|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Square peg/round hole creationist conundrum
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Unfortunately for Neil Robbie, the detailed review and critique of Behe's book duly appeared from Glenn Oldham (see several posts from him on that page). As the thread developed people increasingly linked directly to material by Behe online and then later to his court testimony.
Actually I think Behe sums up why this issue is a dead horse.
Having read his book when it came out I have to say that the reactions are ridiculously polarised.
On the one hand I'm not convinced by a lot of the ID stuff and particularly the way Creationists seize upon his arguments without really thinking through all the implications or looking carefully at the science.
On the other hand the critiques are usually equally weak. For example Glenn Oldham's suggestion of the indirect route surely becomes much less likely over very long periods of time? The indirect route is certainly possible but one wonders why 'A' would remain for millions of years until it suddenly becomes useful. Again, I'm not saying impossible, just implausible.
Therefore, ISTM, all of this boils down to competing plausibility arguments rather than hard and fast 'the science proves this' kind of arguments.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In reference to the speed with which the idea of an ancient earth arose. You're right that Hutton in 1985 presented his ideas to the Royal Society in Edinburgh which was the foundation of modern geology - with the concept of uplift and continual erosion, and the necessity of an ancient earth. But, he was a long way from the first scientist to suggest that the earth is ancient, and even provide evidence for it. In 1778, Comte de Buffon published his calculations (based on cooling rates for hot iron spheres) that the earth was at least 75 thousand years old. Before that Edmund Halley proposed measuring the amount of salt in the oceans and rate of salination to estimate the age of the earth (an approach which was actually impossible), part of the early 18th century of scientific investigations into the nature of the earth - it's size, mass, distance from the Sun and age included. Basically, the ideas of Hutton took off and were accepted almost universally by scientists within only a few years because scientists were already reaching the conclusion that the earth is ancient.
My recollection is that Voltaire got involved in the controversy - Voltaire being the sort of chap who had an opinion on everything. He thought these new ideas were all nonsense - that (paraphrased) "ancient geology is like ancient history, full of fantasy". When asked how fossilised sea creatures could be found at the top of mountains, his response was that perhaps some traveller had picked up a fossilised fish by the seaside and it had fallen out of his pocket when he went mountaineering.
Not sure of the period, but Voltaire died in 1778.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Huttons insight wasn't that the earth is ancient (even if in his day 'ancient' meant a lot younger than we'd reckon today). He effectively started with an assumption that the earth is ancient. His insight was that an ancient earth would present a problem (why do we have hills when we can observe them eroding, for an ancient earth shouldn't they have all eroded away?) and he offered a solution - that there are processes that cause new hills and mountains to form, or existing ones to be uplifted. Which neatly solved the problem of marine fossils on mountain tops. And, he also created the science of geology by moving the subject from just the collection of rocks and fossils to a subject that examined processes and mechanisms, in which theory and observation combine.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Can I assume that Hutton did all of this before 1985, which is the year everyone is quoting?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry, the 1985 was my typo. Hotton presented his work to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785, although it took a couple of decades before they became widely known (he was not the most eloquent communicator, and it required a friend who did understand him to re-publish his work in a form that more than 3 people could understand).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Louise: To dismiss thes with an airy wave of the hand well, these tactics just won't fly.
I actually have no idea why there is so much attitude here but FWIW, Oldham's arguments mainly boil down to a matter of his opinions just as mine do of mine. (By the way Hall did discover Mars' moons.)
Oldham says, for instance, that Miller shows how Doolittle's account of the evolution of blood clotting is far more persuasive than you would imagine from reading Behe's book".. His opinion.
He cites Miller's citing of experiments with bacteria and their so called ability to evolve complex systems. To mine Behe disposes of this in short order..
web pagehere
Oldham says "Behe tries to argue that a particular type of complexity is particularly hard for gradualistic evolution to account for."
Behe actually shows that such evolution is mathematically impossible. See Behe's book ch 4 P95,6 where he says speaking of Doolittle's model where the "proensyme and its activator are both required for one step in the pathway, the odds of getting both the proteins together are..'one tenth to the 36th power'. He states:"such an event would not be expected to happen even if the universe's ten billion year life were compressed into a single second and relived every second for ten billion years."
[ 25. September 2010, 00:25: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Try again
Might work this time.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
OK maybe this time
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK maybe this time
That's an old document. If you search for the title in Google, you'll find plenty of responses to it from the time that point out Behe's various mischaracterisations of the arguments - have you read these?
Perhaps the best argument that Behe is so mistaken is that (as was shown at Kitzmiller vs Dover) there's been a huge amount of good science done since then on the evolutionary origins of the systems he describes, and which he hasn't bothered to follow, whereas his approach hasn't been developed at all (least of all by him).
I have no doubt that you find Behe persuasive. I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
There's lots of science I don't understand (string theory!), and on such points I have no opinion - except when it clearly works. Do I understand what a photon is? Nope. Have I done the double slit experiment? Yep. Do I believe that quantum physics is accurate? Yes I do.
Is that wrong?
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Hi Rex, I wrote a comment in response to your post on the 'Death of Darwinism 'thread.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
If you read the Noah's Flood (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000237) thread, you'll see this is a strong (and most bothersome) trend in Jamat's posting.
As to Jamat's actual reply, I'm only on page 9 of that thread, so I'll get to it when I get to it.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
If you read the Noah's Flood (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000237) thread, you'll see this is a strong (and most bothersome) trend in Jamat's posting.
As to Jamat's actual reply, I'm only on page 9 of that thread, so I'll get to it when I get to it.
Which will be never as there are 7 pages only in that thread. What exactly is your problem?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duplo
Apprentice
# 15809
|
Posted
Well, I ended up lancing the boil. The subject came up in a house group session and I sat patiently as everything boiled up inside me and everyone else supported the creationist view until a pause in the conversation led the group leader to turn his eyes to me and a small voice inside made me speak up. So I did, I have to say that I struggled with my emotions at first and I tried not to ramble as everything came out as half testimony, half critique of bad science. In hindsight I am very glad I did as it led to a lot of positive feedback and comments that the other members don't feel they take the time to understand science as best as they should. The same subject is up for debate this wed so will see how things go as more people will be aware of my position. being a square peg in a round hole can be quite liberating
Posts: 13 | From: Wales | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Jamat - I'm talking about the 33 page thread that you replied to. Page 12 now.
Duplo - good on ya.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
