- that is another topic. But I would be interested to see how many people agree with the theist, and how many people disagree with the atheist.
G Dawg,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on using dishonest arguments? If the substance of them isn't either a lie or a deliberate misstatement of the facts, it involves implications that are unrelated to the facts of the matter.
Your video includes "and these are basically Darwin's views." Crap. Darwin started in the Church of England, and by the end of his life, like many of the children of the Enlightenment (you know, like most of our founding fathers) was a deist.
And then you ask why we shouldn't believe two racist statements. Short answer? "Because they're racist." Do you believe them? If not, why not? The Bible certainly doesn't oppose racism. In the words of Judge Bazile (Loving v. Virginia):
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
P. Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteEmbryonic recapitulation: Wrong, wrong, and exceedingly wrong. What you showed me is precisely deception coming from this Gish guy.
1. Evolution does not depend on embryonic recapitulation. Insisting on this is thus a red-herring. Not only that, it is a distraction aiming at ad hominem attacks (all these dishonest evolutionists keep teaching embryonic recapitulation despite it was proven wrong! Thus, evolution is wrong).
2. I learned about Haeckel's idea of embryonic recapitulation as being a nice but wrong idea back in the 1980s. This from a secular school that is not even close to the prestige of Princeton.
3. What the creationist charlatans, such experts in deception, insist on being Haeckel's theory is not Haeckel's theory being taught. It is the evo/devo paradigm, which finds evidence for evolution in the similarity of embryonic development, which is very different to recapitulation. Let me repeat: similarity in embryonic development, not recapitulation of evolutionary steps. Again: similarity in development, not recapitulation of evolutionary steps.
4. Example: we develop the starting of a tail as embryos. Embryos from whales show the starts of developing legs (some even get to develop a few leg bones). Embryos are difficult to distinguish from each other at some early phases of development. The illustration showing these similarities, often photographs, are "mistaken" by the creationist charlatans for Haeckel's drawings. Just to be sure you get it: we don't go through a fish state, nor through a reptile stage. We just have very early stages of development in common.
5. I repeat, evolution does not depend on recapitulation.
6. I repeat: similarity of development shows signs of common ancestry and confirm evolutionary histories such as whales coming from terrestrial animals. It is not just the leg-buds, which more often than not are later absorbed, but also the similarity in development to terrestrial animals.
7. Since students rarely learn things right the first time (otherwise we would see A+ all over the place), might mistake evo/devo for recapitulation. However, I have seen several videos by creationist charlatans showing the evo/devo paradigm as if it were Haeckel's recapitulation (showing illustrations in books I have read myself). Thus, while students might be honestly mistaken, the creationist charlatans have no excuse.
8. No research in embryology has been a waste of time and resources. Even if the research had been inspired by the wrong idea (often we want to know if an idea is wrong or right), such research has been useful for understanding development. We study these things for many more reasons than evolution, you know?
9. There is a contradiction in this rhetoric. If no respectable biologist believed recapitulation, how would anybody waste resources in bad research? How research inspired by the wrong idea would be bad research if the experiments were well designed, and good data collected? You should obviously see the rhetorical trickery used by this Gish guy.
The expertise in rhetorical devices is used for deception by creationists. I have no doubt about it.
G.E.
.
ReplyDeletePhoto
You said: "all these dishonest evolutionists keep teaching embryonic recapitulation despite it was proven wrong! Thus, evolution is wrong" Neither I nor Gish said this. At the time this debate took place the same exact drawings that Haeckel drew which were shown to be false a hundred years ago. The same ones Mayr put in his book, "What is Evolution" (2002). The same ideas behind the "Biogenetic Law" Haeckel taught as well was taught in this textbook, and even though the pics are updates in my son's biology textbooks from Jr. and high school, they still teach a form of it (gill slits and all).
======
Another Haeckel heresy that still permeates today’s campuses are that of human embryo’s having gill-slits. In P. H. Raven’s and G. B. Johnson’s textbook, Biology, we find on p. 396 this (1992):
“In many cases the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors. For example, early in their development, human embryos possess gill slits like a fish.”
