or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 3  

post #81 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
yes, but they have built machines to test these things, and this is ongoing -- if they come up snakeyes, they will eventually move on to other theories. Evolution is stuck in an unprovable, unresearchable postion.

That's not true at all. Theories of evolution have gone through radical changes from LeMarck (sp?) through Darwin through Gould's latest revisions to the theory suggesting "punctuated equilibrium."

Quote:
Absolutely, but I can be consistant in my conception of knowledge -- and -- I don't use contradictory statements or dialectical systems.

So, in other words, I was right. I don't know what you're talking about with this "contradictory statements or dialectical systems" business. If you think we're invoking Hegel, or his ghost, here, then say it. If you think that evolution, as a c19 philosophy, has built into it certain Hegelian elements, then say it.

But you'll of course have to say what is wrong with that AND demonstrate that your position does not succumb to those same problems.

Quote:
When you say what cannot be you have started down a path you must finish, if you are to be logical.

Really? I cannot be a woodchuck.

Quote:
this is the basis of your theory of life, you make definitive statements that a superintelligent COULD NOT have done this -- you have to be consistent on what sort of philosophical pandora's box you have opened.

Who's not being consistent? What pandora's box? Where the hell is any scientist paying enough attention to your magic/aliens theory to say that there's some "superintelligence" that might be responsible for it all?

BTW, look up "begging the question."

Quote:
Actually, no the ID guys did not start this,

Actually, yes, they did. They just weren't called adherents of "intelligent design," and because the ID guys are so anti-intellectual, they will not even open up a copy of Origin of Species to see whether or not I'm right.

And I am.

Quote:
the SA guys and those like them are as asleep at the switch as the evangelicals are on marriage/gay marriage -- both have brought this on themselves.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
You see, you have no comprehensive theory of existence,

Really? Let's see:

I exist. I need food. I need shelter. I need whatever other creature comforts I desire. I will grow old. I will die.

What am I not consideringexcept for magic/aliens?

Quote:
and the ID guys have a theory that rationally accounts for the meticulous order around you

The ID guys are ripping off Darwin, who was unduly concerned with finding God's will in the natural world. Which makes sense, considering he was a Natural Scientist.

Quote:
but does not contradict itself by saying what cannnot be responsible, and yet still want to hold chaos as the mother of its polar opposite. [/B]

You really need to stop with the metaphors, because frankly, they make you feel like you're saying something dramatic and powerful, when in fact they allow you to be vague.

My sense of your position is that you are essentially saying this:

"Christians are narrow-minded, since they don't consider the possibility that the Bible was written by the Devil. Or aliens."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #82 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
yes, but they have built machines to test these things, and this is ongoing -- if they come up snakeyes, they will eventually move on to other theories. Evolution is stuck in an unprovable, unresearchable postion.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
don't get me wrong, I don't think true science should logically be closed to any theory -- but at the same time you will never prove the existence of God, or the that evolution was functionally possible.

These two quotes puzzle me. Why is it acceptable for you to marginalize evolution based on your assertion that it is "unproveable, unresearchable" yet you criticize those who marginalize God when you freely admit His existance to be unproveable?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #83 of 430
How is "creationism" defined anyway?

Is it (1) 'human beings were specially created by 'God to be above the rest of the animal kingdom' etc etc...
or....(2) "all life was created by God, in an instant, to suddenly appear on the Earth"..including humans...
or (3) all of the physical Earth was created, and then the life that exists on it, in the 6 day period mentioned in Genesis?
or (4) the entire Universe, including Earth and its lifeforms etc, were created in that same 6 day period?

And what's with that persistent 6000 year old idea that Creationists keep rattling about? This 6000 year stuff is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible: it was derived from the work of Archbishop Ussher of Ireland, who did some arithmetic on the series of "xxx begat yyy" and came out with this approximate (¿!?¡!) figure of 6000 years. Incidentally, Archbishop Ussher originally calculated in 1654 that the event of Creation occurred in 4004 BC. The details of 06:00 (GMT of course) on Monday October 26 were added by a man named Lightfoot.

October 26th? I wonder what was happening at 05:00 GMT? The 6000 year stuff is one of the wackiest, most bizarre theories ever promulgated by anyone, far far weirder than aliens, bigfoot, UFOS, or 'the world is run by freemasons' etc.....but even scarier, is the fact, confirmed by many polls, that between 45% and 50% of Americans believe in a literal biblical interpretation of the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and life.

