Anti-Evolution State Education Laws [Archive]

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 2nd 2003, 09:52 PM

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85809#post85809)
Jin-Roh:

Who know Evolutions refuse to debate creationists. Their stated reason is that creationism is "not science." People say that one of the rules of science is that it must rely on/presume naturalistic explanations. Is that true in science or not?
There is practically no point in Evolutionists debating Creationists. Creationism is an unfalsifiable theory. Whenever contrary evidence is presented, the Creationist falls back on, "Well, that's just the way God planned it." Evolutionists allow themselves space to be wrong on certain matters. Indeed, the theory of evolution has changed a number of times to incorporate new findings. Creationists make no such allowances. They insist they are right on all accounts, and if you bring up evidence that shows they're wrong, well, either the evidence is a blatant lie or it is part of the mystery of God's plan. At any rate, a Creationist will never do the proper scientific thing and modify their theory to fit the facts. Instead, they much prefer to modify the facts to fit the theory (and usually do a poor job of it -- AiG is a shining example).

And soc is right. If religion should be seperate from the classroom, then evolution needs to be excluded as well --"good science" or no.
Why? We've all heard the familiar Creationist mantra "Evolution is a religion," but I have yet to see anyone actually back up that chant. Here's how it usually goes:

Evolution is religion!
(Why do you think that?)
Because, evolution is religion!
(That's what you said. Buy why?)
Uh ... uh ... evolution is religion! Don't you see?
(No, I don't. You haven't explained it to me.)
You're blind, you're a puppet of the Evil Atheist Humanist Agenda!
(Well, that's all fine and dandy, but you haven't answered my question.)
You're trying to trick me. I shouldn't have to prove my position!

Jin-Roh

May 3rd 2003, 12:52 AM

Evolution is religion!
(Why do you think that?)
Because, evolution is religion!
(That's what you said. Buy why?)
Uh ... uh ... evolution is religion! Don't you see?
(No, I don't. You haven't explained it to me.)
You're blind, you're a puppet of the Evil Atheist Humanist Agenda!
(Well, that's all fine and dandy, but you haven't answered my question.)
You're trying to trick me. I shouldn't have to prove my position!

Okay, well allow me to back it up.

Here’s some verbatim statements from Humanist Manifesto I and II

Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.
[…]
The Scientific theory of evolution, however, provides a more parsimonious account of human origins and is based upon evidence drawn from a wide range of sciences. We decry the efforts of a few scientists, often heralded by the mass media, to impose transcendental interpretations upon natural phenomena.

So as you can see, both evolution and outright opposition towards creationists as much a part of humanist dogma as creation is for Christians –regardless with how many quotes from uninformed and/or cowardly believers out there who insist otherwise.

Now is Humanism a legally recognized religion? Yes! In the Torcaso v. Watkins case, the supreme court declared Humanism a religion when Roy R. Torcaso fought a law in Maryland that required public official to profess belief in God back in 1961.* (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/91486184?item_no=43594&event=ESRC&item_code=WW)

So basically my point is this: Whether Evolution is true or not is not relevant in the case of schools. Since it is part of legally recognized religion it shouldn’t be taught in schools if we the anti-theists want to be consistent with the whole “separation of Church and State” issue.

Basically, what should be done is either pass like the one that is presented in this thread, or allow the creationist to present their arguments in school. One or the other.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 3rd 2003, 02:01 AM

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85959#post85959)
Jin-Roh:

Okay, well allow me to back it up.

Here’s some verbatim statements from Humanist Manifesto I and II

So as you can see, both evolution and outright opposition towards creationists as much a part of humanist dogma as creation is for Christians –regardless with how many quotes from uninformed and/or cowardly believers out there who insist otherwise.

Now is Humanism a legally recognized religion? Yes! In the Torcaso v. Watkins case, the supreme court declared Humanism a religion when Roy R. Torcaso fought a law in Maryland that required public official to profess belief in God back in 1961.* (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/91486184?item_no=43594&event=ESRC&item_code=WW)

So basically my point is this: Whether Evolution is true or not is not relevant in the case of schools. Since it is part of legally recognized religion it shouldn’t be taught in schools if we the anti-theists want to be consistent with the whole “separation of Church and State” issue.

Basically, what should be done is either pass like the one that is presented in this thread, or allow the creationist to present their arguments in school. One or the other.
You didn't back it up. You showed that evolution is endorsed by a religion. You didn't show that Evolution is itself a religion. Evolution is not a religion, it is a science that happens to be endorsed by some religions. Every science known to man is endorsed by some religion or other. Anytime Creationists attempt to support their belief by appealing to biology or geology, they are endorsing those sciences. So, since Christianity clearly endorses biology and geology, should those sciences be barred from being taught in institutions of public education? No, they shouldn't, because they aren't religions, just because some religions express a belief in the accuracy of those sciences. Same with evolution. It isn't a religion. You'll have to try again.

Homie

May 3rd 2003, 12:58 PM

People, people, instead of pulling the old "Well, those hillbillies on (insert site or organisation here) don't have a clue", why don't you show us were the fault of these "hillbillies" lye?

All I see from the atheists on this thread is that they are met with logic from one party, in this case www.answearinggenesis.org, and instead of refuting it they just dismiss it saying "Well, they don't have a clue".

Try to live by this rule: I will treat and analyse the content, not the source. Unless the source is lying of course.

Jin-Roh

May 3rd 2003, 03:46 PM

You didn't back it up. You showed that evolution is endorsed by a religion. You didn't show that Evolution is itself a religion. Evolution is not a religion, it is a science that happens to be endorsed by some religions. Every science known to man is endorsed by some religion or other. Anytime Creationists attempt to support their belief by appealing to biology or geology, they are endorsing those sciences. So, since Christianity clearly endorses biology and geology, should those sciences be barred from being taught in institutions of public education? No, they shouldn't, because they aren't religions, just because some religions express a belief in the accuracy of those sciences. Same with evolution. It isn't a religion. You'll have to try again.

Well actually, I myself never actually declared it a religion. My orginal statement was that it was endorsed by relgion. I was concuring with Soc when he made this statement:

Why? Evolution is part of the religion of Humanism, and separate creation and a global Flood are part of origins science.
Perhaps I did not make that clear. No, I don't think evolution is in itself a religion, but like I said, its presense in public schools seems to violate "church and state."

Marc Schindler

May 3rd 2003, 04:01 PM

Here's what I used to say when my 4 kids went through high school. Note that "Biology 30" is 2nd year AP biology in the Province of Alberta, and by "seminary" I mean early morning seminary held at our local chapel:

"I want my kids to learn about Genesis in seminary, and Biology 30 at school."

"Evolutionists" (whatever that means) don't debate creationists because creationists are simply ignorant of science. And I speak from the vantage point of someone who used to be a creationist. Then I actually started studying evolution and found that it was quite possible for God to have used evolution to prepare our bodies for divine-species souls. In fact, it's an extremely elegant solution.

But debating with creationists? It's like debating differential equations with someone who flunked algebra. Who has time to educate someone in calculus when they don't even have algebra? I know this comes across as sounding arrogant, but I've been on both sides of the fence. I once had an exchange of correspondence with Isaac Asimov, and ended up calling him an "ass" for not considering creationism. I suspect we've both learned something (he was an atheist, not just an agnostic like Stephen Jay Gould, but has passed away; one presumes he's learned that there is, at the very least, an afterlife).

Homie

May 3rd 2003, 09:09 PM

But debating with creationists? It's like debating differential equations with someone who flunked algebra. Who has time to educate someone in calculus when they don't even have algebra? I know this comes across as sounding arrogant, but I've been on both sides of the fence
So have I, and I have to say that your arguments can be applied to evolutionists as well. And yes, you are sounding arrogant, you seem to be no exception to the rule.

Scientific theories come and go, what is an established fact today may be laughed at tomorrow, so I'd rather abide to something affirmed and never proven wrong, that is the word of God.

Socrates

May 3rd 2003, 09:19 PM

Marc Schindler arrogantly splutters:Evolutionists" (whatever that means)Those who believe in evolution from goo to you via the zoo. In this context, despite the deceitful equivocation by many leading propagandists and certain people on TWeb, evolution does NOT mean simply "change of gene frequency over time", because no creationist disputes that.... don't debate creationists because creationists are simply ignorant of science. I bet I'm at least as well as qualified in science as you or anyone else here.[list]And I speak from the vantage point of someone who used to be a creationist. So where are your papers written from a creationist perspective? And were you a true Biblical creationist? The high profile apostates from YEC such as Glenn Moron and Denis Lamoureux were not Biblical creationists at all because of their commitment to evidentialism.Then I actually started studying evolution and found that it was quite possible for God to have used evolution to prepare our bodies for divine-species souls. In fact, it's an extremely elegant solution.Only if you define "elegant" as meaning a denial of Biblical authority and allowing that God would use a wasteful, cruel and inefficient process with loads of death, "the last enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26), to bring about what He called a "very good" creation (Genesis 1:31).

Socrates

May 3rd 2003, 09:26 PM

Eireann (to Jin Roh who was concurring with a statement I made):You didn't back it up. You showed that evolution is endorsed by a religion. You didn't show that Evolution is itself a religion. Evolution is not a religion, it is a science that happens to be endorsed by some religions. Every science known to man is endorsed by some religion or other. Anytime Creationists attempt to support their belief by appealing to biology or geology, they are endorsing those sciences. So, since Christianity clearly endorses biology and geology, should those sciences be barred from being taught in institutions of public education? No, they shouldn't, because they aren't religions, just because some religions express a belief in the accuracy of those sciences. Same with evolution. It isn't a religion. You'll have to try again.I think Jin-Roh has already answered excellently. Evolution IS a fundamental tenet of Humanism, which according to its proponents IS a religion (at least when they want tax exemptions, as opposed to when they want to indoctrinate schoolkids :poke:). Similarly, an Intelligent Designer can be argued for scientifically, and the fact that it is a tenet of Christianity and Islam doesn't make the Intelligent Design religious per se. So one can say that evolution or ID are both religious, or that neither are religious but are rather claimed scientific supports for religion. Consistency would be nice, but I've never known that from humanists and/or evolutionists.

Socrates

May 3rd 2003, 09:37 PM

42:Soc, do you mind posting some non-politicised links, ...What did you have in mind? Stuff from the rabid God-hater Dawkins, or from the humanist founded and operated NCSE? Of course, to rabid atheists, atheism is non-politicised, which is a joke. this AiG dribble is getting really tired. You live in a reasonable well educated society, why don't you act like it.These guys have the highest academic scientific qualifications (earned Ph.D.s from secular universities). They just haven't gullibly genuflected towards evolution from goo to you via the zoo like 42 has, because he needs this pseudo-scientific justification for his rejection of God.