This flies in the face of these two prominent evolutionary biologists, one being Geirge Gaylord Simpson who says (in 1965), “It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” And professor of biology at Yale, Keith Thompson, said (in 1988):
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties.”
======
Nope, they are still teaching it at community colleges and at my son's high school. (I know personally, I keep all these textbooks when I went to community college and my son's textbooks.) And during at the same time this debate took place they were teaching it at this $30,000 dollar a year graduate school.
This has nothing to do with evolution being true or not!? It does have everything to do with these graduates from the private school I mentioned being able to weed out bad thinking and how to think critically, properly. Which was the main point we were on.
“Logic – ‘deals with the methods of valid thinking; it reveals how to draw proper conclusions from premises. It is a prerequisite of all thinking, including all theological thought. Logic is such an inescapable tool that even those who deny it cannot avoid using it, for it is built into the very fabric of the rational universe’.”
If you don't know, rhetoric is one of the important things studied in classical education, so they have examples of how to deal - critically - with bad thinking, what you termed as trickery. Which is what many of our professors have. Which was my point before. If a professor believes that all that exists is nature, these students then know what the consequences are of this confining view. They realize that “Intellectual maturity is closely linked with one’s awareness about worldviews.” More so than here.
So Giogio, then I lied about eht evo/devo?
ReplyDeleteTell me please what this bit means:
with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors
See? Characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors. Not recapitulating ancestors. Characteristics of the embryos. Not recapitulation of ancestry. Again, characteristics of the embryos, not recapitulation (how many times do you want me to repeat?) See the difference at all?
Now, the text is a bit misleading, I give you that. But it is talking about evo/devo, not about recapitulation. It should be understandable, that, if we have common ancestry with fish, and we have stages of development in common with fish, we inherited those stages from those common ancestors. Again, not the same as recapitulation. We are not fish at any stage, we show signs in common with fish embryo development (the slits, for instance), but we never have true gills. We show signs in common with reptiles, but we are never reptiles.
I am not against studying rhetoric. I am against using it to arm yourself with trickery and misinformation devices.
G.E.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteAnd during at the same time this debate took place they were teaching it at this $30,000 dollar a year graduate school.
You don't know that they were teaching recapitulation. You assume it from the debate. I insist. If the students confirmed such thing, they were most probably mistaken (mistook evo/devo for recapitulation, just as you do) because I doubt my old little school would be more advanced than Princeton at that time.
G.E.
.
ReplyDeleteTwo things Cynic,
"...(you know, like most of our founding fathers) was a deist" This is neither here nor there, but this is easily disproved. You are more than welcome to continue this conversation over here.
Secondly, the Bible says (Genesis) all men and women came from one male and female. Acts says we are all of one blood. Jesus (whom we believe to be God) taught about Adam and Eve. In Numbers we find Moses (a Hebrew) marrying a Cushite woman (the early tribal people of Ethiopia) and his sister Myriam speaking out against this interracial marriage. God struck her with a disease that made her skin ashen because this interacial marriage was blessed by Him. She repented and the ashen white skin condition (which would have made her unclean) left her.
Now of course you can argue the Bible I am sure to you are blue in the face. But the Bible teaches we are all indwelt by the Spirit in that He gave us all the "breath of life."
Evolution since its modern day inception taught that the races came from three different lineages that evolved on separate continents. Besides hunting and boiling off the skin of Aborigines to send the bones back to natural history museums and universities to be studied as bones of the less evolved man,. An Aborigine was even placed in the NY Zoo in the early 1900's (in a cage with a monkey) and people paid to see this less evolved "living missing link."
Gould even points out that "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Interestingly enough, Christians en-mass had recently fought to stop the trade of slaves of the high seas (before you throw out comments, I suggest you read chapters 1 and 3 in Thomas Sowell's book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals)
Darwin himself said about his theory and its consequences: “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
If you never knew about this horrible case of evolution following its logical sequence of thought, you may check this out: Racism and Evolutionary Thought. The second half is about the Aborigine story.