The Bible was written by people, and people are fallible, prone to making mistakes or misinterpreting things, especially when the evidence or knowledge is not at hand, as was the case when the Bible was written. The writers of those early scriptures never intended their works to have literal or historical interpretations; many of the stories are allegorical, and intended for spiritual guidance only. Have some 45% to 50% of the US public been roundly duped?

There was an excellent article in a recent National Geographic (February edition I recall)...which asked the question "was Darwin wrong". Even though Darwin for sure got a number of points ass-backwards or plain wrong, Nat. Geog.'s conclusion was that his main theory of evolution by natural selection is the only one which is supported by a huge and overwhelming body of evidence.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #84 of 430
I have to admit I haven't read most of this thread, but what tends to really get at me in all of these debates is people failing to acknowledge that the christian faith and evolution are in NO WAY mutually exclusive, and aren't for the majority of religious people.

My mother is deeply religious. Is she some creationist nut job? Of course not.

Is everyone with a PhD in some branch of science an athiest? Of course not.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
post #85 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
My mother is deeply religious. Is she some creationist nut job? Of course not.

Is everyone with a PhD in some branch of science an athiest? Of course not.

I don't think anyone is painting this canvas with such a broad brush. I may be mistaken though. It's a wordy thread.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #86 of 430
What I find interesting in these "debates" (which really aren't BTW)...is that few ever stop to define their terms at all.

One example of this would be that Bible-believing Christians (at least from my reading of the Bible) must believe in a form of evolution...what, in laymans terms, is called "microevolution"...evolution within a species. Where many will disagree is with "macroevolution"...or the evolution of one specie from another. Unfortunately the broad and general term "evolution" is meant to cover both.

Another problem I see is that the concept of "creation" speaks to the issue of the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not specifically address this issue, or so I have been told. I don't believe this is entirely correct...because simple logic would require that there must be some point for all of the evolution to have started from. So, it seems that evolution does speak about origins as well. But, again, like the point above, this would be where "creation" is in dispute or conflict with "evolution".

It is imperative, if we are to actually have any kind of intelligent discussion, that terminology is defined clearly. The term "evolution" has become so broad as to include almost anything (hmmm...this seems to be what the "scientists" accuse the "creationists" of too).

The issue of "science" is yet another. If science was just about the original scientific method, then there shouldn't be a problem with it. However "science" has evolved (pardon the pun) beyond this into a naturalistic worldview. It is less a method and more a philosophical system. Even a "religion" some would argue.

Those who are on the evolution/science side of this discussion might consider demonstrating their intellectual open-mindedness and delve into the view from the other side, if only for a moment to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...725506-8810564

The book is written by a lawyer actually, who has attempted to address the way arguments related to evolution and Darwinism are formed and conveyed. It might enlighten your view a bit. I would be curious to see response from those who would seriously, objectively and with sincere intent to be informed read this book and provide intelligent, reasoned, and supportable comments.

P.S. Oh and "the only one that would believe the tripe this bozo is peddling is an ignorant Creationist" isn't really an example of an intelligent, reasoned, and supportable comments. Sorry.
post #87 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I don't think anyone is painting this canvas with such a broad brush. I may be mistaken though. It's a wordy thread.

I've seen it in enough threads that I just kind of assume.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
post #88 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Another problem I see is that the concept of "creation" speaks to the issue of the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not specifically address this issue, or so I have been told. I don't believe this is entirely correct...because simple logic would require that there must be some point for all of the evolution to have started from. So, it seems that evolution does speak about origins as well. But, again, like the point above, this would be where "creation" is in dispute or conflict with "evolution".

*cough*'Origin of Species'*cough* (Not 'Origin of Life')

The starting point need not be defined for the rest of the theory to be "valid" or "plausible".

The Earth does orbit the sun, regardless of how the Earth or Sun were formed.

We could say Zeus vomited forth the Earth and Sun or we could say they formed from matter collecting into large gravity wells and forming spheres over billions of years. Regardless, the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around.

Evolution then, as I take it, is more concerned with speciation as opposed to how organic compounds formed to *begin* life itself, although I'm sure it is none the less fascinating and useful to those interested in Evolution. I just don't think its required for Evolution to be valid.