Marc Schindler spruiks:Soc, I hate to tell you this, but the Answering Genesis people, along with their fellow loonies at the Creation Research Institute, just do not understand the science. What would you know?Nor, imo, do they understand religion. This just isn't in any way a religious issue, but a social one tarted up to look like a religious issue. Nonsense -- I've amply shown that six-day creation is the proper grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible, and also the historic view of the Chrisitian Church through the first ~1800 years of its history.It's "science from hillbillies." It's a phenomenon by ignorant Inerrantists who insist on reading the Bible as if it were a geology text, which is an insult to both books.No we don't -- geology textbooks all have mistakes in them and go out of date in a few years. Rather, we treat Genesis as HISTORY, the way the New Testament treats it.

And I note that Schindler has no answer to the many errors by Miller that AiG pointed out.

wienerdog

May 3rd 2003, 09:45 PM

Why can't we just teach evolution, along with the problems with it? We could teach the basic theory of evolution; and we could also teach (for example) the fact that the primary characteristics of the fossil record are stasis and sudden appearance--and thus the fossil record does not support gradual change. We could teach about how hominids are thought to be precursors to human beings; and teach how Y-chromosome studies put the origin of humanity at about 50,000 years (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/chromosome.shtml?main and http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml?main#y_chromosome). Why would this be a problem?

WinAce

May 3rd 2003, 10:01 PM

Technically, dictums aren't "The Supreme Court deciding so and so", but the personal opinions of a justice that have no bearing on the case. Thus, using them as evidence of something is quite dishonest.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 3rd 2003, 11:36 PM

Today @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86822#post86822)
Socrates:

I think Jin-Roh has already answered excellently. Evolution IS a fundamental tenet of Humanism, which according to its proponents IS a religion (at least when they want tax exemptions, as opposed to when they want to indoctrinate schoolkids :poke:). Similarly, an Intelligent Designer can be argued for scientifically, and the fact that it is a tenet of Christianity and Islam doesn't make the Intelligent Design religious per se. So one can say that evolution or ID are both religious, or that neither are religious but are rather claimed scientific supports for religion. Consistency would be nice, but I've never known that from humanists and/or evolutionists.
I see the three like this:

Evolution is purely a science (good science/bad science, but still a science)
Creationism is purely dogmatic, based on religion
ID is a marriage of the two, probably a bit more science than religion, but definitely infused with religious principles.

Yes, Evolution is a tenet of the quasi-religion of Humanism. However, although the scientific and philosophical principles upon which Humanism is based are very old, Humanism as a quasi-religious movement is fairly new. Evolution theory is a lot older. Just because a religion incorporates a known science into its framework does not mean the science is to blame for that, or that the science should cease to be taught in the interest of separation of Church and State. If it were, then they would have to stop teaching genetics as a science, because it is a core tenet of the Raelian religion. Or astronomy, being a core element of astrology, which is a core element of a number of New Age religions. If we were to exclude the teaching of any science that some religion has made a part of its framework, then there would be no sciences taught.

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 03:07 PM

Here's the problem: one needs a certain level of understanding and education in science even to talk about evolution. That's why those who are, like myself and Kenneth Miller, "theistic evolutionists," find it frustrating to talk to creationists, and creationists find us arrogant. But just for starters, here's an indication of part of the problem:

Homie: "were the fault of these "hillbillies" lye?"
Socrates: "what would you know?"

Three spelling errors in the course of a 7-word clause by Homie does not inspire hope in me that any explanation I might make would be understood.
Soc's "nyah-nyah"-type response likewise tells me I would be wasting my time even to try.

So, here: look at this site, read it, and then come back with some intelligent questions: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Until then, sorry, and double sorry if this sounds like I'm being arrogant or brushing off your questions, but I cannot explain the calculus of the astronomical three-body problem to someone who's never taken algebra. Same thing with evolution.

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 03:13 PM

Here's the problem: one needs a certain level of understanding and education in science even to talk about evolution. That's why those who are, like myself and Kenneth Miller, "theistic evolutionists," find it frustrating to talk to creationists, and creationists find us arrogant. But just for starters, here's an indication of part of the problem:

Homie: "were the fault of these "hillbillies" lye?"
Socrates: "what would you know?"

Three spelling errors in the course of a 7-word clause by Homie does not inspire hope in me that any explanation I might make would be understood.
Soc's "nyah-nyah"-type response likewise tells me I would be wasting my time even to try. Anyone who thinks ID can be argued for scientifically simply does not understand the scientific way of thinking. It is not opposed to religion necessarily (although there are "evangelizing atheists" such as some humanists who try, an approach called "scientism," which is just as wrong-headed as creationism but of course for reasons that are 180o different).

So, here: look at this site, read it, and then come back with some intelligent questions: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Until then, sorry, and double sorry if this sounds like I'm being arrogant or brushing off your questions, but I cannot explain the calculus of the astronomical three-body problem to someone who's never taken algebra. Same thing with evolution.

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 03:14 PM

Here's the problem: one needs a certain level of understanding and education in science even to talk about evolution. That's why those who are, like myself and Kenneth Miller, "theistic evolutionists," find it frustrating to talk to creationists, and creationists find us arrogant. But just for starters, here's an indication of part of the problem:

Homie: "were the fault of these "hillbillies" lye?"
Socrates: "what would you know?"

Three spelling/grammatical errors in the course of a 7-word clause by Homie does not inspire hope in me that any explanation I might make would be understood.
Soc's "nyah-nyah"-type response likewise tells me I would be wasting my time even to try. Anyone who thinks ID can be argued for scientifically simply does not understand the scientific way of thinking. It is not opposed to religion necessarily (although there are "evangelizing atheists" such as some humanists who try, an approach called "scientism," which is just as wrong-headed as creationism but of course for reasons that are 180o different).

So, here: look at this site, read it, and then come back with some intelligent questions: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Until then, sorry, and double sorry if this sounds like I'm being arrogant or brushing off your questions, but I cannot explain the calculus of the astronomical three-body problem to someone who's never taken algebra. Same thing with evolution.

Homie

May 4th 2003, 05:21 PM

English is not my 1st language Marc, I speak Norwegian and have only learned English as a 2nd language. But I'd have you know that my capabilities of understanding are top-notch. Bring on your highly intelligent arguments which you claim I couldn't possibly understand.

Homie
People, people, instead of pulling the old "Well, those hillbillies on (insert site or organisation here) don't have a clue", why don't you show us were the fault of these "hillbillies" lye?

All I see from the atheists on this thread is that they are met with logic from one party, in this case www.answearinggenesis.org, and instead of refuting it they just dismiss it saying "Well, they don't have a clue".

Try to live by this rule: I will treat and analyse the content, not the source. Unless the source is lying of course.

This is what I wrote in an earlier post, yet you reply by doing the very thing I criticized you (evolutionists) for. If that doesn't show your stupidity what does? And if we are going to stoop as low as to use examples of bad spelling as proof of low intelligence then wouldn't triple-posting qualify? Btw, the edit button is between the 'link' button and the 'quote' button. Just thought I'd help you out ;)

So instead of insulting our intelligence why don't you try to refute the arguments of the people at AiG?

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 06:17 PM

Homie, your points vis-a-vis English are fair enough; I wasn't aware that English isn't your first language.

But my main point still remains. I have spent far, far too long trying to educate creationists in the basics of biology than to "try to refute the arguments of the people at AiG?" Their arguments have already been refuted -- I gave you the URL.

I'm not going to waste my time educating you or anyone else on the basics of biology. You either learn, so that you can discuss it properly, or I'm just not going to participate. That, by the way, is not stupidity, but impatience. I've got a life to live.

Sher

May 4th 2003, 06:17 PM

Yesterday @ 11:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86905#post86905)
Eireann:

Yes, Evolution is a tenet of the quasi-religion of Humanism. However, although the scientific and philosophical principles upon which Humanism is based are very old, Humanism as a quasi-religious movement is fairly new. Evolution theory is a lot older. Just because a religion incorporates a known science into its framework does not mean the science is to blame for that, or that the science should cease to be taught in the interest of separation of Church and State. If it were, then they would have to stop teaching genetics as a science, because it is a core tenet of the Raelian religion. Or astronomy, being a core element of astrology, which is a core element of a number of New Age religions. If we were to exclude the teaching of any science that some religion has made a part of its framework, then there would be no sciences taught.

And you don't see the irony in this statement? :poke:
Today @ 06:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87450#post87450)
Marc Schindler:

I'm not going to waste my time educating you or anyone else on the basics of biology. You either learn, so that you can discuss it properly, or I'm just not going to participate. That, by the way, is not stupidity, but impatience. I've got a life to live.

:hi:

(j/k)

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 06:24 PM

Eirann:
And you don't see the irony in this statement?

No, I don't.

Marc Schindler

May 4th 2003, 06:43 PM

First, my apologies for the multiple posts. Sometimes I get a time-out on the board, and re-post, and voilà!, like magic, the posts appear 2 or 3 times.

Soc:
So where are your papers written from a creationist perspective?
Actually I meant I believed in creationism. But as it so happens, I did write a couple of papers for a quarterly published by Pacific Meridian Press (run by Donald Patten), but they're long out of print.

I don't see the fact that humanism has evolution as a "fundamental tenet" makes any difference whatsoever. After all, humanists get married and love their kids, too. It's just not a logical argument.

The fact that I sound arrogant is a similarly flawed argument; it's known as argumentum ad hominem. My seeming arrogance (which is not a normal part of my personality, by the way) arises in this case because I have tried dozens of times to educate people on what evolution does and doesn't claim, and it takes time. Lots of time. And I simply have better things to do. That's why I gave the link to a site where one can learn about evolution. If there are specific questions I'll be glad to help if I can.

Likewise Soc's logic is flawed when he claims humanism is a religion because they get tax exemptions. Two problems: 1) is that in the US or all over the world? (the point being that if they get tax exemptions in the US then they would only be considered a religion there); but that notwithstanding, 2) all kinds of non-religious organizations get tax deductions as charitable organizations. Just because all religions get tax exemptions does not imply that all organizations that get tax exemptions are religions.

Someone claimed that Answering Genesis has "refuted" Miller. I did a search on Miller at www.answeringenesis.org and found a review of his book, Finding Darwin's God. Rather than take up my limit in a post, could someone show me where they think the reviewers have refuted Miller? I read the review, and think the reviewers are sloppy and do not understand science. Can someone point out something specific?

Here's the URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp

Let's just start with one, okay?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 4th 2003, 07:58 PM

Today @ 05:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87451#post87451)
SherBear:

And you don't see the irony in this statement?
Which particular statement did you find ironic, and why? Why is it ironic to say that sciences should still be taught as sciences, regardless whether some religion or other has decided to make those sciences a part of their framework? If some new religion comes along and decides that God has reincarnated in the automobile industry, should we then stop driving to school? A fundamental aspect of Paganism is that God is present and a part of all things, animal, plant and mineral? So, should school stop serving both meat and veggies in their cafeterias, not to mention salt?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 4th 2003, 07:59 PM

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87461#post87461)
Marc Schindler:

Eirann:

No, I don't.
Actually, that was SherBear you were addressing. She was just quoting me.

Woman

May 4th 2003, 08:07 PM

Sher

May 4th 2003, 08:07 PM

Today @ 07:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87551#post87551)
Eireann:

Which particular statement did you find ironic, and why?

Yes, Creationism is a tenet of the religion of Christianity. However, although the principles upon which Christianity [are] based are very old, Christianity as a religious movement is fairly new. Creationism is a lot older ... Etc., etc.

Irony.

Sher

May 4th 2003, 08:11 PM

Today @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87477#post87477)
Marc Schindler:

Rather than take up my limit in a post, could someone show me where they think the reviewers have refuted Miller? I read the review, and think the reviewers are sloppy and do not understand science. Can someone point out something specific?

Sorry, but this makes no sense ... and belongs in a science, not political science topic, BTW (thanks!) ...

You think that the reviewers are sloppy and do not understand science ... yet you expect someone to point out specifics to you so you can avoid taking up post limit?

You have 24,000 characters ... surely you can be that concise?

Socrates

May 4th 2003, 10:24 PM

Eireann

Which particular statement did you find ironic, and why? Why is it ironic to say that sciences should still be taught as sciences, regardless whether some religion or other has decided to make those sciences a part of their framework? If some new religion comes along and decides that God has reincarnated in the automobile industry, should we then stop driving to school? A fundamental aspect of Paganism is that God is present and a part of all things, animal, plant and mineral? So, should school stop serving both meat and veggies in their cafeterias, not to mention salt?

Woman:You managed to cut right throught to pure logic here.There was certainly a lot of logic being cut here. Note, a major argument against allowing ID to be taught in science classrooms, with purely scientific arguments based on complexity and information, is that a Designer is a "religious" concept. The evidence is that a Designer is essential to Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and Islam. But then, by the same pathetic reasoning, evolution as an explanation for life is also just as religious, since it is an essential plank of humanism.

Actually, creation and evolution are matters of HISTORY not science.

Socrates

May 4th 2003, 10:33 PM

Marc Schindler arrogantly splutters (then later tried to excuse his arrogance):But my main point still remains. I have spent far, far too long trying to educate creationists in the basics of biology than to "try to refute the arguments of the people at AiG?"Three of the AiG scientists have earned Ph.D.s in biology, so I doubt that you're in any position to educate them! Their arguments have already been refuted -- I gave you the URL.In your dreams.I'm not going to waste my time educating you or anyone else on the basics of biology. You either learn, so that you can discuss it properly, or I'm just not going to participate. And of course, by "learn", MS really means, swallow evolution from goo to you via the zoo.That, by the way, is not stupidity, but impatience. I've got a life to live.Then go and live it -- you won't be missed.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:39 AM

Yog^sothoth sez:
SENATE BILL 6500 (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/6500-6524/6500_01182002.txt)

This bill is a load of pre-enlightenment bollocks that died a well deserved death in committee ages ago.

And are my eyes deceiving me, or did I just see a guy called "Evolution Eviscerator" whose apparent modus operandi is posting links to answersingenesis? Good Lord, I did!

I thought I'd had my fill of raucous laughter for one day, but thanks for squeezing in a bonus round for good measure.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:53 AM

Jin-Roh sez:
Now is Humanism a legally recognized religion? Yes! In the Torcaso v. Watkins case, the supreme court declared Humanism a religion when Roy R. Torcaso fought a law in Maryland that required public official to profess belief in God back in 1961.

Typical fundie apologetic nonsense. Torcaso makes a passing reference to "humanism" and Buddhism in a footnote. Footnotes don't even count as dicta, let alone part of the opinion.

I can see this board is going to be a lot of fun!

Incidentally, Supreme Court is spelled with capital letters. Please show some respect for Article III of the United States Constitution.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:58 AM

Jin-Roh sez:
So basically my point is this: Whether Evolution is true or not is not relevant in the case of schools. Since it is part of legally recognized religion it shouldn’t be taught in schools if we the anti-theists want to be consistent with the whole “separation of Church and State” issue.

Oh my sides! They hurt! This is too much. I can't take any more of this. I have to go lie down for awhile.

But I'll be back!

WinAce

May 14th 2003, 01:25 PM

Well, pretty much all the predictions made by young-earthism are falsified by the data... and the ID movement hasn't even defined what they're arguing for in any meaningful way, much less did the legwork to make it a science.

Homie

May 14th 2003, 01:45 PM

WINACE
Well, pretty much all the predictions made by young-earthism are falsified by the data

HOMIE
You mean they are lieing about the data? I do not believe that, any christian would know that you cannot promote the faith by lieing.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:02 PM

Homie:
You mean they are lieing about the data? I do not believe that, any christian would know that you cannot promote the faith by lieing.

Some people might find this sort of sarcasm quite offensive.

Marc Schindler

May 14th 2003, 02:24 PM

It can be lying -- I've run into my fair share of "Christians" who lie; or it can be simply ignorance. Even stupidity. Not everyone understands the basics of the question.

WinAce

May 14th 2003, 02:35 PM

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96305#post96305)
Homie:

HOMIE
You mean they are lieing about the data? I do not believe that, any christian would know that you cannot promote the faith by lieing.

I'm not sure if it's intentional and deliberate "lying" (in the sense of being an admitted con artist) so much as pious fraud combined with a persecution complex, the impression that the data actually supports your position, and subconscious supression of contradictory facts.

Then again, there are many demonstrable mistruths on pretty much all young-earther websites. AiG's "thousands of unfossilized dino ligaments" and "chicken lysozyme" claims come to mind.

Marc Schindler

May 14th 2003, 03:35 PM

"pious frauds" -- I like that term. It reminds me of the Paluxy River footprints, which were being used when I was a creationist, some 30 years ago. I still run into this today even though they've long been proven to be fraudulent.

Homie

May 14th 2003, 03:52 PM

ELVIS
Some people might find this sort of sarcasm quite offensive.

HOMIE
I was not being sarcastic.

I am curious WinAce, why are you (evidently) so committed to promote the SCIENCE Evolution? It is not a faith/religion, it isn't even a lifestyle or principles for life (like e.g. Buddhism). Wheter people recognize Evolution as true or not, what does it matter to you? I can say I am committed to promote christianity because I believe it will be better for people's lives, not to mention their afterlives.

WinAce

May 14th 2003, 08:31 PM

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96441#post96441)
Homie:

I am curious WinAce, why are you (evidently) so committed to promote the SCIENCE Evolution?

I'm not committed to promoting much of anything. I argue for evolution because (A) it's controversial to so many, and I love that; (B) there's always a ready supply of creationists practically anywhere to debate with, whereas only a few geocentrists and practically no flat-earthers; and (C) I love biology, and if the fundies succeed in replacing its underlying principle with a superstitious and scientifically useless god of the gaps argument, it'll be Soviet-era Lysenkoism all over again.

It is not a faith/religion, it isn't even a lifestyle or principles for life (like e.g. Buddhism). Wheter people recognize Evolution as true or not, what does it matter to you?

I don't care much for whether any particular person recognizes a scientific theory as valid. However, the only way they do so that I've encountered is total disregard for the most basic scientific principles like parsimony and predictive value.

When half the people in the US think "just a theory" is a smart statement to make, I don't see a very bright future for scientific advance.

Socrates

May 15th 2003, 10:44 AM

WinAce:I love biology, and if the fundies succeed in replacing its underlying principle What underlying principle? According to the paleontologist Dr Roberto Fondi of the University of Siena (Italy), biology would be greatly advanced if it rejected the "dead end of evolutionary theory" and returned to the fruitful Aristotelian, Linnaean, Cuvierian and Goethian morphology (video Evolution: Fact or Belief).... with a superstitious and scientifically useless god of the gaps argument, it'll be Soviet-era Lysenkoism all over again.More likely, since Lysenko and Stalin were staunch evolutionists, the west is heading that way because of the entrenched evolutionism that suppresses all dissent.

WinAce

May 15th 2003, 12:10 PM

Today @ 10:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97333#post97333)
Socrates:

What underlying principle?

Oh, you know - the one that explains everything from the arrangement of the fossil record by lineage to nested hierarchies of anatomy to the patterns of DNA sequence similarity to atavisms to pseudogenes to ancient retroviral infections to...

According to the paleontologist Dr Roberto Fondi of the University of Siena (Italy), biology would be greatly advanced if it rejected the "dead end of evolutionary theory" and returned to the fruitful Aristotelian, Linnaean, Cuvierian and Goethian morphology (video Evolution: Fact or Belief).

And according to L. Ron Hubbard, an alien invasion from millions of years ago left parasitic extraterrestrial spirits in everyone. Do you have an actual argument for your quote above, or should it go down in history as another example of pseudoscientific quacks against 99.9% of the scientific community?

More likely, since Lysenko and Stalin were staunch evolutionists, the west is heading that way because of the entrenched evolutionism that suppresses all dissent.

Odd, I don't seem to recall anyone who questions evolution being shot or anything. I do recall, on the other hand, that Lysenko's hypotheses were idealogically motivated claptrap that were already falsified by the data by the time he came up with them. Neither do I recall its advocates owning up to its numerous falsifications. Does that remind you of anything or anyone, 'Socrates'?

Marc Schindler

May 15th 2003, 05:55 PM

The other point about Lysenko isn't that he was an evolutionist (technically speaking, of course, he was), but that his theories had the backing of the state.

On this side of the Atlantic, that state seems in danger of becoming, say, Kansas, or Louisiana.

Nouveau-fascism in pedagogy -- good for keeping the peasants down :wink:

Elvis Rehnquist

May 15th 2003, 06:30 PM

Homie sez:
I was not being sarcastic.

Then it's even funnier.

Socrates

May 16th 2003, 02:47 AM

Mark Schindler, a worthy ally to the teenaged rebel anti-theistic scientific ignoramus WinAce [post#57]:The other point about Lysenko isn't that he was an evolutionist (technically speaking, of course, he was), but that his theories had the backing of the state.Yes, and a state that would not allow the slightest challenge to his version of evolution.On this side of the Atlantic, that state seems in danger of becoming, say, Kansas, or Louisiana.More likely, those states which ban any theistic challenges.Nouveau-fascism in pedagogy -- good for keeping the peasants down. As a dogmatic evolutionary bigot who supports excluding any challenges, you're a great successor to Stalin and Lysenko. Meanwhile, TRUE science continues to manage perfectly well without evolution, including biology. For example, in modern times in my own country, some leading creationist biologists include: Raymond Jones (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3944.asp), whose research into Lucaena is worth millions of dollars annually to Australia's agriculture.
John Mann (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3516.asp) (deceased) responsible for one of the world's greatest successes with biological control, eradicating the prickly pear invasion that was decimating Australian farmland.
Dr Ian Macreadie (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp), winner of the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 16th 2003, 02:55 AM

Today @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98258#post98258)
Socrates:

Meanwhile, TRUE science continues to manage perfectly well without evolution, including biology. For example, in modern times in my own country, some leading creationist biologists include:
Raymond Jones (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3944.asp), whose research into Lucaena is worth millions of dollars annually to Australia's agriculture.
John Mann (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3516.asp) (deceased) responsible for one of the world's greatest successes with biological control, eradicating the prickly pear invasion that was decimating Australian farmland.
Dr Ian Macreadie (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp), winner of the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research.
Don't you just love the way that Socrates completely abandons relevence when making his points? Sure, these scientists shine in their particular fields despite being Creationists? Why? Because origin theories have little or nothing to do with their particular accomplishments. In those particular areas of science, it wouldn't matter one squat if they were Creationists, Evolutionists, IDers, or Raelians. Their particular stand on origin theories has no bearing on those particular areas of science.

Socrates

May 16th 2003, 04:01 AM

The scientifically illiterate Eireann :rant::Don't you just love the way that Socrates completely abandons relevence when making his points? Sure, these scientists shine in their particular fields despite being Creationists? Why? Because origin theories have little or nothing to do with their particular accomplishments. In those particular areas of science, it wouldn't matter one squat if they were Creationists, Evolutionists, IDers, or Raelians. Their particular stand on origin theories has no bearing on those particular areas of science.And that's the whole point :dufus: The evolutionary scaremongers above as good as claimed that if evolution were challenged, biology would revert to the Dark Ages or Stalinist USSR. So my points were totally relevant because they showed that incredibly important biological advances can occur without belief in evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 16th 2003, 04:08 AM

Today @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98349#post98349)
Socrates:

And that's the whole point. The evolutionary scaremongers above as good as claimed that if evolution were challenged, biology would revert to the Dark Ages or Stalinist USSR. So my points were totally relevant because they showed that incredibly important biological advances can occur without belief in evolution from goo to you via the zoo.
It still isn't relevant. There are areas of science where biology and evolution significantly intersect, which is what they were talking about. You instead chose areas of science where evolution and biology do not have any bearing on one another. That's just poor debating.

geochron

May 16th 2003, 06:36 AM

05-05-2003 @ 01:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87567#post87567)
SherBear:

[someone had asserted somebody's book was refuted, another asked which bit of an argument was seen as a refutation]

Sorry, but this makes no sense ... and belongs in a science, not political science topic, BTW (thanks!) ...

You think that the reviewers are sloppy and do not understand science ... yet you expect someone to point out specifics to you so you can avoid taking up post limit?

You have 24,000 characters ... surely you can be that concise?

The original assertion was by your side. I guess your reply constitutes a "No, we can't tell you what the refutation is" Admirably concise!

Homie

May 16th 2003, 06:53 AM

ELVIS
Then it's even funnier.

HOMIE
Glad I could bring some joy into your day :smile:

EIRANN
It still isn't relevant. There are areas of science where biology and evolution significantly intersect, which is what they were talking about. You instead chose areas of science where evolution and biology do not have any bearing on one another. That's just poor debating.

HOMIE
Honestly, read it again and you'll see that Socrates's point was correct. Referring to the bold text: Are you sure, I understood it as if evolution was challenged it would be a major step back for science as a whole.

Marc Schindler

May 16th 2003, 01:03 PM

Socrates, I'm afraid that a trio of agronomists do not a clique of evolutionary biologists make. Whether they realize it or not, their work depends upon theories which the biological community as a whole has come to a consensus on, and that includes the "modern synthesis" as the modern understanding of Darwinian evolution is called.

You're comparing apple experts with orchard-minders.

You missed my point about Lysenko. It wasn't that the state didn't interfere: they mandated his ideas be taught, which is precisely what I see happening in such places as Kansas, Ohio and Louisiana. It was political interference. The status quo, where science curricula are designed by those knowledgeable in science, is designed to give students a well-rounded education in science. Religion, which is what creationism is, can also be taught if the school is a private school, or a parochial school. Or at home: why not take another leaf out of the right-wing and insist that creationism, like sex education, be taught by parents? Sex education is about biology, too, isn't it?

As a dogmatic evolutionary bigot who supports excluding any challenges, you're a great successor to Stalin and Lysenko.

I'm warning you now, Socrates, that I won't abide personal attacks like this. Let's see how "free" your debate and dialogue comes when you've insulted everyone, then turn around and accuse them of not allowing debate. That will be called, I believe the word is "monologue." It would also show that you are deficient in rhetoric and debating skills if you have to resort to personal slurs on your opponents instead of addressing their arguments (that's known as argumentum ad hominem, incidentally).

Thanks for being mature about this. I've only made a couple of posts and already you can see that I'm a "bigot"? Just how old are you, anyway?

Marc Schindler

May 16th 2003, 02:58 PM

Socrates, you've tipped your hand, as I thought you might, by the rather offhand comment I made about my own religious tradition being LDS. More to the point, Kenneth Miller, who I mentioned, and who is a believing Catholic, is a well-known advocate of the position known as theistic evolution. Ironically we get it from both sides: the socially conservative, and as a rule, those lacking in a science education, take the position you seem to: that for a religious person to accept that evolution is a scientific matter, not a religious matter, and that God could well have used evolution, is anti-Biblical.

Most Latter-day Saints share with evangelical Protestants and some fundamentalist Protestants (as also the fundamentalists in Judaism and Islam) a distaste for theistic evolution. Many of my fellow believers are incredulous that I can take such a position. Fortunately the official position of our church on the matter is one of neutrality. In fact, one of the people I mentioned, Michael Whiting, was featured on the cover of Nature a few months ago, with a lead article on the re-evolution of lost novelties amongst so-called stick insects. He also teaches advanced zoology at Brigham Young University, including the course on evolutionary biology (Zoology 475; he says there are about 150 students per term. There are also 3 other biologists there who teach the course).

On the other hand there are people like E. O. Wilson, in Consilience and most famously, perhaps, Richard Dawkins [pick a book, but see especially his reviews of Miller's books], people I call "evangelizing atheists," who believe that not only is creationism a religion, but that the questions which religion actually does address are meaningless; put another way, religion is a fraud, and theistic evolutions are trying to have our cake and eat it, too.

As there don't seem to be any people of this bent here, I won't concentrate on that issue, although I'm certainly willing to discuss it if interest merits.

[**********]
But here's the stumbling blocks for you, as I see it:

First of all, it is ironic that you chose to turn a casual mention of what just happens to be my own religion into an attack, not on evolution, but on that particular denomination, especially when on this particular issue, the chances are most LDS would actually agree with you. You made this bed, you're welcome to sleep in it:brow:

And I suspect that no matter which religious tradition I bring up, you'll have an answer. For example, let's take the interesting case of Terry Gray. He was disfellowshipped from his Calvinist church, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for a review he wrote of the ID (neo-creationist) writer Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial. (see: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/)

(For Gray's website incidentally, see: http://www.asa3.org/evolution/veritas.html Since having to leave Calvin College, Gray now teaches at Colorado State, but he continues to profess a Calvinist christianity).

So I think it's quite clear that conservative Christians (along with their counterparts in other monotheistic faiths) believe, whether they are willing to admit this or not, that creationism is a religion -- your very prompt display of your own instincts in this matter, especially how easily I managed to bring this out of you, demonstrates this. It also suggests you might not be a very experienced creationist, as experienced creationists know that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and seek to build alliances, not exclude others, if for no other reason than to leverage political power at the school board level.

Now the question becomes, then, now that we've established that creationism is a religion, and not a science, which religion is it? That is to say, if we're going to have Genesis taught in high school biology, whose version of Genesis is it going to be? Calvinists'? That of the Christian and Missionary Alliance? Pentecosts'? ...?

QED: creationism is not only a religion, but it is sectarian in nature, at least as Socrates seems to have presented it.

Marc Schindler

May 16th 2003, 04:02 PM

Socrates:
For example, in modern times in my own country [Australia, I presume?], some leading creationist biologists include:

* Raymond Jones, whose research into Lucaena is worth millions of dollars annually to Australia's agriculture.
* John Mann (deceased) responsible for one of the world's greatest successes with biological control, eradicating the prickly pear invasion that was decimating Australian farmland.
* Dr Ian Macreadie, winner of the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research.

Now time for the third shoe. (The first was your ad hominem arguments, the second was exposing your views as being sectarian)

I don't know, perhaps you didn't think most of the people here, who you presume are USAmericans would know, but as someone who's visited many medical and scientific institutions in Australia (every state and territory except TAS and NA, as it happens), I am very curious why you didn't explain who exactly Dr. Jones works for. You are correct that his work in protecting livestock from a certain type of toxin has been well-recognized and even decorated -- he even got a CSIRO medal for it.

Now, for others here, here's who CSIRO is (and Jones works for the CSIRO's agricultural research station in Townsville QLD, near the Great Barrier Reef -- lovely country). It stands for Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation. And just what is the "Commonwealth"? Why, it's the Australian federal government -- the term "commonwealth" is used there the same way it is in, I think it's Pennsylvania (?), to give a US example, or the way we used to use the term "dominion" in Canada -- the crown, the state. Jones takes the Queen's shilling, as civil servants in the British Commonwealth quaintly put it. He represents the state. How comfortable with that are you, Socrates?

Incidentally -- purely by coincidence -- if this is the kind of person you are going to introduce as an expert in evolution [and I would contend he is no such thing; his expertise is in the toxicity cycles of aerobic bacteria in ruminants], then I should be allowed to introduce Dr. Donald Salmon, chairman of the International Triticale Association. He is a research scientist at the Province of Alberta’s Field Crop Development Centre in Lacombe AB, just south of where I live, about 100 kms. Salmon not only documented the spontaneous evolution of a new genus of grain (and remember a genus is “higher up” the scale than a species) in Russia, Scotland and western Canada, but genetically modified the Canadian strain to make it a marketable grain, triticale, which in lay terms is sort of a complex 6-fold cross between rye and wheat. The coincidence, aside from the fact that he is an evolutionary biologist (he’s seen speciation happen himself), is that it turns out triticale is better suited to hot, humid climates. Gee, like Queensland! It will grow here in the Canadian prairies, but it’s better suited for Texas, Brazil and eastern Australia.

I’m not sure how we can call Dr. Mann to the witness stand, given that he’s dead (perhaps, Socrates, we could ask King Saul for some “Biblical” advice? [sorry, I couldn’t resist a bit of a sectarian dig of my own there]). But he had no credentials in evolutionary biology. He was a practical biologist who did what many Australian biologists have had to do: counter the innocent imports by Europeans who wanted Australia to look like England, imports which ended up decimating the place (rabbits, starlings, you name it); in this case his contribution was in introducing a fungus to combat prickly pear which was used in the mid-19th century as an ornamental plant. He was recognized by the Crown (state), too – he has the same MBE as John Lennon does [Member of the Order of the British Empire, for you Yanks]. So if you can call Dr. Mann, I suggest we can also call Mr. Lennon. Another irony is that the reason Australia was so open to foreign botanical/zoological invasion like this is answered by evolutionary biology. It is not answered by creationism, except by question-begging answers like “because God created the place so miserably.” Australia has been isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years, and evolution proceeded there in parallel to, but not in conjunction with, evolution in other areas. We see this particularly in the case of mammals. Almost every Australian mammal has a non-Australian counterpart. We see this from the common names given to many of them, such as the “Tasmanian tiger” – to differentiate it from the “real” or non-Australian tigers of South Asia and Africa. Most mammalian niches were filled in Australia, but with placental mammals, unique in the world (only the common possum in the Americas is placental, and even there the similarity is only morphological in nature).

Ian Macreadie is also a yeast expert, similar to Dr. Mann. But he, too, takes the Queen’s shilling. I think he’s actually retired now, I’m not sure, but did work for CSIRO; specifically the CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition Centre in the Melbourne area. He, too, is a practical, “technologist”, rather than a theoretical scientist, as Socrates’ reference to his “research” would misleadingly indicate. Most of his research has been used by the brewing and wine industries. He is an adjunct professor at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. “Adjunct” can mean all kinds of things, but basically it means a guest lectureship often given to retired academics. RMIT is not interested in teaching scientific theory, but in practical matters, which is why it has the name it does (it’s not to be confused with an institution like MIT in the US, but more closely compares with, e.g., the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology here in Edmonton; NAIT can offer some baccalaureates, but it is primarily set up to bestow diplomas, not BAs or BScs.) If he really were a research scientist in the sense most lay people think of the term, then I find it odd that he wasn’t offered an adjunct position at the largest university in Melbourne, Monash University.

Incidentally, Macreadie is also honorary chairman of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

I submit that if we allow Macreadie as an expert, we should also allow his colleague, Dr. Sid Jain, who’s an entomologist at the CSIRO Entomology Centre in Canberra (and an evolutionary biologist), as an expert. From CSIRO/EC’s mandate: “Detailed observation of the feeding strategies of divergent (I trust you’ll recognise the evolutionary reference – MS) insect species has provided CSIRO with a knowledge-based entry point for targeted investigations in the area of functional genomics and discovery. Australia has a unique biota which evolved (there it is again) in isolation from those of other continents. CSIRO has the scientific and administrative capabilities required for legitimate collection, subsequent taxonomic identification, and isolation and characterisation of genomic materials and biological products from the invertebrate and microbial faunas of the vast Australian continent. CSIRO maintains an active involvement in this important area of research.”

Perhaps, too, we should allow a Canadian counterpart, Dr. David Litchfield, of the Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular & Cellular Biology? The CSBMCB, like its Australian counterpart, is a joint venture organisation backed by private companies (mostly pharmaceutical companies in Canada, 2 proteomics companies in Australia). Litchfield works at University of Western Ontario in London ON, in the Department of Biochemistry, which is to say, he’s involved in “real” research (that is to say, “pure” research, not “applied”; the terms are value-neutral). He is also, incidentally, an oncology, or cancer research, lecturer. Here’s Dr. Litchfield’s website: http://www.biochem.uwo.ca/fac/litch/litch.html Now to most laypeople, his area of interest will appear arcane, but he has published regularly in respected, international refereed biochemistry journals (unlike Macreadie, incidentally), which take evolution for granted. Specifically at UWO, the department has four sections, which cross-coordinate their research: Macromolecular Structures, Genome Dynamics and Expression, Intracellular Communication and Human Genetics.

Socrates, any more “experts” you’d like us to consider who won’t backfire on you?

Dee Dee Warren

May 18th 2003, 09:52 PM

Marc please be referred to this rule:

The maximum post length is 24K characters. Please keep the points concise. Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that person. Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed. There are progress bars below the reply boxes to assist you. When making a reply or referring to multiple replies please make use of the Link, Quote and Multi-Quote features. Breaking of posts or multiple posts to post an article is not allowed, if you wish to post an article or such that will exceed the post limit please contact a moderator to get your article posted in the appropriate Bulletin Board section where you may then make a link to in the thread you wish to create for discussion regarding the article. Discussion will not take place in the Bulletin Board sections only articles are posted there. Discussion will take place in the proper forum for the context of the article. If you need assistance with this please do not hesitate to contact a moderator or administrator about this.

Please post accordingly. If you need the text from the edited posts for later posting, see a moderator for assistance.

Socrates

May 18th 2003, 11:18 PM

05-17-2003 @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98731#post98731)
Marc Schindler:

Socrates, I'm afraid that a trio of agronomists do not a clique of evolutionary biologists make. Whether they realize it or not, their work depends upon theories which the biological community as a whole has come to a consensus on, and that includes the "modern synthesis" as the modern understanding of Darwinian evolution is called.

Another fact-free assertion. I have documented how cutting-edge biological research is perfectly feasible in a creationist framework. All MS can do is repeat the mantra that (goo-to-you) evolution is essential for biology.

You're comparing apple experts with orchard-minders.

And you're dismissing leading biological scientists whose shoes you're not fit to tie.

You missed my point about Lysenko. It wasn't that the state didn't interfere: they mandated his ideas be taught, which is precisely what I see happening in such places as Kansas, Ohio and Louisiana. It was political interference.

More likely, it was judicial interference which helped exclude challenges to the materialist status quo, since lies cannot survive in the light of truth.

BTW, I support AiG's position NOT to lobby for compulsion. After all, why would I want to have an atheistic bigot being forced to teach creation, and probably distort it as badly as the textbooks do. Rather, teachers should be free to present challenges to materialism without fear of being fired by the atheistic bigots. I actually support teaching the students MORE about evolution than the establishment wants them to learn!

And in any case, I don't believe that Christians should send their kids to humanism-dominated government schools in the first place. It's like Moses sending the Israelites to Canaanite schools. See my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87664#post87664

The status quo, where science curricula are designed by those knowledgeable in science, is designed to give students a well-rounded education in science.

No, designed by those with a materialistic axe to grind. They would rather that students are taught that staged pics of peppered moths prove evolution from goo to you via the zoo and disprove the Bible, rather than get students to think critically.

Religion, which is what creationism is, can also be taught if the school is a private school, or a parochial school.

And we have documented that evolution is EQUALLY religion, since it as foundational for humanism as creation sensu lato is for Christianity. See www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87691#post87691

Or at home: why not take another leaf out of the right-wing and insist that creationism, like sex education, be taught by parents? Sex education is about biology, too, isn't it?

Fine -- I know of no one advocating abolishing parents from teaching evolution at home either :whack:

Socrates: As a dogmatic evolutionary bigot who supports excluding any challenges, you're a great successor to Stalin and Lysenko.

MS: I'm warning you now, Socrates, that I won't abide personal attacks like this.

Poor baby. It's apparently OK for your side to make odious comparisons of creationists with Lysenko, but squeal piteously when creationists throw the accusation back on your faces by showing that Lysenko was an evolutionist and that the censorship of opposing views parallels the censorship of challenges to the materialist paradigm today.

Let's see how "free" your debate and dialogue comes when you've insulted everyone, then turn around and accuse them of not allowing debate. That will be called, I believe the word is "monologue." It would also show that you are deficient in rhetoric and debating skills if you have to resort to personal slurs on your opponents instead of addressing their arguments (that's known as argumentum ad hominem, incidentally).

Evidently those who voted for me as "Poster of the Month" disagree with your superficial characterisation of me which is really the whine of a loser. Not to mention Schindler's rank hypocrisy, since in this thread he has done nothing but denigrate creationists without supporting his points.

E.g. he refused to provide answer the cogent criticisms of Miller's book at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp , and instead denigrated the authors who are at least as well qualified as Schindler and Miller. E.g. at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87477#post87477 , Schindler spluttered: "I read the review, and think the reviewers are sloppy and do not understand science." Never mind that the authors have a M.S. and Ph.D.!

And at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87450#post87450 (already refuted at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87694#post87694 )

I have spent far, far too long trying to educate creationists in the basics of biology than to "try to refute the arguments of the people at AiG?" Their arguments have already been refuted -- I gave you the URL.

I'm not going to waste my time educating you or anyone else on the basics of biology.

Never mind that the biological scientists at AiG have earned Ph.D.s so hardly need lessons from arrogant upstarts like Schindler. What he really means is, "Unless you agree with me that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is a fact, you must be ignorant of the basics of biology. So I'm too closed-minded to even argue on the facts.":poke:

James

May 18th 2003, 11:39 PM

Today @ 11:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100822#post100822)
Socrates:

And we have documented that evolution is EQUALLY religion, since it as foundational for humanism as creation sensu lato is for Christianity. See www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87691#post87691

It seems to me that certain people have asserted that evolution is a religion. How is organic evolution foundational to humanism, and how would this establish a scientific theory as religious if it was? The last time I checked, humanists didn't claim that survival of the fittest and mutation were golden virtues. The only people saying that evolution is a tenet of humanism are those who believe in young-earth creation. Humanists likely accept evolution on its scientific merits, like any other scientific theory, but I hardly see how evolution can be considered a tenet or a religion.

Socrates

May 18th 2003, 11:52 PM

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100827#post100827)
James:

Socrates:

And we have documented that evolution is EQUALLY religion, since it as foundational for humanism as creation sensu lato is for Christianity. See www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87691#post87691

It seems to me that certain people have asserted that evolution is a religion. How is organic evolution foundational to humanism, and how would this establish a scientific theory as religious if it was? The last time I checked, humanists didn't claim that survival of the fittest and mutation were golden virtues.

Indeed, this is a blind spot of humanists. But this shows merely that they are logically inconsistent, and doesn't show that they aren't in the forefront of pushing evolution in both your country and mine.

The only people saying that evolution is a tenet of humanism are those who believe in young-earth creation. Humanists likely accept evolution on its scientific merits, like any other scientific theory, but I hardly see how evolution can be considered a tenet or a religion.

The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, express explicit support for evolution from goo to you via the zoo:[list=1] Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.[/list=1]

James

May 19th 2003, 12:13 AM

Those tenets from the "Humanist Manifesto II" describe a belief in naturalistic origins, period, not a belief in the mechanisms of mutation with natural selection as an engine for driving the change in allele frequencies over time. To a humanist, it would not matter if evolution from simple cells was more correct than the continuous spontaneous generation from chemicals of multicelled life. The humanist would not accept, however, that evolution or spontaneous generation is guided by a deity who cares about the personal thoughts and actions of humans. It is an issue of philosophy, and not scientific mechanism. Furthermore, certain quasireligious groups incorporating scientific theories into their beliefs does not mean that a scientific theory constitutes a religion. Organic evolution was not formulated as the basis of humanism as divine creation was formulated for the basis of Christianity, it was accepted by humanists along with a philosophical assumption of pure materalism as an answer to the question of origins. Likewise, cloning technology is not created in order to justify the beliefs of Raelians, but has been used to justify certain beliefs of that group. Organic evolution is no more a religion than gravity or cloning technology.

Socrates

May 19th 2003, 01:42 AM

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100842#post100842)
James:

Those tenets from the "Humanist Manifesto II" describe a belief in naturalistic origins, period, not a belief in the mechanisms of mutation with natural selection as an engine for driving the change in allele frequencies over time.

Actually, James has confused "evolution" with the proposed Darwinian mechanism for that.

To a humanist, it would not matter if evolution from simple cells was more correct than the continuous spontaneous generation from chemicals of multicelled life. The humanist would not accept, however, that evolution or spontaneous generation is guided by a deity who cares about the personal thoughts and actions of humans. It is an issue of philosophy, and not scientific mechanism.

Indeed it is not, but humanists, as shown, believe in the alleged FACT of evolution even without coming down firm on one proposed mechanism.

Furthermore, certain quasireligious groups incorporating scientific theories into their beliefs does not mean that a scientific theory constitutes a religion.

Same goes for Intelligent Design, which NEED not be part of a religion, even though it IS part of conservative Christianity. If ID is excluded because it is part of the religion of christianity, by the same logic, evolution from goo to you via the zoo should be excluded because of the

Organic evolution was not formulated as the basis of humanism as divine creation was formulated for the basis of Christianity, it was accepted by humanists along with a philosophical assumption of pure materalism as an answer to the question of origins.

Quite so. And this assumption of pure materialism (at least for all practical purposes when it comes to the history of life and Earth) is not science but a meta-scientific philosophy which should never be imposed on students.

Likewise, cloning technology is not created in order to justify the beliefs of Raelians, but has been used to justify certain beliefs of that group. Organic evolution is no more a religion than gravity or cloning technology.

Note how James grauitously slips in gravity, which has nothing to do with the discussion (and was formulated by a staunch biblical creationist!!). Even cloning has nothing to do with a real origins belief.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 19th 2003, 02:16 AM

Today @ 12:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100881#post100881)
Socrates:

Same goes for Intelligent Design, which NEED not be part of a religion, even though it IS part of conservative Christianity.
Are you sure about that? I'm not saying there aren't conservative Christians who subscribe to ID, but I have personally not met any. The Christians I've met who subscribe to ID tend to be more of the liberal sort, whereas the conservative contingent tend more toward traditional biblical creationism, which is nothing at all like ID theory. ID theory does have a few common elements with biblical creationism, but it appears to have a lot more in common with theistic evolution (and probably arose as a dissenting movement from theistic evolution).

Both ID and theistic evolution believe that there is an intelligent, possibly theistic cause behind natural processes, and both accept that evolution is basically true. Where they differ most is that while theistic evolutionists believe that natural processes guided by an intelligent design are sufficient to explain creation, IDers believe that, while those explanations are good, they are incomplete and thus IDers maintain that a true explanation for nature can only be had by combining both principles of theistic evolution and the supernatural/miraculous. Or another way of putting it, theistic evolutionists believe there is a passive "supernatural" presence guiding creation but that it does not take an active role beyond the actual processes of nature itself, but IDers believe that the "supernatural" presence does take an active role beyond the normal processes of nature.

Socrates

May 19th 2003, 03:08 AM

Socrates:

Same goes for Intelligent Design, which NEED not be part of a religion, even though it IS part of conservative Christianity.

Eireann:Are you sure about that? I'm not saying there aren't conservative Christians who subscribe to ID, but I have personally not met any. The Christians I've met who subscribe to ID tend to be more of the liberal sort, whereas the conservative contingent tend more toward traditional biblical creationism, which is nothing at all like ID theory. ID theory does have a few common elements with biblical creationism, but it appears to have a lot more in common with theistic evolution (and probably arose as a dissenting movement from theistic evolution).No, biblical creation is a subset of intelligent design. ID sensu lato simply means that that complexity of life cannot be explained by normal processes of nature and instead is the result of direct intelligent design. Biblical creationist believe that the time frame and sequence of design events are what the Bible teaches. Indeed, there are a number of biblical creationists in the IDM, e.g. Paul Nelson, John Mark Reynolds and Royal Truman.

So I find that the conservative Christians subscribe to some form of ID, either explicit OEC (e.g. Hugh Ross and the rest of Reasons to Believe) or YEC (AiG, ICR), while Philip Johnson is non-committal about the age. And I find the liberals are the one who spout the "God used evolution" bilge.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 19th 2003, 04:09 AM

Today @ 02:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100932#post100932)
Socrates:

So I find that the conservative Christians subscribe to some form of ID, either explicit OEC (e.g. Hugh Ross and the rest of Reasons to Believe) or YEC (AiG, ICR), while Philip Johnson is non-committal about the age. And I find the liberals are the one who spout the "God used evolution" bilge.
I think you're talking about something else when you speak of ID. There is a difference between intelligent design (the simple notion that there was an intelligent designer) and Intelligent Design (ID, capital letters, the actual religio-scientific theory called "Intelligent Design.") I think you are using it in the general sense, whereas the theory that is officially known as ID actually is one of the variants on the "God used evolution" argument.

ID does not deny evolution. It denies merely one aspect of evolution -- natural selection -- replacing it with direct divine intervention (or extraterrestrial intervention, as some IDers believe). It also makes no commitment as to the age of the universe, either to a young earth or an old earth (there are IDers who argue both sides).

As far as creationism being a subset of ID, William Dembski, the leading advocate of ID says otherwise.

By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing.

http://www.meta-library.net/id-wd/index-frame.html

Socrates

May 19th 2003, 05:10 AM

Today @ 07:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100977#post100977)
Eireann:

I think you're talking about something else when you speak of ID. There is a difference between intelligent design (the simple notion that there was an intelligent designer) and Intelligent Design (ID, capital letters, the actual religio-scientific theory called "Intelligent Design.") I think you are using it in the general sense, whereas the theory that is officially known as ID actually is one of the variants on the "God used evolution" argument.

Definitely not. They are known as anti-evolutionists. Just think of Philip Johnson, who is more deserving of the title of "leading advocate" for the IDM. Certainly most evolutionists see IDers as opponents! FYI, AiG's take on the IDM which seems fair to me is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp

ID does not deny evolution. It denies merely one aspect of evolution -- natural selection -- replacing it with direct divine intervention (or extraterrestrial intervention, as some IDers believe).

They usually DO deny common ancestry. Michael Behe is rather like what you say, but Philip Johnson is not.

It also makes no commitment as to the age of the universe, either to a young earth or an old earth (there are IDers who argue both sides).

That was my point!

As far as creationism being a subset of ID, William Dembski, the leading advocate of ID says otherwise.

He said no such thing. In fact, it was compatible with my view that creation is a subset. IOW, all biblical creationists believe in intelligent design, but not all intelligent design advocates believe in biblical creation (e.g. Dembski). So a quote from Dembski that he is not a (biblical) creationist is an example of what I mean.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 19th 2003, 06:43 AM

Today @ 04:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101000#post101000)
Socrates:

Definitely not. They are known as anti-evolutionists.
They're not anti-evolutionists. They're anti-Darwinists. Not the same thing. Most of them deny natural selection, some of them deny common ancestry, but I'm not aware that very many of them deny the basic principles of evolution as an operant mechanism.

Just think of Philip Johnson, who is more deserving of the title of "leading advocate" for the IDM.
You're confusing IDM with ID. Johnson isn't necessarily considered a leading proponent of ID. He is considered the leader and organizer of IDM, a loose movement within the ranks of ID theorists. He's not best known for furthering the theory, but for politicizing the movement. The men you'll find most often mentioned as the leading proponents of ID are William Dembski and Michael Behe.

Certainly most evolutionists see IDers as opponents!
Darwinian evolutionists, YECers, and a number of scientists from various fields of study consider the IDers as opponents, because most of them don't view ID as a genuine scientific theory.

He said no such thing. In fact, it was compatible with my view that creation is a subset. IOW, all biblical creationists believe in intelligent design, but not all intelligent design advocates believe in biblical creation (e.g. Dembski). So a quote from Dembski that he is not a (biblical) creationist is an example of what I mean.
I would agree that creationism could be considered a subset of intelligent design (small letters) in the broadest possible view. But not really in the narrow view of Intelligent Design Theory (big letters). IOW, biblical creationists are id'ers, but they're not IDers. Does that make sense?

James

May 19th 2003, 07:00 AM

Today @ 01:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100881#post100881)
Socrates:

Actually, James has confused "evolution" with the proposed Darwinian mechanism for that.
What are you referring to when you speak about "evolution?" I am talking about the scientific theory that states that these mechanisms were the engine for common descent.

Same goes for Intelligent Design, which NEED not be part of a religion, even though it IS part of conservative Christianity. If ID is excluded because it is part of the religion of christianity, by the same logic, evolution from goo to you via the zoo should be excluded because of the
Except that ID makes no predictions because it isn't a theory. Darwinian evolution can predict the existence or non-existence of certain genes among different species and establish common descent, but when ID is asked to explain a phenomenon, its only answer is "An untestable God willed it so."

Quite so. And this assumption of pure materialism (at least for all practical purposes when it comes to the history of life and Earth) is not science but a meta-scientific philosophy which should never be imposed on students.
Which is why biology teachers do not teach evolution alongside the "Humanist Manifesto." They teach the best-supported scientific theory of organic origins, period, and allow students to fit God in at will.

Note how James grauitously slips in gravity, which has nothing to do with the discussion (and was formulated by a staunch biblical creationist!!). Even cloning has nothing to do with a real origins belief.
They key is that, like evolution, neither are inherently religious. Cloning has been co-opted by a religious system, the Raelians, but that does not make cloning technology religious. If a sect were to come along and claim that gravity was the affect of God's hands pulling everything together, that would still not make gravity a religious belief.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 19th 2003, 07:18 AM

Today @ 06:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101049#post101049)
James:

Except that ID makes no predictions because it isn't a theory.
It is a theory. It is just widely criticized for not having much credible scientific support, thus it isn't a very sound theory. If people want a sound scientific theory that explicitly allows for God, then Theistic Evolution would be the way to go.

Bob Jenkins

May 19th 2003, 09:42 PM

From Socrates

There was certainly a lot of logic being cut here. Note, a major argument against allowing ID to be taught in science classrooms, with purely scientific arguments based on complexity and information, is that a Designer is a "religious" concept. The evidence is that a Designer is essential to Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and Islam. But then, by the same pathetic reasoning, evolution as an explanation for life is also just as religious, since it is an essential plank of humanism.

Actually, creation and evolution are matters of HISTORY not science.

The concept of the "watchmaker" has been thoughly debunked. Obvioulsy you have not read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I'm surprised that that old saw is still being used to support the existence of God.

Added:
I am sorry this post is prompted by a much earlier post. I was struct by some of the imbicilic arguements
Contrary to your statement, dogma (your "esential plank")is not a part of the humanism I know. A manifesto is a statement of motive or intention. Whereas, the authority of the Bilbe IS recognized as dogma. Taking your agruement to a conclusion, do you think we want to exclude the science as presented by Galileo just because the Roman Catholic Church (with it's apologies) now recognizes the truth of the science?

You also appear in error with your last statement. I actually laughed. History is concerned with witnessed events and the people involved in the event. He he he, I can't stop laughing. It is appropiate to refer to the "history" of biology, the "history" of mathmatics, the "history" of the bible. But none of these include the vast contents of the subject, the proofs, or the projections Okay, I'm calm now. Evolution can be used as a word to describe history (as in the "evolution" of weapons) but not vice versa.

Biology is a proper inclusionary group for evolution. But then, that's a science.

Bob Jenkins

May 20th 2003, 12:29 PM

If being in Humanism is the only criteria that is being offered, then I want to see the Pledge of Alligence returned to its previous version, I want to see our currancy free of religious advertizing. I want our motto to reflect the great democratic thought that made this country.. For Humanists do not believe in trusting God, your God nor do they beleive our counttry, our flag shound be subservient to God

I can AND WILL seriously influence what science text books are used in our school system. It is a small commitee, not open to the public, that decides and I will have all the relevant information.

Socrates

May 21st 2003, 02:10 AM

From Socrates

There was certainly a lot of logic being cut here. Note, a major argument against allowing ID to be taught in science classrooms, with purely scientific arguments based on complexity and information, is that a Designer is a "religious" concept. The evidence is that a Designer is essential to Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and Islam. But then, by the same pathetic reasoning, evolution as an explanation for life is also just as religious, since it is an essential plank of humanism.

Actually, creation and evolution are matters of HISTORY not science.

Bob Jenkins blunders in with his patronizing nonsense which merely shows up his own scientific ignorance:The concept of the "watchmaker" has been thoughly debunked. Obvioulsy you have not read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp

Bob Jenkins:I'm surprised that that old saw is still being used to support the existence of God.I'm surprised that misotheists still push laughable books by the atheist fanatic Dawko as if they are the last word on the matter.

And you changed the topic -- the point of my statement above was to show that the designer is a foundation for Christianity, not trying to use the "argument from design" as "proof" of it. :poke:

Socrates

May 21st 2003, 02:24 AM

05-19-2003 @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101035#post101035)
Eireann:

You're confusing IDM with ID. Johnson isn't necessarily considered a leading proponent of ID. He is considered the leader and organizer of IDM, a loose movement within the ranks of ID theorists. He's not best known for furthering the theory, but for politicizing the movement. The men you'll find most often mentioned as the leading proponents of ID are William Dembski and Michael Behe.

I would agree that creationism could be considered a subset of intelligent design (small letters) in the broadest possible view. But not really in the narrow view of Intelligent Design Theory (big letters). IOW, biblical creationists are id'ers, but they're not IDers. Does that make sense?

OK, let's look at a major book reflecting the IDM, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, IVP 1998. It is edited by Dembski, but also has an Afterword by Johnson about challenging the entreched materialist paradigm. Further, it has a chapter by leading OECs Hugh Ross and Robert Newman; as well as the known YECs John Mark Reynolds, Siegfried Scherer on basic types and Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer on alleged ape-men.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 21st 2003, 02:30 AM

Dawkins Demolished

Not content to rest on his laurels as "Member of the Month," Socrates sets his sights on "Overstatement of the Year."

Bob Jenkins

May 21st 2003, 04:48 AM

From Socrates

Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp

Tell us, Socrates, what, in that web site, is most important fact for establishing "Creation Science" or for refuting Evolution.

Oh, but I did! I read them. Hume demolished the logic of Paley's [i]Natural Theology{/i] and Dawkins destroyed the fallacious science presented in your links. Destroyed by the way well before the web site was created. It' must seem amazing to your that the original work could do that. Well it shouldn't, the errors from your links have been around for a long time sort of like a mantra of creationism.

[Bob]
I'm surprised that that old saw is still being used to support the existence of God.

[Socrates]
I'm surprised that misotheists still push laughable books by the atheist fanatic Dawko as if they are the last word on the matter.

And you changed the topic -- the point of my statement above was to show that the designer is a foundation for Christianity, not trying to use the "argument from design" as "proof" of it.

Laughable? why do you say that? He he he. We have an author with credentials in the field writing in the field quite unlike the apologetic creation "scientists" who do not. There is a joke here but it is on you and I believe you are too intelligent to be deceived much longer.

You did use ID didn't you?, You do refer to Inteligent Design, don't you? And you do realize that creation "science" is the tool that is used to bolster, as you say, "a foundation for Christianity".

I can understand why there is such fervor in your argueing (not much arguement though). For if your Creator falls, than Christianty will lose its histocrisy.

The are solutions for you.

You might start promulgating the omniscientist aspect of God but there is danger in that approach. You will have a difficult time establishing the relationship with your Christ.

You might accept the Bible for what it is, a collection of mythological themes. The danger here, of course, is that there would be no need of the physical church; you, personally, would be out of a job (hope I'm not confusing you with solly who has a parish).

Side note:
Socrates, your agruemnt from demeaning fails to impress me Contrary to its intent, it serves to demean you and those "followers" who cheer when you do so. I am sure you have a good mind and can express a thought better than "atheist fanatic Dawko".

Homie

May 21st 2003, 04:25 PM

BOB JENKINS
There is a joke here but it is on you and I believe you are too intelligent to be deceived much longer.

HOMIE
Bah! You are blind and will always remain so.

Socrates, you are speaking to deaf people. Here is an advice from Jesus:

Mat 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

And I believe it means "If they aint listenin, leave those suckers and try somewhere else!"

Elvis Rehnquist

May 21st 2003, 05:18 PM

Homie sez:
Socrates, you are speaking to deaf people.

Actually he's typing to people that can read. And anyone who thinks that unsigned farce at AiG comes even close to engaging Dawkins, let alone "demolishing" him, must be living on another planet.

"Dawkins is worthless because he's an atheist," a mantra repeated over and over by these moneygrubbing AiG buffoons, is the most puerile example of ad hominem ever formulated.

Not even the Discovery Institute takes those AiG "hillbillies" seriously. That should tell you something. And it's no wonder, if this is AiG's idea of a rebuttal to The Blind Watchmaker.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

May 21st 2003, 06:08 PM

The funny thing is, Socrates goes into this elaborate complaint about how people reject the scientific qualifications of some scientists simply because they are Creationists (a perfectly valid complaint, I confess), yet in the same breath wishes to reject the scientific qualifications of other scientists simply because they are atheists. Where I come from, we have a word for that: hypocrisy. In short, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too, but it just doesn't work that way.

He also wants us to accept the opinions of his pet scientists at AiG as practically infallible because some of them have Masters and Doctoral degrees. I don't suppose he sees the dilemma he's back himself into, because if he maintains that their Masters and Doctoral degrees qualify them as inviolable experts in the field, then he must also accept that the Masters and Doctoral degrees of their opponents also qualify those respective men and women as experts in the field, something which Socrates isn't very prepared to do. In other words, if he expects us to accept his pet scientists' opinions as infallible because of their qualifications, then he must also accept the opinions of their opponents as equally infallible for having the same qualifications. Can anyone besides me see a paradox coming on?

Bob Jenkins

May 21st 2003, 10:35 PM

[quote]"If they aint listenin, leave those suckers and try somewhere else!"[/qoute]

We'd love to see that happen

Socrates

May 21st 2003, 11:44 PM

Bob Jenkins blunders in again:Hume demolished the logic of Paley's Natural Theology :dufus: Paley actually wrote about 30 years AFTER Hume and addressed some of Hume's pathetic objections :dunce:, which even Dawko was not impressed with. The way Paley expressed the teleological argument was not vulnerable to Humean counter-arguments :poke:

Socrates

May 21st 2003, 11:55 PM

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103577#post103577)
Eireann:

The funny thing is, Socrates goes into this elaborate complaint about how people reject the scientific qualifications of some scientists simply because they are Creationists (a perfectly valid complaint, I confess), yet in the same breath wishes to reject the scientific qualifications of other scientists simply because they are atheists.

Not at all. I point out the hypocrisy of a number of people dismissing the creationists because of their Biblical bias, and respond by showing that evolutionists likewise have a bias. But how often are Christians demanded to keep their religion out of their science, but no demand for the likes of Dawko to keep HIS atheistic religion out of science.

Even on TWeb I have advocated "critical realism" -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=67261#post67261 for explanation.

He also wants us to accept the opinions of his pet scientists at AiG as practically infallible because some of them have Masters and Doctoral degrees.

Rubbish. Rather, I have said many times that I used their qualifications only defensively, refuting pillocks who claim that no real scientist accepts creation. I leave the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) to the evolutionists, e.g. "we should believe/accept/teach evolution because scientists believe it."

One day an anti-creationist might surprise us all and actual respond to an actual argument instead of a straw man.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 22nd 2003, 12:31 AM

Socrates sez:
But how often are Christians demanded to keep their religion out of their science, but no demand for the likes of Dawko to keep HIS atheistic religion out of science.

Since "atheism" isn't a religion, why would you expect anyone to "keep it out of science"? In fact "atheism" suits science especially well, since science has nothing to do with either positing or debunking interventionary gods.

Any scientist worthy of the description that proposed interventionary deities to explain observed phenomena would be laughed right out of the laboratory. Unless he was a "creation scientist," I guess. Then he'd be asked to sign the ICR pledge and told to keep up the great work and get out there and sell some more comic books to the mugs.

Socrates sez:
One day an anti-creationist might surprise us all and actual respond to an actual argument instead of a straw man.

You mean like the "atheistic religion" strawman you've so cleverly erected above? I agree. Actual arguments are eminently preferable.

Homie

May 22nd 2003, 06:33 AM

SOCRATES
One day an anti-creationist might surprise us all and actual respond to an actual argument instead of a straw man.

HOMIE
I'd like to see that too, I definately haven't seen it on this thread. Just the usual "Those hillbilles have no credibility, therefore I cannot refute their arguments bla bla bla..."

ELVIS
I agree. Actual arguments are eminently preferable.

HOMIE
Then please produce some

Socrates

May 22nd 2003, 06:43 AM

Today @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103851#post103851)
Elvis Rehnquist:

Socrates sez:
But how often are Christians demanded to keep their religion out of their science, but no demand for the likes of Dawko to keep HIS atheistic religion out of science.

Since "atheism" isn't a religion,

Of course it is. It purports to answer all the questions of any religion: Who are we, why are we here and where are we going; and its foundational premise is accepted on faith. But unlike the Christian faith which is based on the historical fact of the Resurrection, atheism is the blind faith of a universal negative "there is no God".

.... why would you expect anyone to "keep it out of science"? In fact "atheism" suits science especially well,

It does no such thing, since it can provide no basis for a rational universe. In fact, science grew out of a Christian framework precisely because its teaching of a "God of order" provided this foundation. See Creationist contributions to science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#importance).

Since science has nothing to do with either positing or debunking interventionary gods.

Not in operational/observational science, but there is nothing wrong with it for the historical/inferential sciences -- see Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism). And I bet my science qualifications are much higher than yours :whack:

Also, if your statement is right, then Dawkins is going beyond science when he preaches for his atheistic faith.

Bob Jenkins

May 22nd 2003, 07:10 AM

From Socrates

Bob Jenkins blunders in again:
Hume demolished the logic of Paley's Natural Theology
Paley actually wrote about 30 years AFTER Hume and addressed some of Hume's pathetic objections , which even Dawko was not impressed with. The way Paley expressed the teleological argument was not vulnerable to Humean counter-arguments

Not really..... Paley wrote the "science" that supported the "logical" proof of a creator by design. Hume did demolish the logic.. Dawkins demolished the "creation" science many times over by explaining Darwin. Two separate chances at Creationism and two refurations.

Your comrehension skills need some fine tuning. Dawkins was not imprressed with the philospher who answered "What about Hume" in response to Dawkins statement "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published". Dawkins went on to say "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?" The unimpressive reply from the philosopher was "He didn't.. Why does it need any special expalnation" You will find that tidbit on page 5 of my copy of the book.

From Socrates
“ Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp ”

Bob:
Tell us, Socrates, what, in that web site, is most important fact for establishing "Creation Science" or for refuting Evolution.

You have not supplied any specifics even though you have mentioned those sites more than once. I can fully appreciate you avoidance. I can fully appreciate your struggle to maintain faith in "biblical authority" in the face of Evolution

Socrates

May 22nd 2003, 08:56 AM

Socrates:

Hume demolished the logic of Paley's Natural Theology
Paley actually wrote about 30 years AFTER Hume and addressed some of Hume's pathetic objections , which even Dawko was not impressed with. The way Paley expressed the teleological argument was not vulnerable to Humean counter-arguments

Bob blubs:Not really..... Paley wrote the "science" that supported the "logical" proof of a creator by design. Hume did demolish the logic. As if you'd know -- fact is, Paley rebutted Hume, not vice versa.Dawkins demolished the "creation" science many times over by explaining Darwin. Two separate chances at Creationism and two refurations.As if you'd know -- Dawkins the just-so-story teller has been demolished in the articles I provided.Your comrehension skills need some fine tuning. Dawkins was not imprressed with the philospher who answered "What about Hume" in response to Dawkins statement "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published". Dawkins went on to say "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?" The unimpressive reply from the philosopher was "He didn't.. Why does it need any special expalnation" You will find that tidbit on page 5 of my copy of the book.That's exactly what I meant. And I understand that it was A.J. Ayer.

Socrates

Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp

Bob:Tell us, Socrates, what, in that web site, is most important fact for establishing "Creation Science" or for refuting Evolution. ” We all have the same facts -- the difference is how we interpret them. You interpret them from your bigoted atheistic framework, which can't even provide any justification for science in the first place.You have not supplied any specifics even though you have mentioned those sites more than once. Which actually provide some specifics :dunce: And all you have done is cite animal behaviorists like Dawko to "prove" the goo to you theory. I can fully appreciate you avoidance. I can fully appreciate your struggle to maintain faith in "biblical authority" in the face of Evolution. I can fully understand your struggle to maintain faith in atheism in the face of the massive amount of evidence for design because of your desperate desire to avoid the notion that you're accountable to your Creator.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 22nd 2003, 12:55 PM

ER: Since "atheism" isn't a religion …

Socrates sez:
Of course it is.

How is the simple disbelief in interventionary gods a religion? Religion is characterized by deities (usually interventionary, or "personal" ones), scriptures, rituals, obedience to deities, worship, churches, temples, and so on. Atheism has nothing to do with any of those things. In fact atheism doesn't even qualify as a religion according to more colloquial understandings of the word, as in, "Football is my religion." Even under such a definition, at least there are objects of worship that actually exist, existence that is subject to objective verification.

So, in a word, you're wrong.

Socrates sez:
It purports to answer all the questions of any religion: Who are we, why are we here and where are we going …

Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. It is simply a lack of belief in interventionary gods.

Socrates sez:
… and its foundational premise is accepted on faith.

Not having faith is accepted on faith? I don't expect your namesake would be too impressed with that claim.

Socrates sez
But unlike the Christian faith which is based on the historical fact of the Resurrection …

Good grief man. The "Resurrection" is hardly an "historical fact," not unlike the "resurrections" of numerous other dying and rising saviour-man-gods, as to which I suspect you yourself are "atheistic."

Socrates sez
… atheism is the blind faith of a universal negative "there is no God".

And your namesake's pupil's pupil would not be impressed with that one either. How would one go about formulating the categorical proposition that would agree with your presumption-laden statement above? I assume the subject would be "god," and the predicate "existence." Which necessarily begs the question, "Is existence a predicate?" So, before we continue, is it? Some very great minds have vehemently disagreed over this question. Whose position do you intend to assume here?

ER: … why would you expect anyone to "keep it out of science"? In fact "atheism" suits science especially well ...

Socrates sez
It does no such thing, since it can provide no basis for a rational universe.

Whoever said lacking a belief in interventionary gods provides a "basis for a rational universe" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, nothing more, nothing less.

I assume you lack belief in the Hindu pantheon. If so, you are an atheist with respect to the Hindu pantheon. In fact if your only gods are Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, then you are atheistic towards every other one of the thousands of gods that mankind has dreamed up. If so, then you are only three gods away from being an "intellectually fulfilled atheist," so keep up the good work. You're definitely on the right track. Come to think of it, if you accept the so-called "first commandment," you can dump Jesus and the Holy Spirit and you'll just be one god away.

Socrates sez
In fact, science grew out of a Christian framework precisely because its teaching of a "God of order" provided this foundation.

Well, this is a pretty ridiculous claim, unless you can provide some examples from the New Testament in which the characters are doing science. I can't think of any offhand, which is what one would expect from a compilation of ludicrous metaphysical speculations. Just how scientific is that funny story about Jesus imbuing the pigs with demons and driving them over a cliff? Not very. Or Paul's Gnostic blatherings? Never mind. Rhetorical question.

Or do you mean that some of the early developers of scientific methodology were Christians? If so, so what? Lots of modern scientists are Christians too, but most of them have the sense to separate method from their personal metaphysical beliefs. One could just as easily claim that science grew out of Prior Analytics, but Aristotle wasn't a Christian, was he?

Socrates sez
See Creationist contributions of science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#importance)

Thanks but no thanks. I've wasted enough time reading pre-Enlightenment nonsense written by paranoid fundamentalist Christians who actually think the universe is less than 10,000 years old and appear solely dedicated to selling enough comic books to finance Ken Ham's "creation museum."

ER: … since science has nothing to do with either positing or debunking interventionary gods.

Socrates sez
Not in operational/observational science, but there is nothing wrong with it for the historical/inferential sciences -- see Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism)

This is the same webpage you gave me above. I get the message, thanks. It's kind of ironic that Sarfati refuses to accept the obvious distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism, but fails to provide a convincing distinction between his own so-called "normal" and "origins" science. And because Sarfati here is broaching topics in the philosophy of science, his use of the expression "normal science" is doubly amusing, since the term was coined by Thomas Kuhn, who made no such distinction comparable to that of Sarfati's (failed) attempt.

Nonetheless, even if one accepts Sarfati's "demarcation" (to coin a phrase), since Sarfati's key distinction between "normal science" and "origins science" is that "creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science," mainstream science "invokes the miraculous" for neither, so Sarfati's whole construction here is pointless. Except to those that have signed ICR's "statement of belief," I suppose, but that is hardly mainstream science, if it is science at all.

So I would make two suggestions to Sarfati:

1) Read and deal with Robert Pennock's estimable discussion of methodological versus ontological naturalism in his book Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives,

and

2) Read and deal with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (and its subsequent debunking by Larry Laudan and others).

Incidentally, there is no such word as "caricaturize." "Caricature" will do just fine as the verb. You might want to pass that information along to Mr. Sarfati.

Socrates sez
And I bet my science qualifications are much higher than yours.

That's quite possible, and in fact, quite likely. However I've seen no evidence of this, at least in the posts you've made in this thread. And I must say that it's rather remarkable for someone at once claiming "science qualifications" to be argu-linking to the laughable bilge put about by the likes of Jonathan Sarfati and his unintentionally comedic cohorts at AiG.

Socrates sez
Also, if your statement is right, then Dawkins is going beyond science when he preaches for his atheistic faith.

Again, I don't quite get how a lack of faith is the same thing as having faith, but in terms of The Blind Watchmaker, at least, Dawkins' only reference to his own lack of belief is a passing one contained in the opening pages of the first chapter. Interestingly, in the relevant passage, Dawkins compares his own "awe" in the face of nature to that of Reverend Paley rather than that of Ayer.

Nonetheless Dawkins' own personal views on religion are entirely irrelevant to the substance of the book, and even more irrelevant to science. But keep knocking those strawmen down.

Oh and your post title "See how the faithful atheistic religionists squirm" is a joke, laden with baseless assumptions and demonstrable misapprehensions.

[Edited for formatting.]