.
ReplyDeletePhoto,
I encourage you to leave your comfy evolutionary space and head over to where I got this quote from:
"When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on the idea that such similarities are ‘common knowledge’"
Read it and the Foot Notes
The two are joined at the hip boss.
.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteI guess you liked this Haeckel example so much you just don't want to see what I mean.
Is it that hard to understand that yes, embryos do give clues about evolution, but that such clues are not recapitulation? Is it truly that hard?
You fell into a charlatan's rhetoric so deeply that you now just can't allow yourself to see that you never stopped to think about this difference. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. However, embryos do show characteristics that tell of common ancestry.
The rhetoric is learned to fool the unaware. Not for properly distinguishing good thinking from bad thinking. Otherwise you would see the trickery as clearly as I do.
I can see the rhetorical devices in your cited paragraph:
When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry.
Of course not. Why admit something that is false? Comparing embryos is not contradictory to knowing that there is no recapitulation. Stages or structures in common are not recapitulation (How many times have repeated this? Will you understand it now?).
In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution.
Assumed? If we see similarities, it is not an assumption. Have you seen those photographs? (Photographs are not the only evidence for embryonic homology by the way.)
This assumption is based on the idea that such similarities are ‘common knowledge’
It is not an assumption. No evolutionist would think this is common knowledge. No evolutionist would assume the similarities are evidence for evolution because the similarities are common knowledge. That does not even make sense.
I suggest you learn what you preach, to distinguish proper thinking from propaganda. The rhetorical devices are way too obvious in most of your examples.
G.E.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteThe two are joined at the hip boss.
That embryos don't recapitulate phylogeny does not mean that embryos do not share structures or even stages depending on the case. That Heackel could have been inspired by similarities to the point of claiming the ontogeny/phylogeny thing, and to the point of exaggerating the similarities, does not mean that we should now close our eyes to any observation of similarity because some charlatan will use that against us.
Should I judge you by the actions of Christians of the past? After all you are joined by the hips as well. Any difference should not matter according to your thinking about the difference between recapitulation and evo/devo.
G.E.
Giorgio,
ReplyDeleteI am off. Otherwise I will keep showing you the propaganda for what it is, your fallacies, and such, and you will keep giving me propaganda and fallacies regardless. I tend to try too hard, so better off than continue. Even if that means you thinking you were right. Fine by me.
My bet: you will give examples of "atheist regimes" doing awful things rather than see my example as illustration of your "fallacy of the joined hips." I might be wrong about what you will do though.
G.E.
.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I wish to correct myself. It was a Pygmy that was put in the zoo. Not an Aborigine.
Horrible Evolutionary Outcomes
G,
ReplyDeleteAnd now you've moved on from philosophy, to include evolutionary biology in the subjects you misrepresent. Aside from this whole argument with photo that you're having (or "were having," since your dishonest representations of evolutionary theory have potentially irritated him to the point where he's not coming back - that's not "winning," by the way, by any measure of the word), now you're lying about the origin of the human species.
I'm not even particularly up-to-date on this line of study, but I do know that the current popular view is that humans apparently evolved in one small region of Africa; the other less popular theory (multiregional continuity), which you're trying to push, has never said that humans developed in only three lineages - there were a number of offshoot mutations, all of whom died off. That's how evolution works, you idiot. Blind groping until something is successful.
There might have been some interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis (because humans are nasty, dirty creatures and will have sex with anything), and there were a number of other offshoots in the homo genus (top of my head, erectus, habilis, georgicus, heidelbergensis - I was living in Heidelberg when I read about that one - and a bunch of others). They're all offshoots, and the fossil record suggests that they all died out.
On top of which, science knows that all this happened before recorded history, and it has to piece it together. It doesn't know everything. If science had found out all the answers already, it would stop.