On another note, Christians would do well to TAKE CLASSES ON EVOLUTION even if they boneheadedly want to then argue against it. Argue intelligently, as opposed to running around with such stupid misconceptions about Evolution as "Man evolved from Apes".

But why should I expect INBRED American Southerners to understand the concept of "cousins"????
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #89 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
*cough*'Origin of Species'*cough* (Not 'Origin of Life')

The starting point need not be defined for the rest of the theory to be "valid" or "plausible".

...

Evolution then, as I take it, is more concerned with speciation as opposed to how organic compounds formed to *begin* life itself, although I'm sure it is none the less fascinating and useful to those interested in Evolution. I jsut don't think its required for Evolution to be valid.

I wasn't suggesting this. So you have actually supported part of point that in this way "creation" and "evolution" debaters are talking at crossed purposes. More simply, on the point of "origin of life"...the evolutionists should have no direct quarrels with "creationists"...now were down to speciation as the primary point of contention. Fine. So...now we must search for evidence that speciation has occurred...not simply assume that it did occur.

I would certainly agree that speciation is a possible explanation for the origin of all species. But it is not the only one, and it certainly has not been proven. In fact, there is an astonishing lack of evidence on this point, only presumption. It basically boils down..."well things sure look a lot a like (at the genetic level) so they must have all evolved from one another. Case closed." In fact, this is where the "scientists" begin to get a tad arrogant. Because they exclude any possibility of God (or anything like God) since it cannot be measured or discovered "scientifically", then there must be some other explanation. There are no other options. This seems decidedly unscientific to me.

Oh well...I promised myself I wouldn't get into this...and here I am. Doh! Time for bed.
post #90 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
But why should I expect INBRED American Southerners to understand the concept of "cousins"????

Oh boy...someone is getting testy huh?
post #91 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So you have actually supported part of point that in this way "creation" and "evolution" debaters are talking at crossed purposes. More simply, on the point of "origin of life"...the evolutionists should have no direct quarrels with "creationists"...now we're down to speciation as the primary point of contention. Fine. So...now we must search for evidence that speciation has occurred...not simply assume that it did occur.

Well...the thing is, Creationists can't bear to have Evolution be "true". Evolution proponents, I feel, don't give a rat's ass as to how life evolved (they do, but not in a way that has any effect on their work). This isn't "creation" and "evolution" debaters talking at crossed purposes, it is Evolutionists minding their own business and Creationists trying to undermine their efforts because various dogma are at risk of becoming exposed as being even more obviously "non-reality-based", (to mock BushSpeak, if I may).
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #92 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What I find interesting in these "debates" (which really aren't BTW)...is that few ever stop to define their terms at all.

One example of this would be that Bible-believing Christians (at least from my reading of the Bible) must believe in a form of evolution...what, in laymans terms, is called "microevolution"...evolution within a species. Where many will disagree is with "macroevolution"...or the evolution of one specie from another. Unfortunately the broad and general term "evolution" is meant to cover both.

I'm curious what in the Bible compels belief in "micro evolution". At any rate, that's neither a clarification of terms nor a point of possible amity; "evolution" the theory is all about species differentiating into new species.

Quote:
Another problem I see is that the concept of "creation" speaks to the issue of the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not specifically address this issue, or so I have been told. I don't believe this is entirely correct...because simple logic would require that there must be some point for all of the evolution to have started from. So, it seems that evolution does speak about origins as well. But, again, like the point above, this would be where "creation" is in dispute or conflict with "evolution".

Evolution (again, the theory as is commonly understood) has nothing to say about the origin of life. Just so we're clear on our terms. "Creationism" refers to the belief in the wholesale appearance of fully differentiated species by magic, or, if you prefer, by God's will. The difference has nothing to do with a confusion of terms.

Quote:
It is imperative, if we are to actually have any kind of intelligent discussion, that terminology is defined clearly. The term "evolution" has become so broad as to include almost anything (hmmm...this seems to be what the "scientists" accuse the "creationists" of too).

Evolution is certainly a noun that can be used outside of scientific theory, but I haven't noticed any problem with the people on these boards who understand what the theory is and how science works succumbing to some kind of temptation to use the term promiscuously.


