|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And Kimura's work suggested we might have been getting things woefully wrong previously, wrt the dating.
(I say woefully, not so woefull as to get down to 5,000 years or less.....)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Dembski has proposed his ID theory on rational scientific grounds, and those are the grounds on which it will stand or fall.
and earlier
Dembski’s work isn’t simply philosophy. His work has a large amount of mathematics and statistics in it. He attempts to provide quantitative tools to discern design.
This is where I have trouble. I understand science and philosophy to be separate activities.
Science (i.e. the application of the scientific method) seems to be about gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, and devising experiments to test these hypotheses to destruction.
Philosophy deals with a wider range of content and is less tied to measurement.
If a theory has no testable consequences then although it might be an important contribution to philosophy, it isn't (as far as I know) science.
So when you say (accurately - as far as I can judge) that Dembski's work is philosophy that uses mathematics, then it seems to follow that the grounds that it stands on may well be rational, but they aren't scientific.
Talking about ID as if it were science comes over as a pretence. Trying to claim the authority of the facts for a personal conviction that in no way arises from the data. Theology seeking the prestige of science.
Is not the whole thing an attempt to read religious preconceptions into the data - the opposite of scientific objectivity ?
quote:
There’s no attempt to force anyone to accept a viewpoint with which they do not agree. Within evolutionary science a “design” paradigm remains a controversial minority viewpoint...
...the ID world would certainly like to have the freedom to accept some form of teleology with respect to evolutionary science. At the moment the reigning naturalistic paradigm rules this completely out of order.
But if it were conceivable that ID could find hard evidence of design so that the existence of a designer became a "fact" then wouldn't everyone be forced to "agree" ?
The amount of teleology that the scientist believes in when off-duty is his or her own affair. But seeking to polish up philosophical arguments for the existence of God is not what they should be doing with government research grants to science...
That evolution by natural selection happens is (as I understand it) demonstrable in the laboratory (eg. in fruit flies). That's science.
That the processes that are observable in the world today are sufficient to explain how the world came to be as it is (from an earlier state) is a philosophical proposition.
Seeking to clarify the distinction between science and other types of thought aids our understanding. Seeking to muddy it doesn't.
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Science (i.e. the application of the scientific method) seems to be about gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, and devising experiments to test these hypotheses to destruction.
This is a correct but very theoretical perspective. In practice science also means finding the funding for one’s research projects and then keeping the bosses happy with the results. They may or may not be reasonable people.
quote:
Philosophy deals with a wider range of content and is less tied to measurement.
Fair comment, but IMO many scientists remain woefully unaware of the philosophy of science. Nuclear safety issues (my own discipline) have forced many engineers to become more philosophically literate. Evolutionary biologists need to do the same.
quote:
If a theory has no testable consequences then although it might be an important contribution to philosophy, it isn't (as far as I know) science.
ID theory does make some predictions and definitely has some testable consequences. Both Dembski and Behe have discussed this in their writings.
quote:
So when you say (accurately - as far as I can judge) that Dembski's work is philosophy that uses mathematics, then it seems to follow that the grounds that it stands on may well be rational, but they aren't scientific.
It would be equally true to say that Dembski’s work is mathematics informed by philosophy, but however we describe it, at least we are agreed that his work stands on rational grounds.
As for whether it is scientific or not, he certainly integrates his ideas on Complex Specified Information (CSI) into the various laws of thermodynamics and then develops his mathematical analyses with respect to certain biological life-forms. That’s good enough for me.
quote:
Talking about ID as if it were science comes over as a pretence. Trying to claim the authority of the facts for a personal conviction that in no way arises from the data. Theology seeking the prestige of science.
A pretence by whom? Who is pushing the personal convictions without the data? Who is sheltering under the prestige of science? Is this a reference to Richard Dawkins?
quote:
Is not the whole thing an attempt to read religious preconceptions into the data - the opposite of scientific objectivity ?