You continue to lie about far too much of science. It suggests that you've studied it enough that you're picking and choosing nuggets of information, and ignoring anything that disagrees with your limited agenda. Stop it. (And look up the extended meanings of the phrase "bearing false witness" while you're at it. And the difference between "lying by commission" and "lying by omission.")
And incidentally, you aren't going to find me saying that there haven't been racists on both sides of the evolutionary argument. Because people are small-minded and stupid, and will push their own limited agendae at the expense of the truth. (Look at Fox News, Breitbart, and the Shirley Sherrod debacle, for example.)
And do you really want me to get into the racism inherent in the Christian church?
.
ReplyDeleteTwo things Cynic
Evolutionary thought taught we came from three people groups evolved from various lineages from an ancestor of some sort. Through mitochondrial DNA studies, science is catching up the the Genesis understanding of human species coming from one ancestor. Science, in this respect, is catching up to Genesis in various ways. One good read I recommend is by an agnostic is God and the Astronomers. In other words, don't take my word for it, go to an admitted agnostic with the following creds:
"Dr. Jastrow attended Townsend Harris High School, and went to Columbia University for college and graduate school, where he received his A.B., A.M and Ph.D. in theoretical physics, in 1948. Afterwords he joined NASA when it was formed in 1958. He was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. At the same time he was also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). He became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961, and served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University. After his NASA career he became a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College (1981–1992), and was a Member of the NASA Alumni Association. Jastrow was also a Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory." (WIKI)
So what about the three lines? at the beginning of the 20th century there was a view of negroid, mongoloid, and caucasion "races" having seperate evolutionary lineages (all coming from a rock however). To quote Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University and for twenty-five years (1908-1933), he was President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees. Osborn wrote:
"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics... but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens" (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue)
You may also have been referencing my lying[?] mentioning God being more viable that us coming from rocks. Which is what evolution teaches: as our planet cooled from its molten form, clouds formed. Rain created the oceans. Which led to some prebiotic soup (whether flumes at the ocean bottom pulling minerals from the recently cooled rocks or water run-off from the continents) forming some early life.
So the Creationist/I.D.'er says = something greater than us, made us.
The evolutionist says = we came from rocks.
Who is the idiot? One, the guy who's "dumb as a rock?"; or two, the guy who has logic-reason-free will-ethics-origins-etc., grounded in a Designer? A First Cause.
I am sure you will choose the former. (in case you didn't catch the two point. They were 3-lineages, and us coming from rocks.) Quickly however, racism is endemic to survival of the species, it is not endemic to a Universal Governor.
.
.
ReplyDeleteScience is: observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
What is evolution (historical science):
Evolution Is still (even after 150 years): UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!
.
Am I the only one who sees humor in the fact that I mentioned Christian racism, and PG talks about "negroid, mongoloid, and caucasion" races?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you left out "capoid" and "australoid." Are you going to talk about the genetic superiority of the Caucasian races next? Because that's tied in with this fascinatingly racist theory.
Guess what, moron? Science evolves just like people do. Illegitimate theories are left to die by the side of the road. Those same scientists, regressed a few hundred years, felt that the sun rotated around the earth. You remember a guy called Galileo, right? (Who was it who treated him so badly, again? Some church, wasn't it?)
By the way, on the subject of mischaracterization again, let's go with "people coming from rocks." You do know that there are four states of matter, right? Solid, liquid, gas and plasma?
Oh, wait. You like the older theories. I guess you'd go with "earth, air, fire and water." Guess what? Things don't immediately form into rocks.
You know, though. We can now see where this theory on the Christian side that "all atheists are raving attack dogs" comes from. People like you, waving debunked theories, lying about the history and discoveries of science, and being the perfect example of the Arrogant Christian that you don't want to admit exists.
You, PG, are exactly the type of lightning rod that brings out the worst in anybody who thinks. We were having a perfectly civilized discussion around these parts - admittedly, Dan felt slightly flogged by the number of people picking on him, but if you're going to say ignorant things like "atheists are Satanists!" you have to expect that.