Quote:
The issue of "science" is yet another. If science was just about the original scientific method, then there shouldn't be a problem with it. However "science" has evolved (pardon the pun) beyond this into a naturalistic worldview. It is less a method and more a philosophical system. Even a "religion" some would argue.

Again, if there is a confusion in terms here I think it belongs to you. Science has not evolved into a naturalistic world-view, it is the praxis of same. It is entirely a method that supports or denies any number of philosophies. It is not a religion. "Technology has the capacity to give my life meaning" is a religion, but that is not science.

Quote:
Those who are on the evolution/science side of this discussion might consider demonstrating their intellectual open-mindedness and delve into the view from the other side, if only for a moment to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...725506-8810564

The book is written by a lawyer actually, who has attempted to address the way arguments related to evolution and Darwinism are formed and conveyed. It might enlighten your view a bit. I would be curious to see response from those who would seriously, objectively and with sincere intent to be informed read this book and provide intelligent, reasoned, and supportable comments.

Not really going to be able to pop out and read a book before I post again. Could you say a little more about what it's about?

Quote:
P.S. Oh and "the only one that would believe the tripe this bozo is peddling is an ignorant Creationist" isn't really an example of an intelligent, reasoned, and supportable comments. Sorry.

OK, how about, "the only way to accept these fables as having "scientific" validity is to be ignorant of what science is"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #93 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh boy...someone is getting testy huh?

Snarky, yes.

But no, it's actually an extremely important point.

Southern Americans are under the mass-delusion (due to a systematic lack of education on the subject) that "man evolved from apes"...as opposed to merely having a common (non-monkey/non-human) ancestor (cousin/missing link).

It is in some people's best interest for this ignorant idea to remain prevalent.

"Niggers" and "Monkeys" are the same to many racist people.

In this case, "religion" is using racism as a handy "argument/weapon" against science and its evolutionary theory.

I'd love to see poll figures on the question, I imagine it'd be something like 95% of southerners (and even Americans in general) think that "Evolution means man evolved FROM apes".

Religion loves that ignorance. It stirs outrage.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #94 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I would certainly agree that speciation is a possible explanation for the origin of all species. But it is not the only one, and it certainly has not been proven. In fact, there is an astonishing lack of evidence on this point, only presumption.

No, speciation has been documented.
post #95 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The issue of "science" is yet another. If science was just about the original scientific method, then there shouldn't be a problem with it. However "science" has evolved (pardon the pun) beyond this into a naturalistic worldview. It is less a method and more a philosophical system. Even a "religion" some would argue.

explain.
post #96 of 430
Sometimes I think that people who don't believe in evolution do not believe in it not because God is the creator of Man, but because God could have not created them as apes first, and then felt sorry for their inability to be hominids, elevating them to the 'highest rank'.

In other words, they don't believe because they can't accept the fact that they were, quite some time ago, an ape who walked like monkeys do today. It's all about ego. How could we have been apes! How could Our God, Our Father, Our Holy Spirit, be so 'humiliating' towards us? How? How? How?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #97 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
But why should I expect INBRED American Southerners to understand the concept of "cousins"????

Hey! As my mother once said to me, "If cousins couldn't marry, [SOUTHERN TOWN X] wouldn't exist."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #98 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Hey! As my mother once said to me, "If cousins couldn't marry, [SOUTHERN TOWN X] wouldn't exist."

I'm generalizing to the extreme of course. Desperate times...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #99 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I'm generalizing to the extreme of course. Desperate times...

Feh. This is the problem of Enlightenment. Just imagine you're Socrates.

Oh, wait...
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #100 of 430
The problem of an Enlightenment is the desperate need for it due to a previous Religion-imposed Dark Age.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #101 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
No, speciation has been documented.

Citations please.
post #102 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
explain.

The book I linked to does a much better and more thorough job than I have the time, space or inclination to do. Read it.
post #103 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I'm generalizing to the extreme of course. Desperate times...

But of course there is never a bad time to flash our bigotry is there?
post #104 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Well...the thing is, Creationists can't bear to have Evolution be "true". Evolution proponents, I feel, don't give a rat's ass as to how life evolved (they do, but not in a way that has any effect on their work). This isn't "creation" and "evolution" debaters talking at crossed purposes, it is Evolutionists minding their own business and Creationists trying to undermine their efforts because various dogma are at risk of becoming exposed as being even more obviously "non-reality-based", (to mock BushSpeak, if I may).