No. What is automatically religious about a “design inference”? It is something secular humans do all the time. Dembski demonstrates this very clearly.
If you have the mathematical ability, read Dembski’s 2002 book No Free Lunch. His case is logically developed and very well documented without any reliance on theology. His earlier and hitherto very expensive 1998 book The Design Inference is also coming out in an affordable paperback edition at the end of October.
quote:
But if it were conceivable that ID could find hard evidence of design so that the existence of a designer became a "fact" then wouldn't everyone be forced to "agree" ?
No. Even if there were agreement on the concept of a “design inference” (and at the moment, of course, there isn’t), there would still be nothing definite to identify who or what the designer is. That question would remain open.
quote:
The amount of teleology that the scientist believes in when off-duty is his or her own affair. But seeking to polish up philosophical arguments for the existence of God is not what they should be doing with government research grants to science...
Teleology does not push us automatically in a theistic direction – are you perhaps confusing teleology with theology? They are similar sounding words, but definitely not synonyms.
Theism (and its corollary, theology) is simply one teleological option among many. The more fundamental question is the nature of nature. Is a compulsory non-teleological scientific paradigm simply prejudging that question on irrational non-scientific grounds?
quote:
That evolution by natural selection happens is (as I understand it) demonstrable in the laboratory (eg. in fruit flies). That's science.
Yes, and ID agrees with this. Don’t confuse the broad fact of evolution (biological descent with modification) with the possible mechanisms that may have caused this change. To my mind that question is still very much open. ID vigorously challenges a Darwinian paradigm as the complete story, but still leaves the door wide open for other more powerful evolutionary mechanisms.
quote:
That the processes that are observable in the world today are sufficient to explain how the world came to be as it is (from an earlier state) is a philosophical proposition.
Completely agree with you here. There is no scientific reason at all for this to be the case, whether in biology or geology.
quote:
Seeking to clarify the distinction between science and other types of thought aids our understanding. Seeking to muddy it doesn't.
Yes, again I agree with you, although possibly not in the way you would like. I see the muddying being done by those who are unaware of the philosophical presuppositions implicit in their scientific work. ID theory forces this issue out into the open.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh sure; selection hardly causes the mutation in the first place.
But should the mutation occur, I can't see how it would become a widespread, stable phenomena without selection pressure.
Reproduction on its own would be enough to spread the trait to the next generation. Horizontal gene transfer amongst bacteria would further the spread. That would not necessarily cause the trait to predominate amongst this bacteria species, but it would make it a stable phenomenon.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I disagree. Those bugs won't do as well as their pals by using precious resources to make DNA, RNA and proteins that don't promote survival.
It's well descrbed that antibiotic resistance genes are lost over time when the antibiotic pressure is removed from the population.
Why should a large toxin be any different?
(PS even were it so, it still stikes one as rather odd that this random toxin, with no benefit to the bug, spread horizontally/vertically for no good reason, is also exquisitely finely tuned to take out neurons....)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
(PS even were it so, it still stikes one as rather odd that this random toxin, with no benefit to the bug
No benefit, or no known benefit?
--------------------
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I disagree. Those bugs won't do as well as their pals by using precious resources to make DNA, RNA and proteins that don't promote survival.
Evolution doesn't necessarily optimize. If the bacteria with the poisonous trait use more energy but still reproduce as well as their neighbors, it doesn't matter if they use more energy.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's well descrbed that antibiotic resistance genes are lost over time when the antibiotic pressure is removed from the population.
Why should a large toxin be any different?
Are the genes lost altogether, or do they simply become less prevalent in the population?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Bacteria can't devote resources to useless, sizeable protein synthesis without dividing more slowly. I think this is a fundamental, energy-doesn't-come-for -nothing-sort-of-rule.
Your second question raises a good point though. I've been simplifying to help my argument; not terribly honest.