Then you come along, writing entire chapters in the responses filled with those lies and mischaracterizations I've been talking about, arrogantly asserting your non-existent superiority on subjects you either know next nothing about, or you know far too much and choose to suppress anything that doesn't support your side.
Dan, I enjoyed talking to you, but PG here pisses me off. He's exactly the kind of dishonest fuck I have absolutely no use for. And you don't want your pages filled with me ranting about this pinhead. So out of respect for you (and with absolutely none for him), I'm going to move on.
Have a good life. You seem like a good person, just with some twisted ideas. He doesn't.
Wow. 98 comments and this is still going. Even worse, the arguments are more clichéd and irrelevant than at the start.
ReplyDelete"The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens ..... reprinted from January/February 1926 issue"
Come on. 1926? You know full well biologists do not think this today. The above quote is evidence only of the racism in society in the 1920's, not evolution.
Evolution Is still (even after 150 years): UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!
You also know full well that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Different area of research.
I'm sure you know this.
The world just hasn't been the same since Darwin invented Racism.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete"The world just hasn't been the same since Darwin invented Racism."
It's like discussing things with my kids, I swear. I posted Stephen Jay Gould's quote to make a point: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." A point made, by-the-by, by a staunch evolutionists (a punctuationist, so not a neodarwinist), not a wild eyed creationist (*says wild eyed creationist*).
Why would this be the case? Is there something native to the theory itself that drives this thinking? What was Darwin's subtitle since almost all of what we are discussing is based loosely off of his theory: The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Which, I suspect is why Darwin intimated his hope about Germany and his theory: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.” (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, p. 270). Which is why I always mention that the "African Eve" story is one based in this Darwinian understanding of competing races:
"As late as 1962, Harvard anthropologist Carleton Coon concluded that modern human races did not suddenly appear, 'fully formed as from the brow of Zeus ,'but that the differences between living races could be explained only in terms of their different evolutionary history, and that each major race followed its own evolution pathway. Coon even wrote that African civilizations were less advanced because black people were the last to evolve into modern humans. The first hominids may have arisen in Africa, he concluded, but the evolution of modern humans occurred in Europe and Asia: 'If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten.'"
Young Earthers, which I am not necessarily defending here, have a very specified set of beliefs. I lay them out in video form in my first (and only) vlog - video blog - which can be found here: Rev. Jeremiah Wright Asking Hannity (and us) To Read James Cones -- So I Did (second video).
The point is, "us fundamentalists" (hyuck hyuck) believe that the first man was medium brown or red in color. In fact, the Hebrew word for Adam is derived from the word that means "red clay." And us "crazy" creationists realize that almost half of the 200 worldwide flood stories from the various people groups from all over the world have a creation story and the first man being created as being red in color. Which, again, affirms Acts when it says we are all from one blood. God blessing interracial marriage in Numbers, and the many pics of our interrelatedness (two sets of twins and a recent cute as a button birth). It affirms Genesis and the interconnectedness of all people to one race. Which gives birth to song lyrics like, "Yellow, black, red and white, we are all precious in his sight." Ingrained in the Christian message of creation is equality. Certainly there have been people who have tried to twist this message (any message) and use it to their own advantage and selfish desires.
In evolutionary theory, however, this inequality is ingrained in the naturalist position. And the "African Eve" story is just another example of this racism "blessed by science."
.
Papa Giorgio:
ReplyDelete1. You are wilfully picking a Gould quote out of its context
2. Plato was not christian, he was a hellenistic pagan, and would consider you lot just as atheistic for denying all the gods but one
3. Plato was wrong on a lot of things. The elements, for one, are observably wrong.
As for the blog: nice job, you're writing the satire for the satirists themselves.
Despite it being blatantly untrue, let's for a second assume that "Biological arguments for racism ... have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
ReplyDeleteThat someone uses or misuses science does not mean the science is untrue.