You missed my point. I was saying that if evolution doesn't speak to origin of "life" then this is one less point of contention/argument between that theory and what creationists have to say.
post #105 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I'm curious what in the Bible compels belief in "micro evolution".

Simply that if the Bible says that human life began with only two people, there must be some explanation for multiple races. Microevolution would also account variations within a specie.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
At any rate, that's neither a clarification of terms nor a point of possible amity; "evolution" the theory is all about species differentiating into new species.

Fine. Then evolutionists should not use microevolutionary examples to support the argument for speciation.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Evolution (again, the theory as is commonly understood) has nothing to say about the origin of life....The difference has nothing to do with a confusion of terms.

And creationism does. This is the point of confusion I was speaking about.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Again, if there is a confusion in terms here I think it belongs to you. Science has not evolved into a naturalistic world-view, it is the praxis of same. It is entirely a method that supports or denies any number of philosophies. It is not a religion.

Read the book I suggest.


Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Not really going to be able to pop out and read a book before I post again. Could you say a little more about what it's about?

From Amazon.com:

Quote:
In his own era, Darwin's most formidable opponents were fossil experts, not clergymen. Even today, according to the author, the fossil record, far from conclusive, does not support the presumed existence of intermediate links between species. A law teacher at UC-Berkeley, Johnson deems unpersuasive the alleged proofs for Darwin's assertion that natural selection can produce new species. He also argues that recent molecular studies of DNA fail to confirm the existence of common ancestors for different species. Doubting the smooth line of transitional steps between apes and humans sketched by neo-Darwinists, he cites evidence for "rapid branching," i.e., mysterious leaps which presumably produced the human mind and spirit from animal materials. This evidence, to Johnson, suggests that "the putative hominid species" may not have contained our ancestors after all. This cogent, succinct inquiry cuts like a knife through neo-Darwinist assumptions.

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
OK, how about, "the only way to accept these fables as having "scientific" validity is to be ignorant of what science is"?

I was actually referring to counter arguments one might try to make against the book I have suggested.
post #106 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, it's a theory, but it's a theory that somehow got itself promoted at the exclusion of all other theories. To the point of making universal negative statements about what may exist, and what may not. Something that gives it all the earmarkings of a fanatical religious belief.

Evolution got "promoted" because of overwhelming evidence and that no-one else has offered an alternative theory that works. Same thing happens with MOST theories, probably reflecting that the world works in only specific ways and pays no care for people's desire to be inclusive or diplomatic.

Quote:

Also, the probabilites that theory of evolution 'obeys' are significantly different than the ones that quantum mechanics obeys.

Actually in most respects the probabilities that quantum mechanics deals with are more mind blowing than evolution. QM predicts that there is a certain probability that you can walk through a wall. Evolution depends on fairly modest mutation rates AND natural selection. I stress the "AND" here because all to often creationists will misrepresent the theory and suggest that it predicts that it requires ridiculously improbable events to occur all at once.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #107 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
These two quotes puzzle me. Why is it acceptable for you to marginalize evolution based on your assertion that it is "unprovable, unresearchable" yet you criticize those who marginalize God when you freely admit His existence to be unprovable?

In my position, in a practical way, the image and nature of God in us is responsible for our abilities to speak, relate, etc., and that, on a philosophical level we can be sure of 'facts' without exhaustively defining them. Also that the origins of life are miraculous, and act of a sovereign super-intelligent being.

So we have basically the biggest questions that anyone anywhere has ever asked, the; 'origins of all things', 'origins of our self-consciousness', and 'who we are -- why are we here' answered, though a Faith in a revealed Word.

Now, if you take those three questions and look at the way that the secular world has handled them, you will find that it has not only no definitive answers, as you might expect, but no working solutions that are consistent in their approach.

The question of origins is really 'answered' with more of a 'we're working on it' approach than anything else. Like midwinter said, what was the evolutionary party line at the scopes trial would be laughed at today (but it got the job down on the issue of public policy, all the same.) The fossil record contains -- as the article in National Geographic stated, 'a film with 999 out of every 1,000 frames missing'. There is a significant amount of speculation that is a part of how evolution 'functioned', and that is even before you give it to the statisticians. So in the end, you believe without definitive proof. And really you don't believe the theory as you believe in man's intellectual ability to order the universe on his own terms.