So to come clean, sometimes it is (completely lost that is). There are other occasions when the antibiotic resistant organisms grow as well as the sensitive ones, so the resistance remains after the antibiotic pressure is removed.
There are even occasions when the resistant bugs are better off; so having evolved, they proceed to take over from the sensitive lot, despite the absence of drug pressure.
In support of my original argument, though, in all cases this has arisen after a very clear survival advantage (under antibiotic pressure).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No benefit, or no known benefit?
Of course, you're correct.
To postulate a benefit to the bug's growth in vitro would be stretching credibility, I think. A benefit in vivo in humans is pretty hard to support as well.
It's possible the was an in vivo benefit at some stage in another mammal; where the toxin acts differently. It still seems a remarkable act of malevolence on the part of chance .... that the toxin be so finely tuned to killing humans, the environment subtley organised so as to maintain it despite the lack of obvious survival benefit ....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
An aside:
New York Times: How to answer questions about evolution in museums
Not that I agree with the presuppositions contained in this article I think its very interesting. Basically it says museum guides are being trained to counter the questions creationists or I.D.ers have about evolution.
These amusing sentences opened the second page:
quote:
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about."
[ 20. September 2005, 04:40: Message edited by: Luke ]
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
The sentences don't strike me as amusing -- they seem like good advice for guides in general.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Something occurred to me the other day.
If it were possible to set up a "design filter" - an intellectually rigorous method of distinguishing things that were designed from things that were not - would that prove that there are things which God didn't design ? That He is not creator of all ?
Does the process not require some known-to-be-not-designed-at-all things to contrast with some known-to-be-designed-by-humans things in order to form a basis for such a filter ?
Just a thought...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...If it were possible to set up a "design filter" - an intellectually rigorous method of distinguishing things that were designed from things that were not - would that prove that there are things which God didn't design ? ...
Have you looked at some of the stranger things to be found in the Mandelbrot set, and so on? Such as the Buddhabrot . And, the clearly computer-generated vegetables now on the market?
I think that Godel's incompleteness would rear up someplace in the exercise... but I'll ponder where.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Definite proof that the Intelligent Designer is the Spaghetti Monster. All pasta clearly is made in his image, but clearly fallen.
--------------------
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
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Definite proof that the Intelligent Designer is the Spaghetti Monster. All pasta clearly is made in his image, but clearly fallen.
What about ravioli? It is not mentioned in the scriptures.
I would also note that pirates are not known for eating lots of pasta. So maybe the increase in pasta consumption is causing the decline in pirates (who are obviously offended that someone would eat a symbolic representation of His Noodly Self). And all the extra water vapour caused by boiling the pasta is what is causing global warming.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
I knew that Behe was an idiot- but he's just admitted that by the definitions he needs to declare Intelligent Design a scientific theory, Astrology is also a scientific theory. (His definition is approximately equivalent to the NAS definition of a hypothesis).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There you have it. The war is at an end.
On behalf of theistic evolutionists everywhere, I confess myself willing to concede that ID is a scientific theory in exactly the same sense that astrology is.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Oh, and quotes from the linked New Scientist article:
quote:
Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.
Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”
Regarding that last one, under my definition Behe is a load his mother should have spat (I feel sorry for anyone who swallows him). Once you start arbitrarily redefining terms to mean what you want them to, you can prove anything.
And Callan, I'm with you - and would go one step further in agreeing with Behe. Not only am I prepared to conceed that ID is a theory in exactly the same way that Astrology is, I'm prepared to conceed that by standard scientific definitions, ID is a hypothesis.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
There's also a colourful court report in a local newspaper, the York Daily Record.
It's worth a read, and ends:
" At one point during Rothschild's cross-examination, the lawyer asked the scientist whether he was co-authoring a book, a follow-up to "Of Pandas and People," with several other intelligent esign moolahs. He said he wasn't.
The lawyer showed him depositions and reports to the court, quoting two of the other authors as saying he was a co-author.