You would have us discard science because someone has misused it, mostly in the distant past. I'm not sure where that kind of argument leaves Christianity and the attrocities it has inspired, past, present and no doubt future ...
.
ReplyDeleteLaura, first and foremost, hello. Or, as the Kenyan family we have supported for years through YWAM would say, jambo.
To your point number one. Gould was a great writer and a decent historian, and at times, and honest scientist displayed when he would mention the lack of neo-Darwinian evidence to support his and Eldredges' punctuated equilibrium. And the book I pulled that quote from is an excellent read. I recommend it as mandatory reading to understand all sides of this issue. In fact, I recommend it being read by my son's - when they are a bit older and can chew on good reads. This book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, is a whirlwind of history, which is the context of the quote. So, to keep it in context, I scanned the two pages in question from my copy:
Page 127
Page 128
To your point number two. We see eye to eye on this, but I am glad you stated this just in case anyone else here thought Plato post-dated Christ. The "god[s]" that Plato, and later Aristotle honed a bit is the same "concept" that Antony Flew now believes. Sorta. He has kinda settled in the deistic/Aristotilian "god area."
Your point number three. The general point I made still stands.
And your unnamed point four. Thank you... ...I think?
.
.
ReplyDeleteWelcome back Oranges. you are always welcome in my book friend. I wouldn't want to discard science, however, scientism we can do without. But this has nothing to do with racism. I am merely showing that these two worldviews (materialism, philosophical naturalism, dialectics, whatever) do not have to be a priori believed for science to advance.
To quote the atheist and author, Bradley Monton (Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design):
"...But in fact, Newton does not endorse methodological naturalism. In his Opticks, Newton claims that God sometimes intervenes in the world.... Newton’s own approach to physics provides a good counterexample to this—Newton is a leading contributor to the scientific worldview, and yet he does not bind himself by the assumption of uninterruptible natural law."
This is the main point I make all throughout this discussion. My main modus operandi. One way of doing this is by showing the wide-gulf between the two worldviews of a totally "secularized" worldview and its lack of conferring on mankind (and women kink Laura) something greater than being merely an animal.
I am not here to defend YEC, all I am here for ultimately is to get people to cock there head and go, "hmmm... science (good science) marches forward whether one is an I.D.'er, young earther, atheist..." This is the start of healthy dialogue, and would keep people from both sides from the extremes of absolutism, or, ideology.
This is ideology/scientism, not science:
"Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions; rather, they are scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith. Here is Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment -- a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Dinesh D’Souza)
This presupposed - unscientific - belief is not necessary. Again, I am not under the false pretense that I will convert anyone here to a moment where you will fall to your knees in the joyful exclamation that "Yes, I believe! The earth is only 6,000 years old." A person is a Christian whether he or she believes the earth is 6,000 years old or eternal. As persons, we convolute everything we touch (Reformational theology speaking). God is bigger than our misuses of his gifts.
But for me to at the least or minimally convey that materialism is not needed for good science, and, in fact is just as religious a stance as YEC (because it is an ideology before it is a science), we all here can start to communicate a bit more effectively.
.
Of course! It all makes sense now! Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859! And it was only 3 years later that Lincoln signed his Enslavement Proclamation, which consigned all races but the white to servititude!
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't anyone realized this before!
.
ReplyDeleteAgain, children. Straw-men galore.
Real World,
While these next three short jaunts through history do not have anything to do with evolution, you may benefit from their historical value. I will post a link as well to an interview Michael Medved has with an author. Enjoy.
Great Black Patriots From American History (Part 1)
From Bondage To the Halls of Congress (Part 2)
The Civil Rights Movement (Part 3)
The Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism
.
The question, of course, would have to be, are we more like angels, or do we occasionally erase towns from existence because we can?
ReplyDeleteYou know, it's your choice. Either good, churchgoing people killed a bunch of black folks for being uppity, or... well, really there's no other choice, is there?
Maybe the problem isn't the number of racists getting outed, it's the ability of people to measure the reports. To put it another way, maybe we get more reports because the system can record it better.