The question of self-consciousness is really analogous to the question of origins, there is no answer to this, except some very vague theories, and the 'we're working on it' approach. The Human mind is only beginning to be understood.

Which leaves the philosophical question of 'who and what we are'. The is modern science's biggest failure. Repeated attempts from Sartre to de Sade have come up with no answer. The line of reasoning in a long series of philosophical discussions is a tortured train wreck that in the end can mostly be summarized by a line in pfflam's sig. You essentially have to say that nothingness rules, but have to act as if the Christians, with their system of revealed order, are actually correct. Everyone does this, but still they throw rocks at the very system they have to honor in order to function -- and that's very odd.

So there are three 'oh, great mystery' aspects to a Christian understanding (nearly the same as a Muslim, or Jewish) of being, existence, and origins of all things. And as much as it drives you guys up the wall, it is a consistent system. Yes, it requires ceding your authority to God, and no, it means "why is God so mean' questions are not 'truly' askable, but the broken, twisted convoluted, systems of secular thought aren't even coherent, and not for a lack of trying.

So basically, if was going to marginalize a secular approach, it would be because it's not a coherent system of thought.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #108 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Evolution got "promoted" because of overwhelming evidence


You guys have really got to stop this. There is no evidence for macroevolution -- you have fossils and you date the surrounding rock to prove how old they are. The rest exists on paper.

As for QM, like I said on the Dark Matter bit, 'they' are building machinery to bring these sorts of things into the realm of the testable, and as for walking through walls, you DON'T find every scientist insisting that the theories of the nature of time and space have gone as far as they are going to, and then rework their QM equations to prove, and reprove their conception of the universe.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #109 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
So basically, if was going to marginalize a secular approach, it would be because it's not a coherent system of thought.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it is still inherently contradictory. If one can not prove the exitence of God, as you claim, one can not coherently attribute anything to Him or His doings. I'll agree this is where faith comes in and I respect people's right to be faithful, but you can't use one argument to marginalize your opposing views while simultaneously using it to support your own.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #110 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I understand what you're trying to say, but it is still inherently contradictory. If one can not prove the exitence of God, as you claim, one can not coherently attribute anything to Him or His doings. I'll agree this is where faith comes in and I respect people's right to be faithful, but you can't use one argument to marginalize your opposing views while simultaneously using it to support your own.


I don't think it's contradictory, as much as it is an exclusive propostion. It's definitely a faith-based route which ever way you go -- either a spiritual voice (not little voices in your head) or a claim to intellectual self-sufficiency. But, you are definitely right that these to things are oil-and-water, about the only thing, from a Christian apologetics point of view, that I can do is point to what I see as incoherency on the part of the secular solution. Not much more than that.

But anyway. I have yammered enough, I'm think I'm going to put a sock in it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #111 of 430
CC:

Quote:
Simply that if the Bible says that human life began with only two people, there must be some explanation for multiple races. Microevolution would also account variations within a specie.

The Bible has a story for that. Read Genesis 11.
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.


dmz:
Quote:
It's definitely a faith-based route which ever way you go

I think it is kind of sad that the best anti-science creationists can do is, "Oh yeah, well you're just as ignorant and foolish as I am!"
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #112 of 430
Because science is not about ANSWERS, it's about QUESTIONS. Only when we run out of questions might a reasonably good answer appear.

For any "answer" in science, I hope to have at least one or two new questions arise as a result, if not a thousand.

Religion MAKES UP answers to squelch any curiosity humans might have. Religion tries to be THE answer. The end of all questioning. FAITH replaces reasoning and deduction and observation. Do NOT question OR ELSE.

Religion co-opts skills and byproducts of science (everything from architecture, masonry, math, astronomy, color theory, writing, musical theory...) for its own usage, to solidify and communicate its own propaganda.

If there's any BIGOTRY around here it is from those religious extremists that want to prevent entire generations of schoolchildren from being curious about the world and universe around them and silence any questions their new minds might create so that they can become soldiers for their antiquated dogmatism.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #113 of 430
Quote:
In his own era, Darwin's most formidable opponents were fossil experts, not clergymen.