Behe said that he wasn't a co-author of the book but that the statements by those guys weren't false. He said one of the authors was "seeing into the future."
Rothschild asked, "Is seeing into the future one of the powers of the intelligent-design movement?"
Behe didn't answer.
He didn't have to.
Seeing into the future is the province of that other science — you know, astrology."
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
To be fair to Behe, he may actually be telling the truth on that one. It all depends on what your definition of is is.
In short, he isn't writing the follow up at this very moment and probably hasn't started yet. The co-authors are seeing into the future because he has signed a contract to do so and will do so even if he hasn't started his part yet. A cheap evasion (unlike Clinton whose counter-question was in the interests of accuracy) but factually true.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand why he is trying to avoid association with the book.
Surely the accurate thing to say is 'well, we're currently working on it but haven't yet got anything substantial to publish'.
I guess you can't be the co-author of a book that doesn't exist.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
The first part of Behe's cross-examination is now up on http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/22051018_day11_pm.pdf and it makes interesting reading - especially for the number of times Behe uses the Humpty Dumpty approach to words that mean what he means, not what everyone else thinks they mean. But he's got no other argument, when presented with statements he's made in the past that go against what he's trying to say now.
This is perhaps a significant exchange, where Behe is trying to replace 'intelligent design' with 'purposeful arrangement'. I think we may find that this phrase will start to turn up quite a lot as ID itself becomes debased currency - it's certainly there a lot in the transcript.
------------
Q And zero is the same number of articles in
peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems?
A The number of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals which show that life is composed of molecular machinery that exhibits the purposeful arrangement of parts in detail on term, you know, many many many thousands. There are -- I think there are just one or two that mention intelligent design by name.
Q That argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
A No, I don t think -- now that you mention it, I
think that I was thinking of something else.
Q And there are zero articles in peer-reviewed
scientific journals arguing for the irreducible complexity of complex molecular systems?
A There are none that use that phrase, but as I
indicated in my direct testimony, that I regard my paper with Professor David Snoke as to be arguing for the irreducible complexity of things such as complex protein binding sites.
Q So one, according to your count?
A Could you repeat the question, I am afraid --
Q I asked you, is it correct that there are zero
articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals arguing for the irreducible complexity of complex molecular systems?
A I would count some other papers as, as impinging on that, on that topic, but I don t -- they certainly don t use the term irreducible complexity.
-------------------------
It's interesting that Behe can be so vague on the 'one or two' peer reviewed papers that mention intelligent design - you'd have thought that such landmark publications would have stuck rather more forcefully in the mind. But no, he was 'thinking of something else' -- I wonder which of the two concepts in 'peer review' and 'intelligent design' he might have confused?
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
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, one peer reviewed ID journal. Though, just how widely they search for peers to do the reviewing would be an interesting question. But, even if all the reviewers are within the ID community that would be a step in the right direction.
Though, as every issue says "The publishers regret that no articles appeared in this issue" the question is a bit academic at present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Doesn't it rather show that the real reason no ID research gets published is that no ID research actually gets done?
It shows how ID evolved from creationism.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
A spoof site, surely?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, a decent journal would have a set of instructions for authors, an extensive description of the scope of the journal and what sort of articles would be suitable, contact details for the editor(s) etc. All of which is lacking there. So, it may be a spoof. But, if a spoof is all there is then that says a lot too.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
This is the real mccoy.
Peer reviewed. Catelogued.
The article was a bit long though. Skimmed it; and didn't find the usual methods/results bit.....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is the real mccoy.
Peer reviewed. Catelogued.
The article was a bit long though. Skimmed it; and didn't find the usual methods/results bit.....
No methods because its a review article I suppose.
Its not an argument so much as a catalog of famous biologists who said things that can be spun to support ID.
One noticeable thing is that nearly all the references apart from the ID ones are classic papers, or well-known semi-popular books. In other words this is the work of someone coming at the subject from a textbook overview, rather then something arising from a specialism or research. Not that there's anything wrong about that, maybe we need more overviews.
For example I recognise & remember reading at least 24 of the papers he cites, not including the ID party line ones, (& probably have read more that I've forgotten) and 9 of the books - I have 7 of them at home.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You are clearly at your most charitable today, Ken. Good day at work?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
The Dover court case is drawing to a conclusion, and what that might be only Judge John E. Jones III will know. However, seeing as he's spent some time lately angrily pointing out holes in some of the ID supporters' statements, it may not be going exactly how they might hope.
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
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
"Fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim" (Cardinal Paul Poupard, the Pontiffical Council for Culture)
It's now more than a century since the Vatican would only officially say that science could never contradict a truth found in the Bible.
Now, it seems that the Vatican has completed its process of accepting Darwinian theory and issued a strong criticism of those who say that Evolutionary Theory and Christianity are mutually exclusive. The two are, according to the latest Catholic statement on the matter, in harmony.
And it's an interesting way of doing it: not by engaging in the debate on the usual level of looking at examples of evolution in action to demonstrate impossibilities, or by attacking the notion of an "intelligent Creator" - but by simply stating the form, function and content of the Bible.
Not so much a defense of Darwin as an attack on Fundamentalism.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sheba
ship's border collie
# 10654
|
Posted
I'm enrolled to do a course on Creation and Science from http://www.reasons.org. It looks very exciting to me, as it challenges ideas from both the young-earthers and the evolutionists. (I have difficulty with both theories.)
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Isn't it wonderful just to stand in awe at what He has given us?
--------------------
Spiders are a little people, but they live in Kings' palaces.
Am Yisrael Chai! עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
Posts: 69 | From: hampshire, england | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
"Fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim" (Cardinal Paul Poupard, the Pontiffical Council for Culture)
Good analysis, Gareth.
Here's a couple of news reports on that story:
(MSNBC), (news.com.au)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sheba:
I'm enrolled to do a course on Creation and Science from http://www.reasons.org. It looks very exciting to me, as it challenges ideas from both the young-earthers and the evolutionists. (I have difficulty with both theories.)
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Isn't it wonderful just to stand in awe at what He has given us?
You ought to look at www.talkorigins.org as well - if you've got questions about evolution that aren't covered there, I'd be surprised.
Ross is one of the 'it looks designed and there must be a purpose, so it is and there is' school of creationists - in other words, he starts from the assumption that these things must be true and then applies that filter to everything. From your quote above, it looks like you do, too - which is fine for a personal philosophy but isn't science.
Don't forget that science has nothing to say about there being a creator (creationists claims to the opposite notwithstanding), beyond the observation that if there is one the methods they use are not inconsistent with a naturalistic analysis of the physical universe.
Standing in awe is fine, but seeking to find out more is even better. You can even mix the two: the more you find out, the more awesome it all becomes.
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Don't forget that science has nothing to say about there being a creator (creationists claims to the opposite notwithstanding), beyond the observation that if there is one the methods they use are not inconsistent with a naturalistic analysis of the physical universe.
I agree. I think the difficulty comes when there is the appearance of an assertion that "God had nothing to do with it."
So it makes sense to me that science just reports the facts, and makes no further comment.
Religion, on the other hand, comes in and adds its own spin to those same facts. Such as "Yes there is evolution just as science indicates. And God is behind all of it."
Even mixing the two is fine, as long as everyone agrees. For example, in a religious school the automatic assumption is that God is behind everything, so it is expected that science teachers will allude to that idea.
But mixing the two when there is not agreement about the facts is the trouble we are having now. That's my assessment, anyway.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Don't forget that science has nothing to say about there being a creator (creationists claims to the opposite notwithstanding), beyond the observation that if there is one the methods they use are not inconsistent with a naturalistic analysis of the physical universe.
I agree. I think the difficulty comes when there is the appearance of an assertion that "God had nothing to do with it."
So it makes sense to me that science just reports the facts, and makes no further comment.
Religion, on the other hand, comes in and adds its own spin to those same facts. Such as "Yes there is evolution just as science indicates. And God is behind all of it."
Even mixing the two is fine, as long as everyone agrees. For example, in a religious school the automatic assumption is that God is behind everything, so it is expected that science teachers will allude to that idea.
But mixing the two when there is not agreement about the facts is the trouble we are having now. That's my assessment, anyway.
There's not much disagreement about the facts among biologists, though - vanishingly small numbers of which see any of the problems raised by ID as being significant.
The problem is that the ID brigade are insistent that non-naturalistic explanations are a legitimate part of science - see Behe admitting that by his definition of science, astrology would qualify - but they seem not to care that this completely eviscerates the scientific method. People disagree about this fact, certainly!
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
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Interesting court decision.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Rejoice! Rejoice!
There were three possible verdicts. The judge could have ruled that ID wasn't religion, he could have ruled that in this instance the parents were attempting to smuggle in religion or he could have said ID per se is an attempt to smuggle in religion. Number three was what we wanted. Number three was what we got. God bless America!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I just clicked onto this thread 30 seconds after hearing about this on the radio. Rejoice indeed.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Rejoice! Rejoice!
There were three possible verdicts. The judge could have ruled that ID wasn't religion, he could have ruled that in this instance the parents were attempting to smuggle in religion or he could have said ID per se is an attempt to smuggle in religion. Number three was what we wanted. Number three was what we got. God bless America!
The verdict is awash with plums. The judge took time to unladle significant amounts of smackdown on just about everyone involved in the defence, and made his conclusions utterly unambiguous and devastatingly precise. The school board witnesses got a particularly harsh beating -- but that's what happens when you get up on oath and demonstrate that you are clueless and deceitful by lying to the judge about things you don't understand. Behe was put through the cottons-only cycle and hung out to dry, with the judge noting in some detail that none of his claims have stood up to scientific scrutiny. The manifold openly religious statements the DI and its buddies have made in the past were spiffed up and put on display. And the basics of the case - that ID is not science, it is creationist religion - got a fulsome and most welcome logical workout.
That verdict could have been a posting on the Panda's Thumb by any of the more cogent ID opponents. To see it as a hundred-page plus legal ruling is a thing of joy indeed. I think I'll print a copy out and flick through it from time to time during this season of goodwill.
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
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
The verdict is beautiful in so many ways.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Rook's quoted the bestest bits on the Hell Thread re Kicking Kansas out of the Union.
I think my favorite phrase was "breathtaking inanity."
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm overjoyed. Mene, mene, tekel, parsin I think were the words, weren't they?
What this shows, wonderfully, is that when an intelligent layman, who has a prior commitment only to finding out the truth of the matter, is presented with the scientific evidence for what has been the mainstream scientific model for a century and more, and has that compared with religiously motivated misrepresentation, twisted interpretation and even barefaced lies, it rapidly becomes clear that the scientists are almost certainly rather closer to the truth.
There is hope. I do hope that this decision will cause many ID proponents, especially in the rank and file, to take stock and ask whether they're being taken for a ride.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Nah. It'll just make them more committed, in the face of adversity. There's nothing like an enemy arising, if you want to rally your troops.
[ 21. December 2005, 10:11: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes. More evidence of the perverse oppressive spirit of the age that the true believers battle. It's everywhere - the schools, the courts, he government. Will Christ find any faithful when he returns?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Unsurprisingly, the Discovery Institute plan to fight on.
Is it me or does that press release seem slightly irked in tone? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Man, that judgement's a work of art.
mdijon, how, precisely, is Christ served by lying under oath about the reasoning behind a decision at least 5 of the 6 people who took it didn't really understand?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think mdijon was being ironic, Dyfrig.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