And maybe you're just a lying idiot, like so many people have said.
.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great example you gave a Democratic racism. The question still remains however. If one follows the book of nature alone, what justification does he or she have in saying such acts are morally wrong. Because if Darwinian evolution is the story, then there are no absolute ethics. So moral "duty" is merely the current popular vote. What, in nature, can you use to say, "this is absolutely wrong."
In fact, red in tooth and claw is the story of materialistic evolution. So your example you gave me is intrinsic to the evolutionary paradigm. Rape has been advantageous in our evolutionary past, it may be again in the future, and naturalists will tell that rape today is instinctual "fodder" left over from our naturalistic past. So is dumping babies in dumpsters, murder, etc. So if naturalism is true, and Dawkins and Bill Maher are right that Christians (or any religious peoples) are mentally ill and that religion is merely a byproduct of evolution, where does that leave your massacre?
Mussolini will tell you. He had a masters in philosophy:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
.
G said, “If one follows the book of nature alone, what justification does he or she have in saying such acts are morally wrong.”
ReplyDeleteYour comment is pointless “G”. Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy. If you or anyone would think to follow science or nature as a source of philosophy, they are misunderstanding its purpose. I no more would think to use evolution to develop my ethics anymore than oceanography or geology.
”Because if Darwinian evolution is the story, then there are no absolute ethics.”
Are you claiming that ethics are absolute? If so, please show me what evidence you have that they are absolute.
“G”, so far all I’ve seen a poor understanding of science packaged in a lot of rhetoric. Also you don’t really seem to be talking about the science. Why is it that you are talking about anything other than the actual science? What does it matter about what someone incorrectly draws from it? What does the possibility of misinformation in a book have to do with it being correct or not? If either of these things are a problem, I agree we should update the books and better educate people on how to apply scientific information, but that does not make any of it incorrect.
Evolutionary biology is science so I’m interested in hearing what scientific evidence you have to support your claim that ToE is incorrect. Even if you were able to show valid issues with ToE, that does not mean your view would become the default. I would like to see how the hypothesis you support better explains the evidence at hand.
~Atomic Chimp
The amount of Junk DNA eliminated with the recent research was about .03%. That barely puts a dent in the very large quantity we are aware of. Also, in an article in New Scientist it says:
ReplyDelete“While many bits of DNA that do not code for proteins are turning out to have some function or other, this was predicted by some all along, and the overall proportion of our DNA with a proven function remains tiny.”
Genome at 10: What we still don't know about our DNA
Dan the people or sources that would lead you to believe that the science world did not predict some function in some of the Junk DNA long before 2003 are incorrect. The fact that the research that showed the function was by evolutionary biologist not creationist alone is very telling .
Dan, if you still doubt that they predicted this and wish to learn more please read the article A word about “junk DNA” written by an evolutionary biologist. In it he offers these examples that show this is incorrect, ”Those who complain about a supposed unilateral neglect of potential functions for non-coding DNA simply have been reading the wrong literature. In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972; Gall 1981; Comeron 2001), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969, 1971; Jain 1980; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971; Bennett 1982; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), coordingating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966).”
~Atomic Chimp
.
ReplyDeleteThis is another key area not well defined. Thank you Chimp for bringing it up... it eventually does... in every discussion like this. May I say quickly before I make my main point, "evolutionary biology" is not scientific. IF, that is, you define evolutionary biology in the "Darwinian" context I mention here.
Your statement, "Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy," if it holds to a rigid materialism that is that is presumed a priori before evidence is categorized in the scientists/biologists mind, your statement is self-referentially defeating. Mute.
Okay, now for my main point related to your post followed by two examples in my minds eye of good science. (I bet you are waiting with bated breath!)
"The proponents of a theory, in science or elsewhere [in criminal court], are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires."
(Norman MacBeth in Darwin Retried: An Appeal To Reason. He is a Harvard Trained Lawyer; this statement appeared as well in the Yale Review in 1967.)