That's because the fossil experts in 1858 were clergymen. They were "natural scientists."

Hell, Darwin was trained as a clergyman.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #114 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Citations please.

To start off, I'm not going to spend my time or money on your book. I read the reviews at Amazon and they told me all I need to know.

Here is a partial list of papers I found that I'm sure you'll never read either:

Via and Hawthorne. Genetic linkage of ecological specialization and reproductive isolation in pea aphids. Nature. 2001 Aug 30;412(6850):904-7.


One of the often rasied issues your book seams to bring up is the issue of the fossil record being incomplete: We don't have fossils for every transitional organism. However, one answer to this issue is that there may not have been as many transitional specimins as one may at first expect. This is demonstrated in studies of the stickleback fish, which has undergone rapid divergence in recent times. Thing is that many of the big changes in body shape are controled by single mutations. Small changes with big changes in appearance. Sorry no fossils.

CL Peichel et al. The genetic architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species. Nature. 2001 Dec 20-27;414(6866):901-5.

PF Colosimo et al. Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of Ectodysplasin alleles. Science. 2005 Mar 25;307(5717):1928-33.

To be continued... got to go.
post #115 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
In my position, in a practical way, the image and nature of God in us is responsible for our abilities to speak, relate, etc., and that, on a philosophical level we can be sure of 'facts' without exhaustively defining them. Also that the origins of life are miraculous, and act of a sovereign super-intelligent being.

So we have basically the biggest questions that anyone anywhere has ever asked, the; 'origins of all things', 'origins of our self-consciousness', and 'who we are -- why are we here' answered, though a Faith in a revealed Word.

Now, if you take those three questions and look at the way that the secular world has handled them, you will find that it has not only no definitive answers, as you might expect, but no working solutions that are consistent in their approach.

The question of origins is really 'answered' with more of a 'we're working on it' approach than anything else. Like midwinter said, what was the evolutionary party line at the scopes trial would be laughed at today (but it got the job down on the issue of public policy, all the same.) The fossil record contains -- as the article in National Geographic stated, 'a film with 999 out of every 1,000 frames missing'. There is a significant amount of speculation that is a part of how evolution 'functioned', and that is even before you give it to the statisticians. So in the end, you believe without definitive proof. And really you don't believe the theory as you believe in man's intellectual ability to order the universe on his own terms.

The question of self-consciousness is really analogous to the question of origins, there is no answer to this, except some very vague theories, and the 'we're working on it' approach. The Human mind is only beginning to be understood.

Which leaves the philosophical question of 'who and what we are'. The is modern science's biggest failure. Repeated attempts from Sartre to de Sade have come up with no answer. The line of reasoning in a long series of philosophical discussions is a tortured train wreck that in the end can mostly be summarized by a line in pfflam's sig. You essentially have to say that nothingness rules, but have to act as if the Christians, with their system of revealed order, are actually correct. Everyone does this, but still they throw rocks at the very system they have to honor in order to function -- and that's very odd.

So there are three 'oh, great mystery' aspects to a Christian understanding (nearly the same as a Muslim, or Jewish) of being, existence, and origins of all things. And as much as it drives you guys up the wall, it is a consistent system. Yes, it requires ceding your authority to God, and no, it means "why is God so mean' questions are not 'truly' askable, but the broken, twisted convoluted, systems of secular thought aren't even coherent, and not for a lack of trying.

So basically, if was going to marginalize a secular approach, it would be because it's not a coherent system of thought.

The fact that you take a long time to say not much has been throwing me, but I think I'm getting it.

"God is God" is an indeed a consistent system. I don't think anyone here is "driven up the wall" by the power of that observation, however, but rather irritated by having a tautology endlessly elaborated in ways intended to suggest a divine order hovering just out of reach of our materialistic, impoverished philosophies.

You conflate science and philosophy to cast them both down as ineffectual because they have failed to provide definitive answers to the question "what are we for"; science explicitly does not ask this question. Which makes it hard to understand how failing to answer a question it never asked makes science an "internally inconsistent system".

Which is why many Christian scientists have no problem using science to explicate the wonder of Gods' universe. They, unlike you, don't seem to be terribly bothered by the burden of keeping "god consciousness" and "I'd like to learn more about how the universe works" in the same brain (or heart, or soul, if you prefer).