Okay, like I said, while these two examples do not necessarily disprove evolution or even ultimately its dating... we could discover something that explains this in the future... I view them as good science. But for now the evolutionist would have to posit materialism or neo-Darwinian evolutionary positions (What I call: Evolution of the gaps) to refute them. These two examples do however exhibit what science is. Which is, again:
Science is: observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
Helium Leaks Show the Earth is Young - Dr. Russell Humphreys
Catastrophic Geology - Experiments in Stratification
.
Sorry about that, the blog kept telling me it couldn't post my comment. I deleted the duplicates.
ReplyDelete~AC
“G” said, “Your statement, "Evolutionary Biology is not Philosophy," if it holds to a rigid materialism that is that is presumed a priori before evidence is categorized in the scientists/biologists mind, your statement is self-referentially defeating.”
ReplyDeleteIt only seems self defeating to someone who doesn’t understand the difference. There is a philosophy of science, but though you might use that while applying the scientific method, that does not make the conclusion you draw a philosophy. If you do have issue with the Philosophy of science that looks for ‘natural’ explanations and excludes ‘super natural’ explanations, please explain why this is wrong to do, and what evidence you have to support your claims. If your issue is not with the exclusion of the ‘super natural’ from scientific research, then please share in detail what your exact issue is. My comment still stands, Evolutionary Biology and its theories are no a philosophy.
“Mute.”
That’s the most intelligent thing you’ve said so far.
” Okay, now for my main point related to your post followed by two examples in my minds eye of good science. (I bet you are waiting with bated breath!)”
You give yourself far too much credit. So far you have shared with us are the standard strawmen and rhetoric that I’ve seen over and over. You have shown you have little to no understanding of science or evolutionary biology. I could make comments on what followed but though the material you offer is nothing new to me, I would rather view the videos in their entirety before I post a response.
I will say this much, what you have offered in no way refutes the theory of evolution and I really do not understand what the point of sharing it since you seem to agree with that.
~Atomic Chimp
.
ReplyDeleteSo, to be clear. You would agree with me that science is...
“... the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
and not,
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 68 (emphasis added).
This was the whole flap in Kansas years ago. If you chose the first one as a good definition of science, I would be so happy. But, I doubt this will happen.
I do work very part time for a friend (Mon, Wed, and Friday about 3 hours a day). So I am off to grab a few bucks. I am about done here -- I am like a cat who plays with a toy for a while and then moves on. Chimp, if you choose the blue pill and not the red, I may return.
You guys should check out the business keeping me partially employed. They are at the top of my blog and the bottom banner ad... Kinda Cool.
.
.
ReplyDeleteDan, if you don't mind I stuck this over at my Discussing God site.
I sorta feel like Neo after defeating the "G-Men" at the end, and he flexes and the walls are moved by his "prowess." This was fun.
.
lol that would certainly be appropriate, you seem to be in your own matrix like dream world.
ReplyDeleteSo you copied this post over there as symbolic flexing after defeating evolution I assume based on you comment. Did you miss the part where I provided a list of papers I mentioned? Did you not notice these papers show that it was expected that there was a potential functions for non-coding DNA? Did it slip by you that most of the papers predate 2003 and some of them are even 30+ years older?!
ReplyDeleteThis truly does demonstrates that you guys are willfully ignorant concerning the subject of evolution.
~AC
"G", I just read through many of the posts again and can clearly see that I'm not the only one (though I never doubt the knowledge of the regulars here) who has shown you and Dan repeatedly that your claims & understanding concerning pseudogenes and the scientific community are absolutely wrong.
ReplyDeleteDan & "G", Please explain to me why you chose to ignore the citations offered that demonstrate this and continue to act as if they do not exist. The evidence offered shows that this post is at best yo are misinformed and at worst you are knowingly perpetuating a lie.
~AC
Smart post and so good blog
ReplyDeletethanks for you good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog Ancient Greece Gods and more Ancient Greece Facts thanks again admin