Apparently you are under the impression that it is not possible to seek the evidence of order in the universe while denying the existence of God, without falling prey to some kind of "materialist" logical fallacy. In fact, you seem mightily enamored of that idea, and it seems to be the primary engine of your opinions about science.

Well, that and a distinctly medieval vibe around the foolishness of the entire scientific enterprise, in that it fails to seek God with all its might and instead vainly celebrates human curiosity and ingenuity as being able to actually, you know, figure stuff out.

So what would you have us do? If "God is God" gets the job done, in your book, is there any reason to persue any avenue of intellectual investigation?

Do you imagine some kind of "God in charge" science that takes its marching orders from however God chooses to convey its wishes? You seem to have something like this in mind when you would have us set aside the theory of evolution because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible, but where does that leave, say, the average Japanese researcher?

I think you should answer these questions specifically, because your style of rhetoric might leave one with the impression that you are arguing from some kind of actual, as you say, "internally consistent" stance, but every time I try to parse your remarks I'm left with something like: "My god is the one true god, his word is unerringly transcribed in the bible, all those who disagree are materialists who would make themselves as gods with their intellectual arrogance".

In other words, for all the decorative byplay, just another fundamentalist. Which turns out to be not that interesting at all.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #116 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
dmz:
I think it is kind of sad that the best anti-science creationists can do is, "Oh yeah, well you're just as ignorant and foolish as I am!"

No, just more consistent -- really and truly -- look at the failure of modern philosophy; you guys have blown the universe to bits, and then offer no comprensive solution to put it back together.

anyway I gotta quit -- everybody's talking and no one is listening -- I include myself somewhat -- these might help:

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #117 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I think you should answer these questions specifically, because your style of rhetoric might leave one with the impression that you are arguing from some kind of actual, as you say, "internally consistent" stance, but every time I try to parse your remarks I'm left with something like: "My god is the one true god, his word is unerringly transcribed in the bible, all those who disagree are materialists who would make themselves as gods with their intellectual arrogance".

In other words, for all the decorative byplay, just another fundamentalist. Which turns out to be not that interesting at all.

Actually, what DMZ does, consistently, is beg the question.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #118 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You guys have really got to stop this. There is no evidence for macroevolution -- you have fossils and you date the surrounding rock to prove how old they are. The rest exists on paper.

See I think this is where the sentiment of the SciAm article comes from. There is abundant, mind numbing amounts of evidence to support macroevolution and creationists simply refuse to see it. Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed articles are just dismissed (as you say, paper). And no, it is not simply fossil evidence, which is astounding enough, but evidence comes flowing in from many different fields. My personal taste is for the genetic evidence. Consider the fact that chickens have genes for making teeth, or that humans and apes have the very same psuedogenes and dead viruses in the exact same spots in their genomes. Can you really say with a straight face that these don't constitute evidence? If not then what the hell would constitute evidence?

Quote:

As for QM, like I said on the Dark Matter bit, 'they' are building machinery to bring these sorts of things into the realm of the testable, and as for walking through walls, you DON'T find every scientist insisting that the theories of the nature of time and space have gone as far as they are going to, and then rework their QM equations to prove, and reprove their conception of the universe.

You lost me here a bit. If you mean that scientists don't insist that QM is the end all, final theory then you are right. Clearly QM is missing something or Relativity is missing something, because both theories work splendidly, but disagree at certain points. But you won't find an evolutionary biologist who says that evolutionary theory is complete either. We are constantly working out the details and discovering new mechanisms of evolution. Of course, most creationists like to portray this as some sort of weakness. They say, "Look, their theory isn't working so they had to make up new stuff!', thus once again reflecting a complete lach of understanding of how science works.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #119 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
To start off, I'm not going to spend my time or money on your book. I read the reviews at Amazon and they told me all I need to know.

How utterly scientific and open-minded of you to let hundreds of other (un-vetted) opinions make your mind up for you. Oh...and it isn't my book.


Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Here is a partial list of papers I found that I'm sure you'll never read either:

You are sure huh? Well then, it must be true I guess.
post #120 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The Bible has a story for that. Read Genesis 11.
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Of course I'm familiar with this passage. The most one can definitively take from this would be language differences, though not necessarily racial distinctions. This might have been the case, but it is not an obvious conclusion from this passage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism