If everyone is left to judge of his own religion there is no such thing as a religion that is wrong. But if they are to judge of each others religion there is no such thing as a religion that is right; and therefore all the world are right or all the world are wrong - Thomas Paine, Rights Of Man
It is not the case that Britain has recently been subject to a spate of incursions by religious maniacs although the protests against the manufacturers of superstition would make you think otherwise. The other evening I noticed an internet campaign being launched. I tend not to pay much attention to such things giving the sheer volume of them cascading down on us like an avalanche.
Those behind this particular internet appeal were inviting people to sign a petition to stop Pastor Terry Jones visiting England in February where he was billed to speak at an event organised by the English Defence League. A case of the dumb talking to the deaf. Why then bother getting into a frenzy over Jones? He hasn’t the drawing power of Joe Ratzinger even if his views are as obnoxious. Despite protests against Ratzinger’s September visit, or incursion depending on how you feel about it, he was still allowed to vent his religious opinions as indeed he should have been. So why not Jones?
I was not for signing up to the petition against Jones. I think he should be allowed to speak. In fact I think he should be given British national TV time just as Nick Griffith was provided with it. There the coherence and integrity of his views would be tested. As we have seen, Griffith, the BNP boss, was exposed as naked when the censor’s veil of mystique was stripped away from him.
The US based Jones, head of a church of fifty members which hardly makes him the most influential guy in the world of clerics, came to pubic prominence as the calamitous clown who threatened to burn the Koran to mark the anniversary of 9/11. That was before god and him got into some celestial correspondence in which god told Jones to abandon his plans. Good old god, he was having no false gods before him, especially one called Jonesy. A whisper in the pastor’s ear was enough to have him, Abraham like, stay his sword.
Personally, I have little interest in what Jones has to say. I don’t need to hear him to learn that he is a superstitious bigot who thinks his brand of superstition is somehow superior to other superstitions and as such he has the right to burn their superstitious books. So the issue of his free speech is not something that is causing me any great turmoil.
What does irk me is that the right to hear is being eroded in all of this. People are being denied the right to make up their own minds in response to what they might hear. The PC Big Brother types shall decide for society what it should hear, read or view. The religious idiot Terry Jones hardly poses a threat to the intellect but intellectual autonomy is being undermined nonetheless by the self appointed thought police. The persistent and pernicious assault on the right to hear is barely mentioned in controversies of this type. The right to hear is pushed into the background as a blinkered focus locks onto the freedom of speech side of the equation.
Much better that we be allowed to listen to a fool than to be fooled into the belief that what he has to say is too dangerous for human consumption. Being fooled by the censors is a much more dangerous business than being fooled by Jones.
116 comments:
AM-
Mostly agree with you-
there are plenty of atheist's not
wise but that does not mean that
atheism is wrong
there are a lot of religion nuts out there [ to many ] but that does not mean that religion is wrong-
terry the nut should travel about so more people can laugh at the idiot-
he never burnt those koran's-
he fell in love with them-
AM, I concur. If we block those we don't like to hear, they'll block us. Simple as that.
I agree Antony,
I see no point in censoring idiots like Jones, as you say in this article the veil of censorship only creates a mystique.
Censorship does not work anyway, even before the internet and other modern communcation technologies it failed, as when the UK and Irish governments went to bizarre lenghts to keep Sinn Fein representitives off the airwaves.
Rory
Anthony,
"The religious idiot Terry Jones hardly poses a threat to the intellect.."
Perhaps not, but if people were afforded the freedom to listen to his opinion at length he may not prove to be as idiotic. I always marvel at the way we, and I very much include myself in this, attack the mental factalties of those we disagree with. It invariably forms the basis of assualt and insult on our opponents.
" Why then bother getting into a frenzy over Jones?"
Melanie Phillips controversial study 'Londonistan' has explained this in terms of eroded British self confidence and national identity. She has highlighted an irrationality and appeasement to Islamic fundamentalism on the back of multi-culturism.
"Much better that we be allowed to listen to a fool than to be fooled into the belief that what he has to say is too dangerous for human consumption."
Indeed it is a shame Ofsted has ruled teachers are not allowed to challenge the teaching of scientific theories of the origin of species in England and Wales when the basis for the furtherment of science is critical approach.
mise eire, you certainly seem to be making up for lost time.
Have you got Marty tied up somewhere? you seem to be merging into one.
Stefan,
where the teaching is to be challenged it has to be done on plausible grounds. If religion makes a plausible case let its challenge be made but it should have no privilege to amke the challenge because it is religion.
Robert,
not all religious people are idiots. But clearly there are some. Just as there are atheist idiots. Terry Jones fits the bill I think. Melanie Philips is no idiot. I have her book here but have not got around to reading it yet. Read the Gove one.
Mise eire-
you on that vodka to-night? joke
A disgruntled attict- is their another type
A disgruntled dissident- there is no other type.
AM - Our wee debate on the various subjects surrounding this genre on the other thread goes some way to prove there are pausible grounds for discussion and we only scratched the surface of the topic.
In reference to Melanie Phillips, I grew up in Londonistan, was educated and lived alongside Muslims up until my families recent relocation deeper into Essex as financial migrants.All my time where I formerly lived I saw a strong Irish community slowely replaced by a Tamil one but Muslims always being the backdrop.Whilst I knew some radical ones at school (backlash to Rushdie) I also got to know a few in later life that lived on my block and I can truley say Islam has a positive moral message that could enrich English life not being so far removed in our own National religious heritage - Catholicism and Islam both having Abrahamic roots.
Stefan,
there are indeed grounds for discussion. But that does not mean treating all areas of knowledge in like fashion. Everything can be challenged in the classroom. But not everything can be taught as a subject. We can't seriously expect it to be taught in a science class that the earth is 6000 years old; or that there were men and dinosaurs on the planet together like in the film One Million Years BC. A critical approach does not mean treating astrology or theology as subjects with a great insight into the natural world. But this was all played out at Dover so there is not much new in it.
Anthony,
"..or that there were men and dinosaurs on the planet together like in the film One Million Years BC."
Why not? The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34)
"The Paluxy River in Texas is the home of Dinosaur National Park with hundreds of fossil dinosaur tracks. Right beside the dinosaur tracks are three sets of human fossil footprints and a large cat track."
mise eire, the shinners were well named, 'ourselves alone' because that was the only people they ever helped, themselves.
Don't be letting michael henry put you on the vodka, especially if your not prepared to pay for it. Look at what he has done to Marty drove him over the edge!
Fionnuala-
we all miss Marty- but he will be back with a vengeance-
You can take the person out of
The Pensive Quill-
But you can't take the Pensive Quill out of the person.
Ah no, not you too, Robert?
Robert
I thought the Behemoth was a hippopotamus and the Leviathan a sea serpent in Hebrew mythology.
The footprints are again one of those debates though are probably not human but a result of natural erosion making them appear different from the more pronounced tracks.
Robert,
I must join Alfie on this one. Are you winding me up? I think you are pulling my leg only because you know the effect the bible has on me! Great for smoking, standing on to keep the feet warm during blanket protest winters, or writing smuggled letters on - but as my guide to the world, not really how I get through my day. It would have us believe the earth is 6000 years old.
This was one of the claims used to make Sarah Palin look ridiculous - that she believed dinosaurs and people inhabited the planet at the same time. Although Palin had not actually made such a claim her critics knew that if they could stick it on to her they would make her look so ridiculous as to render her useless as a political force.
Tell me you are having a laugh.
Michaelhenry,
so you are a Quill man now! We would miss you if you were not. You have livened the place up no end. You fight your corner, give a punch, take a punch and get on with it.
Stefan,
Sorry for playing catch up. So little time. I am commenting here to you from an earlier post. I think it must be creaking by now from the weight of comments
Alfred Russell Wallace, whatever his differences with Darwin, was an evolutionist. Can you outline what he said in the letter that would allow us to think he had abandoned evolution in favour of Intelligent Design? The Origin of Species was not published until 1959, a year after the letter and even then Darwin was using terms like created rather than evolution. He was not some fervent anti-god warrior. He moved away from religion slowly and only after the publication of Descent of Man in 1871did he ease up a bit and become more relaxed in expressing his doubts. Even then Wallace urged him to hold firm and not retreat from the principles of natural selection. There was still a persecutionist zeal against those who wanted to exercise their right not to believe in what seemed nonsense to them.
The letter from Darwin to Marx which you cite shows us absolutely nothing other than a letter from Darwin to Marx thanking the latter for his book. This attempt to create an anti-god conspiracy sounds like something the Discovery Institute might invent. Marx reportedly mentioned Darwin twice in his footnotes. Hardly a great alliance.
I suppose while I have a natural curiosity about arguments for intelligent design and would have no difficulty accepting ID if I could be persuaded of its merits, what riles me is the dishonesty employed by the Discovery Institute in these matters. If god is the unalloyed essence of truth it makes me wonder why so many liars are employed in his service.
I was interested in this comment from Professor John Lynch. And I am mindful of the fact that anybody can use a quote to support whatever they wish. So accept it in that context.
‘To many anti-evolutionists, Darwinism is inescapably linked with Marxism, both ideologies supporting each other, and evolutionary thinking making communism possible. Such connections between Darwin and Marx have been effectively refuted by historians for over thirty years.’
There is enough evidence to suggest that Marx actually thought Darwin was a bourgeois liberal not a dogged materialist!
AM - I think its been made absolutely clear now through wikileaks if it wasn't so before how America shouldn't be setting a precedent for the world and that goes for the Dover ruling to.Go and read the case of Caroline Crocker and then tell me the National Center for Science Education is model for the way forward in answering questions posing the human race.
Facts should be taught at school.
Theories put forward with their relevant critiques.
The reason the huge weight of vested economic interest is behind keeping the scientists as an arogant preistcraft is that the people trust their word.Experts say this and that on adverts and it sells the product.Look beyond the veil of assurance and the truth is science is no nearer to explaining anything fundamental with provable evidence than the Church is with the historical evidence put forward in the Bible...that is fact, that shouldn't be distorted in the classroom with rulings like the Dover case and Ofsted stating that creationism may be taught in schools only as a religious idea and not as a credible scientific alternative thus giving weight to one over the other instead of combining the two as introduced as 'Faith and Reason' by Blessed John Henry Newman highlighted by the Holy Fathers visit and beatification recently.
The Resignation of Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society in 2008 further compounds my veiws sparking this statement from Robert Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, “I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”
Stefan,
‘I think its been made absolutely clear now through wikileaks if it wasn't so before how America shouldn't be setting a precedent for the world and that goes for the Dover ruling to.’
If you really believed that you would not cite the Discovery Institute, because now you are telling us to believe that the Institute ‘shouldn't be setting a precedent for the world.’ Or do you want it both ways?
‘Go and read the case of Caroline Crocker and then tell me the National Center for Science Education is model for the way forward in answering questions posing the human race.’
There is a tone to that which suggests you don’t like being disagreed with. If your religious views can’t persuade, Stefan, your problem, not mine. Make them more persuasive, not less so.
‘Facts should be taught at school.’
That the earth is 6000 years old? That ‘fact’? That is a biblical fiction.
So what facts are we talking about? David Irving’s facts that there was no holocaust? A Nazi fiction.
‘Theories put forward with their relevant critiques.’
Agreed. What is a ‘relevant critique.’? Irving for the Holocaust? (an example and not in any way remotely reflecting your position). Dembski for creationism? Should the relevant critique of pathology be a séance, replace pathologists with mediums? Let religion prove itself as that relevant critique and we will accept it. But there is nothing said by you up to this point that has made it relevant as a critique.
The scientific community ‘an arrogant priesthood.’
Experts always are. They say doctors bury their mistakes rather than let us investigate them. Where true we must inflate. But we have our more relevant example of an arrogant priesthood that did every thing possible to stop the investigation of child rape.
‘Experts say this and that on adverts and it sells the product.’
As they say, where facts are few experts are plentiful. But sure we have theological experts selling bunkum. We can at least test the product of the scientists rather than be told the bible says therefore it must be true.
‘the truth is science is no nearer to explaining anything fundamental with provable evidence than the Church is with the historical evidence put forward in the Bible’
Bollix.
Initially I was tempted to say ‘religious bollix’ but refrained on the grounds that there are so many religious scholars and believers who simply do not subscribe to such a ludicrous position. A book of fables does not equate with a work of science. A book of fables does not equate with the brilliance of the theologian Hans Kung in rejecting atheism but who is quite able to defend evolution.
‘that is fact, that shouldn't be distorted in the classroom with rulings like the Dover case and Ofsted stating that creationism may be taught in schools only as a religious idea and not as a credible scientific alternative thus giving weight to one over the other instead of combining the two as introduced as 'Faith and Reason' by Blessed John Henry Newman highlighted by the Holy Fathers visit and beatification recently.’
All you are trying to do here is smuggle the nonsense of creationism into the classroom. Dover destroyed it and showed it as the farce it was. Dembski and company had the chance to face Forrest and didn’t. The case for ID as science was destroyed by Forrest. Perhaps that is why you resort to anti-Americanism in your pseudo stance against Dover yet easily drop the anti-Americanism when it comes to the Discovery Institute.
‘The Resignation of Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society in 2008 further compounds my views.’
Had problems with aspects of that myself.
Mise eire-
So you have no interest in politics
yet you help a indepentant oppose
Sinn Fein- its up to you but it seems that you have a interest,
Politics like war like marriage-
if you can't stand the heat- stay out of the kitchen,
Plenty of rumour's against Sinn Fein but i never heard of a relationship break up because of lies
Felon setting- you have set the odd claim against Sinn Fein
You say that Sinn Fein won that
election- get used to it old hand-
there is more to come before the
big one.
Stefan,
The Enlightenment was always going to extract god from the equation but not at all costs and not for the sheer hell of it. If god came walking down the street now and started working a few miracles and raising people from the dead over in the local graveyard I would believe in him myself. God simply makes no sense to a lot of people. It was not as if god was there and people decided to extract him. Perhaps another way to describe it is that rather than extract god many thinkers saw no need for his inclusion on the basis of a belief that god did not exist. This very conversation took place between Napoleon and Pierre-Simon Laplace.
‘The way I see it the Almighty God, Creator of all things seen and unseen would be an unwise God to trust his secrets to his children on masse. Would you trust that knowledge with us if you was God? Better select a few who can handle it and slowly, carefully reveal thyself through them - Abraham, Moses, Elijah etc. He is El Shaddai, he knows what he's doing.’
Seriously? Maybe Thor knows more.
Being facetious of course, but that all sounds bunkum to me. Imagine me trying to persuade you about the omnipotence of Beano the Spinning Jelly Bean Monster. It just does not compute Stefan.
You make the point that ‘Here is some further recent scientific research that has thrown evolutionary theory into disarray.’
You then cite something from Dr. Alcocer Ruthling and you conclude by saying ‘I am sure you will see the implications this poses for the Darwinian theory of evolution being a process of successive mutations.’
But how could we see anything if we haven’t the slightest idea what it means and absolutely no attempt is made to explain it?
And at the end of it all evolution exists as a fact of life whether we like it or not. It hardly seems to be in disarray. Unlike god it is not a figment of our imagination. It does not rule out god but evolution is how we got here, kick started by god or not.
As a matter of interest what is wrong with evolution kick started by god?
Stefan,
not being familiar with the Crocker case I googled it and came up with the following. I don't like quoting at length or linking this article or that in this type of discussion as it ends up like a panto where every body shouts 'oh yes you did and the response is 'oh no we didn't.' And the following quote established nothing definitively other than the ease with which quoted can be pulled from the net. But what I did find interesting was her Dean, a Buddhist, who opposed her. He just made so much sense.
'Crocker had a position as a part-time faculty member of George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.She alleges that, in December 2004, her department barred her from teaching evolution and intelligent design after she mentioned intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell biology course. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences stated that the university did not have a policy or a rule on whether certain topics should be discussed, but questioned whether a concept with theological underpinnings belonged in a science course. He added "I'm a Buddhist, but I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes."
Her lecture which raised concerns, as repeated at Northern Virginia Community College, included erroneous creationist claims which have long been discredited. Her claim that microevolution is quite different from macroevolution is a common and incorrect creationist distortion, and her assertion that the latter was not established as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory" is completely incorrect, as no evolutionary biologist has proposed that this could happen, and if it did it would be disproof of evolution. She misrepresented peppered moth evolution experiments to claim that they were falsified, repeating an intelligent design creationist claim. In asserting that the Miller-Urey experiment was irrelevant as views on the atmospheric composition have been revised, she ignored more recent research including the experiment being re-run successfully with revised conditions. Having claimed that many scientists believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer, she said that "The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition – this evolved into this – but there is no evidence", and that anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps in Nazi Germany had been based on Darwin's ideas of natural selection.
On 28 April 2005 Crocker was reported as stating that being prevented from teaching both evolution and intelligent design was "an infringement of academic freedom", and appealing the case to a grievance committee. She was teaching material which was not part of the curriculum of the courses, and academic freedom does not give the freedom to ignore the expected course content or teach about anything you want. Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her non-tenure track contract in the normal way, then her contract was not renewed. A university spokesman said this was for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design, and that though they wholeheartedly supported academic freedom, "teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology."
Leaves me wondering how much you might have left out. Did you try to persuade or bamboozle?
Fionnuchu,
Had to move the responses to this post. As I explained to Stefan the last comment box on that post must be creaking. Enjoyed your comments. You didn’t make it but you didn’t miss a lot as you would have been familiar with the arguments on the night.
‘The mob outside the Big House often succeeded (think of William
Carleton's melodramatic but powerful story) in but burning down the house rather than regaining the gentry's treasures.’
The dilemma of would be revolutionaries summed up concisely.
Tain Bo
I think we have to give credit to the evolution discussion for pushing us over the line. It surprised me how high it got. Not normal for this blog to draw so many comments on the one post. I am glad you are enjoying the debate. I find it very interesting even if the technical terms are a bit boggling. I am not against their use – just hate having to go and look up what they mean! Rather just do a read through in one go.
Anthony,
"I must join Alfie on this one. Are you winding me up? I think you are pulling my leg only because you know the effect the bible has on me!"
This is in all honesty no wind up. I discerned some time ago that scripture was a subject upon which you reach 'critical mass', that may be the effect but not my intent.
"This was one of the claims used to make Sarah Palin look ridiculous - that she believed dinosaurs and people inhabited the planet at the same time. Although Palin had not actually made such a claim her critics knew that if they could stick it on to her they would make her look so ridiculous as to render her useless as a political force."
We may have to conclude that they have failed in that respect given she is becoming a strong contender for the presidency. In a billion years from now should those critics be uncovered in the fossil record they should be called silly-a-saurus.
Alfie,
"Ah no, not you too, Robert?"
Very much so Alfie - the idea that my existence is the result of the inanimate becoming animate in a 'warm little pond' somewhere does'nt do it for me. I remain suspicious of those who seek to explain the origins of life via science but can offer nothing by way of the common cold. The bibical account of mans creation is no less credible than darwins primordial soup.
Robert,
'This is in all honesty no wind up.'
I can appreciate that you have a religious belief but don't think for a minute that you believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time anymore than you believe in the talking snake of Genesis.
'I discerned some time ago that scripture was a subject upon which you reach 'critical mass'
Haven't lost your sense of humour anyway!
On Palin 'we may have to conclude that they have failed in that respect given she is becoming a strong contender for the presidency.'
I don't know if they failed but they were so dishonest in their criticisms of her. We have two biographies of her at home. I reviewed one for the blog.
'I remain suspicious of those who seek to explain the origins of life via science but can offer nothing by way of the common cold.'
Nothing problematic there Robert. Things are generally easier described than prescribed. Funny that there have been no miracles performed to get rid of the common cold.
'The bibical account of mans creation is no less credible than darwins primordial soup.'
Talking snakes, apples from the knowledge tree that lead to original sin and all that? The world created in six days. You don't really expect us to buy into that.
What is the problem with evolution if god started it? So many Christians believe in it. They do not see the bible as the literal word of god but as allegorical. The more formidable Christian minds would not defend the bible on literal grounds. They prefer interpretation of what they see as allegory. Doesn't make them any less believers.
mise eire, Marty has been tied up before and we just fear it might be too much for him.
Speaking of flies, Larry also seems to be amongst the missing, just hope the 'unknowns' have not reformed.
Tain Bo,
"I thought the Behemoth was a hippopotamus and the Leviathan a sea serpent in Hebrew mythology."
Those arguments have been presented but in the case of Behemoth the biblical account is of one who, "bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo's tail is anything but large and tapered. Leviathan, it has been argued is infact a crocodile but again the scriptural description does'nt fit the croc theory. Brachiosaurus and Elasmosaurus have been presented as matching the account.
If Job saw them or relied on a description from recent memory
what of evolution?
Anthony,
"What is the problem with evolution if god started it? So many Christians believe in it. They do not see the bible as the literal word of god but as allegorical. The more formidable Christian minds would not defend the bible on literal grounds. They prefer interpretation of what they see as allegory. Doesn't make them any less believers."
There would be no problem with evolution had God started it but that is not what scripture describes. Many Christians attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution to scripture in the face of what appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence. Stefan provided a perfect example of this when you challenged him on the antiquity of the earth. Allow me to commit intellectual suicide by claiming the earth to be 6000 - 10000 years old - that will incorporate the Sumerian adhesive.
On the subject of the six day creation there can be no equivocation,in my mind, it is so fundamental.If science can disprove the creation essentially the rest is piffle. I have wrestled with the allegorical argument and personally rejected it on the basis of formidable scientific argument on the literal interpretation of the scriptural account.
Robert,
"the idea that my existence is the result of the inanimate becoming animate in a 'warm little pond' somewhere does'nt do it for me."
Scientists don't yet know exactly how abiogenesis (the formation of living organisms from non-living materials) happened, but they have several models that are a lot more credible than saying God did it, then buggered off to watch the show from behind a rock. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, can form naturally from simpler chemicals; also, complex organic molecules are known to have formed in space. Now those facts don't prove abiogenesis, but taken together with what we already know about evolution and the origins of the Earth and indeed the Universe, they make it more credible than divine intervention.
"I remain suspicious of those who seek to explain the origins of life via science but can offer nothing by way of the common cold."
So we throw science in the dustbin because we can't cure the common cold? That's like not speaking to your granny because she can't do a handstand. Scientists are not omnipotent. Do you have similar suspicions about using your computer, mobile phone, car, etc.?
"The bibical account of mans creation is no less credible than darwins primordial soup."
But the biblical account flies in the face of all that we know. I mean, do you really believe that the Earth is only 6000-odd years old? Really?
Robert,
'There would be no problem with evolution had God started it but that is not what scripture describes.'
But why get hooked on what scripture describes? Surely the best argument for god lies in the cosmological rather than in the biological. Even ceding the biological ground to evolutionists does not impinge on the cosmological argument for god.
'Many Christians attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution to scripture in the face of what appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence.'
You present the dilemma well in allowing for what 'appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence.' If it was not so overwhelming people like me could still allow for the possibility of god. I go with what the evidence appears to be and you go against it based on faith. This is where I think the argument for your god looks very weak to me. I can't really grasp why you want to hold onto such a weak case when a stronger case can be made by you.
I admire your courage in standing up and risking yourself to intellectual suicide, especially here where you have established a reputation for yourself as intellectually formidable. I found Stefan evasive on the matter. Stefan sets out a position that I find intensely interesting and then self destructs by reverting to scripture. It leaves me flummoxed that the intellect can manage this.
Yet I find nothing deceptive about you. It is what you believe and whatever discomfort it must intellectually cause you it is an issue you need to resolve in your own mind to your own satisfaction. I have no intention of being disparaging toward your intellect and I think I would like to leave it at saying no more than it is a puzzling matter. That I might elsewhere be less inhibited in criticising this position is besides the point. I don't think the civil discussion here needs any of that. We both know we totally oppose each others position without anyone screaming feeble mind at the other.
'I have wrestled with the allegorical argument'.
But you have always won!!
What is on your Christmas reading list? Any recommendations?
Alfie,
The hypothesis of how these
building blocks came together is outlined in layman's terms here
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html)
Enjoyed reading this
Robert,
With regard to the Paluxy river footprints, only a few diehard Young-Earthers still claim that they were made by humans. For example, the creationist organisation Answers In Genesis no longer advises people to use the argument, and I think most ID advocates accept the scientific consensus that the "man prints" were formed by a combination of dinosaur tracks, erosional features and (in some cases) downright fakery.
"I have wrestled with the allegorical argument and personally rejected it on the basis of formidable scientific argument on the literal interpretation of the scriptural account."
"Formidable scientific argument"? Can you enlighten us?
Alfie,
Scientists don't yet know exactly how abiogenesis (the formation of
living organisms from non-living materials) happened, but they have
several models that are a lot more credible than saying God did it,
then buggered off to watch the show from behind a rock. The Miller-Urey
experiment demonstrates that amino acids, the building blocks of
proteins, can form naturally from simpler chemicals; also, complex
organic molecules are known to have formed in space. Now those facts don't prove abiogenesis, but taken together with what we already know about evolution and the origins of the Earth and indeed the Universe, they make it more credible than divine intervention.'
Pretty much how it has struck me when given to thinking about it. Without even understanding the scientific minutiae it is easier to be attracted to the general scientific argument on the grounds that a god seems too far fetched an explanation. And where processes work from the bottom up as in evolution rather than the top down as in divine manipulation, they become so easy to intellectually rest with. This is where irreducible complexity is rubbish to me. The god concept is irreducible complexity par excellence yet we are supposed to believe it was not designed. If god was ever proven to exist the first question I would ask is from what did it evolve?
Anthony,
"What is on your Christmas reading list? Any recommendations?"
Again Anthony without meaning to start up the 'reactor' - The King James Bible! In the certainty that that offer will be declined 'In Six Days' Why 50 Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation.
My apologies for being evasive, if that is how I've come across it was never the intention.I assume you refer to the question posed on Earth age and my unwillingness to hold steadfast to one theory.The fact is I truley do not know to answer your question definatively as I stated.
AM, your flummoxing and what you see as self destruction of my point may lie in the realm of your explanation for phenomina being that of intellect alone.Forgive me if this is a presumption on my part as I'm basing this purely on what I've deduced reading your comments.
From my own experience it takes an element of trust and faith to get the interactive counsel from the Almighty in the form the Holy spirit.Intellect can take take you part of the way to this, as happened for me but then other human faculties become necessary to complete the journey.
Re the Crocker case, I wasn't trying to bamboozle.I heard two heartfelt interveiws from this Lady who clearly states she didn't even really pursue ID as a specific line of research in her lectures but mearly touched on it from her own veiwpoint.What struck me from these interviews was the support for her studants that felt a travesty of justice had occured this being she states false the claim she had signed a 1-year contract that expired in 2005 but had signed a 3-year contract that was not to expire until 2007.
Eugenics were pioneered by Sir Francis Galton, Darwins half cousin and based on his work.
Robert,
but you must have read that hundreds of times. It's Christmas. Lighten up! I might go for the Hitchens Hitch 22 or the Marty Frampton one on dissident republican. Both are in the house.
Anthony,
Glad you enjoyed the article. I think you made an important point earlier: modern evidence-based science, like evolution and the Big Bang, is not the preserve of atheists. My father is a veterinary surgeon; he acknowledges evolution but it does not undermine his Roman Catholicism. He sees a creator behind the Big Bang. The same is true for countless other believers. I really don't understand this need to dispute generally accepted scientific concepts because of a longing for the Bible to be literally true.
Robert
Job 40:15-24 (King James Version)
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Curious as to why a monster would dine upon grass not exactly terrifying as the name suggests it does sound like great imagination.
I am unsure how it can be translated as anything else rather than a hippo we tend to forgot that those who penned the bible suffer from very human traits and like any storyteller would enhance embellish and exaggerate. The only giant lizard I can think of that would be confused for the dinosaur link would be the Komodo dragon it would not be implausible for people then to have heard tales from different cultures travelling from port to port.
If humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time and the bible is correct on the issue I would like to think there would be an extensive knowledge of this rather than just a vague description of monsters.
I would think if the bible held actual accounts of humans and dinosaurs sharing the same space that the primordial soup followers would be picking through the bible as a reference tool.
By all accounts these tales are entertaining much like the modern day urban mythological creatures that roam though we split them up into good and evil.
If we believe in biblical monsters then we should believe in vampires and chupacabras and every other modern strange creatures.
If the earth is 6000 or slightly more years old then how old is the universe considering the blue marble is not even a spec in the grander scheme.
Anthony
I am unsure how the public debate interview took the religious scientific detour though I enjoyed the reading the only thing I know for sure about the technical jargon is when reading it takes patients as every other word is a trip to the dictionary.
Stefan,
'I assume you refer to the question posed on Earth age and my unwillingness to hold steadfast to one theory.The fact is I truley do not know to answer your question definatively as I stated.'
Ok. But the vast bulk of scientific evidence shows it is not 6000 years old. The bible might say something different but as you point out in an earlier post the bible has parables. It has to be interpreted. There are evolutionists who see in the bible a story of unfolding creation explained in very simple terms.
'your flummoxing and what you see as self destruction of my point may lie in the realm of your explanation for phenomina being that of intellect alone.Forgive me if this is a presumption on my part as I'm basing this purely on what I've deduced reading your comments.'
I am not sure that is correct. Although I can see why you think it. I don't want to rule out intuitive forms of knowledge. And the intellect is always shaped by the constraints of the day.
'From my own experience it takes an element of trust and faith to get the interactive counsel from the Almighty in the form the Holy spirit.'
You probably know by now that I take this in the same way I take a statement about witches flying. It simply has no purchase on me whatsoever. Your arguments about the arrogance of scientists, the need to question science, the shortcomings of evolution all strike a chord with me but I then recoil the minute the supernatural is mentioned.
'Re the Crocker case, I wasn't trying to bamboozle.'
Fair enough. But there is more to the case than was evident from what you told us. Having said that, you have not been slow to provide us with links to pieces which oppose your case. So, it would seems clear that bamboozling was not part of your agenda. The question was posed against a backdrop of Intelligent Design dishonesty. Even were I fresh to the discussion I would see immediately that without a great understanding of the terms and detail that the ID people are much less scrupulous in their presentation of the issues and are quite prepared to bamboozle and baffle with bull. This is the significance of Dover. Having tried to stop Forrest appearing, they ran away when she did show up. In the end it has done the ID case untold intellectual harm. Dembski may rant about not getting a job in the academic institutions but why does he not put his stuff in for peer review? Does he expect to bunk in without paying for the ticket?
Stefan, you must see that despite the force of your argument - and it does make us think - that it is a tornado that becomes a mild breeze the minute it goes into biblical mode. Why risk exposing the argument for creation to ridicule by introducing something that has no real truth value to those you seek to persuade? Is the bible more important than the argument for the existence for god? It is an albatross around the neck of Deism. When Robert recommended a great debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, I was impressed with Lennox until he started about Jesus and that. It seems to me that an argument for creation that ignores the bible can impact on opponents much better.
Alfie,
'I really don't understand this need to dispute generally accepted scientific concepts because of a longing for the Bible to be literally true.'
This is a better worded version of what I was saying to Stefan.
Alfie,
"So we throw science in the dustbin because we can't cure the common cold? That's like not speaking to your granny because she can't do a handstand. Scientists are not omnipotent. Do you have similar suspicions about using your computer, mobile phone, car, etc.?"
We should'nt throw science in the dustbin, but clearly in the point I made it has serious limitations. If Einstein was correct and indeed,
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'why should you limp on one leg while I fumble in the dark. Scientists are not omnipotent, they are fallible and subjective beings.
I have no suspicions regarding the technology you list - I consider them manifestations of man's intellect, ingenuity and endeavour but in so far as those attributes were not derived from an ascent up dawkins 'improbable mount' but from a creator as revealed in the scriptures.
Your point about scientists not knowing how abiogenesis happened while declaring it a scientific reality leads me to one of my favourite quotes, "All of the extant evidence reveals that there is nothing living on earth, either animal or plant, that did not receive its life from previous life, its sexual or asexual parent. Since the law of biogenesis states that life proceeds only from preexisting life, various forms of preexisting life must have been parents of all living organisms. And since life cannot create itself, the source of life must be God: “O Lord … . For with you is the fountain of life” (Ps. 36:69). In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (Jastrow, p. 116, 1978).
Alfie,
"Formidable scientific argument"? Can you enlighten us?
For enlightenment I highly recommend the bible but on the basis of formidable scientific argument I would refer you to the opinion of Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the structure of DNA, Francis Crick. What is the objective evidence that 200,000 amino acid chains that make up life occured by chance from soup?
Alfie,
what was not reasoned in may not be reasoned out
Alfie,
'I really don't understand this need to dispute generally accepted scientific concepts because of a longing for the Bible to be literally true.
What scientific concepts? What is scientific about the theory of evolution?
Robert,
few people in the scientific community now regard evolution as a theory and accept it as a fact of life, demonstrated as such by science forensically applied, which can be tested independently and made verifiable. And the thing is, for many, it does not detract in the slightest from their belief in god.
How we may wish to deal with science is another matter but I doubt it is something we can ignore. There is the case of a scientist (can't recall the detail just now, name etc) who explains how he cannot refute any of the scientific facts on evolution but feels compelled to go with the bible all the same.
This fascinates and repels me in equal measure. My own experience with SF has increased my deep hostility to any cultic phenomena that denies what is in front of its eyes. And the cult of the bible seems no different. As you are probably aware by now I am much more at ease with different ideas than many of my one time colleagues and even where I find the idea woeful I can be at ease with those who hold them. So it is not a case of trying to beat people over the head with my beliefs. I remain very interested in rational and scientific explanations for the existence of god. I am just baffled about the need of some to hold onto the bible. It is a human document which justifies some very barbaric practices.
Maybe Barbara Forrest is right when she said it is pointless to have debates between creationists and evolutionists as they never lead anywhere. I always think there is a need for discussion but the point I made to Alfie increasingly grips me - what is not reasoned in may never be reasoned out.
Tain Bo - the public debate interview took the religious/scientific detour when the criticism of Socialism was introduced as a materialist theory lacking the credentials to fulfill its promises due to it's achillies heel of always being exposed to the three great temptations that has historically flawed its best efforts that can be guarded against through the literal teachings of Christ.
An interesting development in Honduras this week where Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga may now be moved to a Vatican role after receiving death threats following the fallout from the coup that ousted Zeyala in 2009 brings to the fore again the whole Liberation Theology concept and how the Vatican, starting with the venerable Pope John Paul II, dealt with it as a Marxist penetration of Catholic social teaching.
Stephan
Thanks, I was too last to go through all the comments again I know it is not everyone’s cup a tea but I enjoyed the banter between you and Alfie.
It wasn’t a criticism as more than often the article and the subject change.
Thanks again
Alfie, can you repost your comment, there was a problem with duplicates.
Anthony,
Sorry for the repetitions - the screen went blank when I submitted my comment and, foolishly, I kept clicking the Back icon. I assure you I'm not on the Jameson again!
Robert,
"We should'nt throw science in the dustbin, but clearly in the point I made it has serious limitations."
Not as many serious limitations as the Bible's version. And just because science has not (yet) solved a particular problem, that doesn’t mean there is something seriously wrong with it.
"Your point about scientists not knowing how abiogenesis happened while declaring it a scientific reality leads me to one of my favourite quotes."
Well, you see, Robert, that wasn't my point at all. What I said was that scientific models of abiogenesis are more credible than divine intervention, given that we know complex organic molecules can form naturally from simpler substances and complex organisms can evolve from simpler ones. Plus we also know the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old and the universe to be about 14 billion years old. As much as anything can be, these are facts. Not enough is known about abiogenesis to conclusively call it a scientific fact, but given the evidence we do have, it is the most plausible explanation of the origin of life. (Abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution, which is a well-supported scientific fact.)
"And since life cannot create itself, the source of life must be God."
This is the conclusion of a circular argument - it assumes what it sets out to prove.
"For enlightenment I highly recommend the bible."
I have a copy of the King James version; it is very poetic. However, it is not a work of science or history.
"What is the objective evidence that 200,000 amino acid chains that make up life occured by chance from soup?"
But no-one is saying they occurred completely "by chance from a soup". Biochemical reactions together with (a form of) natural selection can explain how DNA could have gradually developed from a simpler self-replicating molecule. This self-replicator may well have been ribonucleic acid (RNA) or something similar; in turn, RNA could have formed from simpler peptides. We're talking millions of years here - not one moment of chance in a pond. And biochemistry teaches us that complex chemicals can form naturally from simpler chemicals, and that these complex chemicals interact in complex ways. Isn't it at least possible that these natural forces, over the course of millions of years, could have produced a self-replicating molecule, at which point something like natural selection would kick in?
"What is scientific about the theory of evolution?"
Everything - from the fossil record, which shows the chronological appearance of organisms and evidence of transitional forms, to the wealth of evidence of mutation and natural selection in action every day, not to mention the fundamental biochemical and cellular unity of all organisms. Everything we know suggests the common descent of all living things.
There is no reason for a Christian to oppose all this. God could have set the parameters and laws of the universe and then started it all off with the big bang. That is what the Christians I know say anyway. They don’t need the Bible to be literally true – why do you?
Alfie - I would contest evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific methodology being a reason about the past via methods of multiple competing hypothesis ie the best explanations culminating in the only explanation known to have the power to cause outcomes.Evolution falls way short of this criteria.I think it was Charles Lyell (Darwins Mentor) that quoted "predicting past events against present known phenomina".Darwin puts forward a great argument for adaption in nature, the origin of species bit is way out of his or any modern testable evidence.I remember someone saying this in Discovery magazine re the 'Arti' find - "The bones of our ancestors do not speak over time with ultimate clarity".I am not saying they even are our ancestors but there is so much dispute with the fossil record its painfull.
AM - I wish I had more time to address your responses but your comment "Maybe Thor knows more" leads me to beleive you put on a same level the architypal development of pantheons with monotheism.Even with modern dating methods in dispute a relative yardstick can be applied if we look at the Hebrew civilisations birth at 1200 BC and culminating shortly after Christs death but Christianity surviving all the way through to present day.Comparing the established theology of the Hebrews already victorious over various mythologies ie Exodus, with the mere blip of Viking civilisation ie 800 AD - 1050 AD with Thor having no more lime light than a mere 'Newage' revival in modern times.
Stefan,
my point was simply that all gods are the same - man made. One knows as much as the next - zilch. Nothing as complex as the 'architypal development of pantheons with monotheism' should be inferred from my throwaway line. What is on your Christmas reading list?
AM - I will cancel two papers over christmas and new year till I've read 'God and Evolution - Protestants, Catholics and Jews explore Darwins challenge to faith' hot off the press this year from DI.
Relevent to timelines did anyone happen to note the phenomina occuring tomorrow at Newgrange - the suns allignment with the passage grave at the moment the full moon begins to pass out of a total lunar eclipse last seen in when the Tudors were on the thrown in England! Newgrange was built between circa 3100 and 2900 BC at the time when the Sumerian Civilisation it is claimed had the first language (around the location of Eden) and thats interesting cause they supposedly inspired the Ziggurat that was claimed to be the Tower of Babel in the later Babylonian civilization.Even more interesting was todays article by Peter Cluskey in the Irish Times about Dutch Linguist, Bram Jagersma who will release a PhD thesis on the Sumerian language in 2012.He did go on to predict the demise of Gaeilge saying "there are around 6000 spoken languages in the world at the moment, of which 5000 probably won't make it into the next century and Irish is likely to be one of those lost forever".Sumerian disapeared around 2000 BC.
Stefan,
"I would contest evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific methodology being a reason about the past via methods of multiple competing hypothesis ie the best explanations culminating in the only explanation known to have the power to cause outcomes."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're saying that biblical creationism is a credible alternative hypothesis, then I obviously don't agree.
"Darwin puts forward a great argument for adaption in nature, the origin of species bit is way out of his or any modern testable evidence."
Do you dispute that mutation and natural selection have been demonstrated to occur? Do you deny that speciation (the emergence of new species) has been observed in historical times?
"I am not saying they even are our ancestors but there is so much dispute with the fossil record its painfull."
Can you point me towards genuine scientific problems with the fossil record and the age of the Earth? I have read a few creationist objections to the modern scientific consensus on the origins of life, the Earth and the universe; to my mind, none of them stand up to close scrutiny.
Anthony,
"what was not reasoned in may not be reasoned out"
Perhaps that's true; on the other hand, both Robert and Stefan strike me as intelligent men - that's why I find their biblical creationism baffling. I mean, science leaves a hell of a lot of room for God to set the physical laws of the universe in order to be conducive to the formation of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and indeed life. Why complicate matters with a theory that would require an international conspiracy of disinformation by scientists, a conspiracy that would transcend race, creed, culture and ideology? Maybe the discussion won't change any minds, but it has to be good for both sides in this debate to subject their own views to scrutiny.
Alfie,
‘The original claim of IC was that flagella had to be fully assembled before a selectable function exists, but evidence shows that a subset of parts of flagella
can be fully functional, and thus favoured by natural selection. Now,
IC advocates have backtracked, and argue that they never claimed that
sub-parts of flagella had no separate function, but just that flagella
could not have evolved in a step-wise manner.’
This is why they have avoided putting their stuff in peer reviewed scientific journals.
I think we should be able to listen to any reasonable argument but much of this is bunkum. Equating biblical myths with modern science is theocratic idiocy unfortunately practiced quite often by intelligent people.
I appreciate your input on this Alfie. You have a good grasp of the science end of things. The discussion has been fine despite its technical level but can go of the boil once scripture comes in.
What are you reading over Xmas Alfie?
Stefan
'God and Evolution - Protestants, Catholics and Jews explore
Darwins challenge to faith' - doubt if I will read that. I am not at all impressed by DI material but hopefully you enjoy. Dembski just isn’t for me.
Alfie - Creationism is not science on this part we all will agree.Science can be applied to it to make more sense of it but ultimately Genesis offers up an explanation of an event humankind is never going to be able to explain in it's entirety.It isn't a hypothesis as such because it can never and will never be able to be measured against observable phenomina to prove or disprove it.The same goes for evolutionary theory in that it can only ever be a proposition as to the origin of species.The Bible being a historical collection of writings documenting the rise of the Hebrews, the development of human spirituality culminating in the messiah and how that spirituality went from one man to the Nation of Israel and then beyond into the Gentiles thus establishing developed Civilisation as we know it, for better or for worse, is in itself an acclaim to its importance and relevance coupled with the richness in lessons for mankind that run through these historical events which can guide us today.What would be the reasoning to reason out a collection of historical documents accounting for all this albeit allowing for the distortion of the actualities over time just as the Invasion cycles of Ireland from Partholan onwards hold insights into immigrations right through to historical firm ground in King Cormac mac Airt.On top of this Biblical archeology has uncovered a lot of key evidence providing more weight to the historical correctness of events and key characters in the Bible.
As long as you keep coming from the angle that evolution is a done deal the notion of creationism is gonna baffle you.I wouldn't say its a conspiracy as such more of an awakening in mankind that they have to have 'all' the answers just like the fruit of the tree of knowledge alas thats never gonna be in their realm of responsability.I think honest scientists would agree that there is an element of disinformation made to the general public in so much as it is put across through the media that if science doesn't have all the answers presently its only a matter of time till they do, which is clearly a massive overstretching of their capabilities to the point of lying.
Here's some earth age and fossil record info without getting too bogged down in individual cases...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
Genetic mutation occurs indeed but from what I've read at a fitness cost not allowing for a good enough explanation to allow for speciation.
I'd be interested to see the new species you talk of as observable phenomina in modern history.
Stefan,
'Creationism is not science on this part we all will agree.'
As straightforward a statement as we will get on your own position. Why do you think some people insist on referring to creationist science? This is what causes confusion and problems. I think it also undermines the case for religion. When creationism claims to be science under the label Intelligent Design I think it invites ridicule. I still don't see why many religious people can't abide by evolution. To me it does not rule out god. I would imagine that the sensible thing to do would be for religion to articulate science into its narrative rather than deny the obvious. Great theological minds are more than capable of coming up with a belief that the world is older than 6000 years. I spoke to a Muslim the other day and suggested to him that the earth was billions of years old. His response was simple 'many billions but do you think it created itself?' Seemed to me a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
AM - Very quickly before I scoot off for work, serious ID proponents draw a strict line in the sand with Creationism.The two are not interchaneable.It is ussually evolutionary supporters that try to undermine ID's serious scientific approach by claiming it to be Creationism.
As I've said science can only go so far to prove so move and as I've also stressed this includes proposing very clear fundemental problems with evolutionary theory.
Stefan,
I know the feeling but as you can guess I am off for the holidays and have actually been able to comment at will - more or less!
The separation between creationism and ID was what I initially thought existed a number of years ago when I first became familiar with the ID term. And while I tend to hold the distinction in my own mind it is a bit like the distinction between the UFF/UDA for me.
'It is ussually evolutionary supporters that try to undermine ID's serious scientific approach by claiming it to be Creationism.'
But ID was dismissed at Dover by a Bush appointed conservative judge as theology rather than as science and its proponents as fundamentally dishonest.
AM - Just as Jesus was a threat to the conservative establishment of his time so is this ID concept.The ruling American state structure purports to be representative of God when in reality it serves its own end which is predominantly the protection and expansion of wealth in a parrallel with the early Roman Empire.Part of the scheme of consensus protection by the state is the avoidance of any destabilising factors to its Capitalist economic system by way of trust that everything is in the control of this established order.The facade that Materialist science erects goes some way in maintaining this status quo.Jesus' teachings taken literally would mean a complete redistribution of wealth and a society set up with a very different focus in life in complete contradiction to all present Imperialist world powers.Seperating ID from this as a scientific approach, cause that's what it undeniably is irrespective of what a judge rules, highlights fundemental flaws in the media emphasized materialist monoply on explanations of past and future questions posed at humankind and this is dangerous to the Capatalist Class in its destabilising nature.From an ethical veiwpoint the ruling of ones countries lawmakers are not necesarily right or wrong in the big scheme of things as we see with conflicting laws in different countries addressing the same subject matter ie abortion is a topical one that comes to mind.
As Robert Robb rightly said "that the courtroom is not where science should be, or will be" but there's a lot of subject matter in this case which needs closer scrutiny that I will attempt over the next few days, hopefully getting more free time as we wind down for Christmas.
One incident does come to mind with this is when Castro was first captured by Batista guards and was nearly shot on the spot when another guard inervened and pronounced "you can't kill an idea", just as in this case, you can't legislate against a concept that the design in nature is born of intellegence rather than chance.
I think an introduction to James Le Fanu at this point would be a good idea.
His argument is that there are two great unresolved questions facing humankind - What is the nature of genetic inheretence and how do we get from the electrochemistry of the brain to the richness of subjective experience.He goes on to say technological advancements in late 70's early 80's have proved further how deeply elusive these concepts are to materialist explanation to the point of lying outside the remit of its explanation.
Le Fanu interveiw
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2010-06-25T11_22_13-07_00.mp3
Stefan,
that is putting a left wing sheen on a reactionary movement. The ID idea is rooted in right wing America. The Discovery Institute is as far removed from a progressive Jesus as you are from Darwin.
'The ruling American state structure purports to be representative of God'
I don't believe this to be true otherwise Reaction would have had its way at Dover. I certainly hope it is not true. I know many want to destroy secular America and replace it with theocratic America.
'when in reality it serves its own end which is predominantly the protection and expansion of wealth'
I think we know that.
'Jesus' teachings taken literally would mean a complete redistribution of wealth and a society set up with a very different focus in life in complete contradiction to all present Imperialist world powers.'
And you mean to tell us that the right wing thrust behind the ID movement would allow this to happen?
'From an ethical veiwpoint the ruling of ones countries lawmakers are not necesarily right or wrong in the big scheme of things'
Again, this is to state the obvious. But ID ran away. It had its chance. It failed to face Barbara Forrest. The judge assigned it the status of theology which is where I think it belongs although theologians have called it bad theology. The judge also remarked that its advocates relied on lies which he found odd for people who claimed only to want truth.
'you can't legislate against a concept that the design in nature is born of intelligence rather than chance.'
Nor should the idea be legislated against. It is a person's right to believe in ID without being censored by the state because of it. But it is not the idea being legislated against but the attempt to smuggle it in to the science classroom.
ID, creationism, Darwinism, non Darwinian evolution, should all make their case to be treated as science and afforded the status accordingly.
Look at how Dembski celebrated the first anniversary of Dover and ponder if this guy is what should be allowed to teach children anything. Many religious people would find this crank objectionable.
Enough! Time to enjoy Xmas!!
5:19 PM, December 23, 2010
Stefan,
Douglas Axe – ‘we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.’
But why should Darwin have the last word on evolution? Evolution is such a well established fact that it is pointless denying it. But that does not mean that Darwin or his followers have explained things satisfactorily. Stephen Jay Gould was useful on this.
Michael Egnor – ‘All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency.’
A view held by a minority. Why is there a reluctance to specify the agency? Dembski was hopeless against Shermer on this issue because he sought every which way to avoid specifying god. Same with Behe.
All schoolchildren should be entitled to have Darwinian understanding discussed. But we can hardly expect it to be discussed from the standpoint of creationism which has failed to establish for itself scientific credentials. If Darwinian theory is to be challenged from a biblical based perspective why not from a Thor based perspective or vampirology? There are people, for example, in the government in the North who want it taught in schools that the earth was created 6000 years ago?
Intelligent Design has not managed to satisfy the criteria demanded of science and it has failed to smuggle religion into the classroom as science. I do not believe in Intelligent Design but I am totally hostile to the idea that it should be suppressed or censored. But not every subject has a right to be taught in school. Take the Holocaust. I think people should have a right to deny it happened. But it seems to me that there is no plausible basis for denying it. The standard version of the Holocaust should be open for discussion in schools but does David Irving have a claim that it should be his critique that must be dealt with in schools? And when denied should those who ask ‘what is it about the standard narrative of the Holocaust that will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?’
be taken seriously?
It concerns me that the Discovery Institute is a front for religion and that it is guilty of the censorship you seem to allege is being employed in schools. I am talking specifically about the censorship of PZ Myers.
AM - Irrespective of what reactionary elements want as an outcome from the goals of the wedge strategy a big step to undermining the Capitalist class is exposing the falsehood of materialism which is the veil holding back the truth that man does not hold dominion over our world.The theocracy wanted by rightwing America would no more have divine guidance than Tony Blairs version of Catholicism which he is finding out quickly shuts Vatican doors in his face not opens them.George W. Bush and his many references to God being on America's side especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, for me stands as testimony of a purporting of divine representation whilst the real motivating factor moves aside all other hinderences to it's overall plan such as the teachings of Christ.
For those of us who adhere to true Catholic social teaching it is a struggle walking the third way between rampent free market Capitalism and overbearing state stranglehold Socialism whilst drawing aspects of both in apparent contradiction.Running parallel to this we have to guard against the snares of post reformation untruths prevelent in the rightwing you speak of plus the falsities of materialism that are the hallmark of this modern age and it's blatent social failings.Since the 1930's when Dorothy Day together with Peter Maurin redifined radical Catholicism the progressive path to social justice has been fraught with the obstacles.Just because some of the constructs of your theory come from either end camp doesn't mean you buy wholeheartedly into either in it's entire strategy.
"It is not the idea being legislated against but the attempt to smuggle it in to the science classroom.",In response to this I would refocus on Crockers case who simply initiated the beleif tha a divine force is behind all the science which I don't veiw as any sort backdoor attempt in smuggling anything new into the curriculum.Science is science, theology is theology and I agree they are distinct disciplines but on the same breath the relevance of one to the other, vice versa, means certain aspects of each subject by way of necesity pull the counter subject in even just in a way of paying homage to an interelated subject.
On this same note I am well into the first Chapter of that book I mentioned and straight away J.W.Richards opens with the problems posed by the Theistic Evolution you spoke about ie Darwin and God in the same mix.He draws parrallels with the early Gnostics and their concept of the Demiurge being what we are seeing with todays inclusion of Darwinian evolutionary theory within a theistic framework to the point of it becoming Deism.
Stefan,
on Crocker try this.
http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/caroline-crockers-intelligent-design-persecution-story-is-a-crock-expelled-martyr-exposed/
Stefan,
and this.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/
Thing is the issue now seems a bit more complex than you suggested.
Indeed the deeper you delve the more complex things get.
Thanks AM for the heads up.
Some good replies on the tinyfrog page.
"While Crocker’s slides may be easy to slam based on a lack of hard facts behind them, that doesn’t mean that hard facts don’t exist on the topic. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water."
"Okay I am not going to defend/argue crocker’s lectures on Evolution but I will tell you the reviews by ‘former students’ are unqualified fabrications. I was a TA under Dr. Crocker in the GMU Cell Biol class and her grading was fair and there was NEVER a class where no one earned an A – she graded on a curve.
There were many many lazy students that thought they deserved a passing grade when they had no idea what was going on. This is a serious class where the Evolution portion was a very very small part of the material covered. Again, I am not an ID advocate and I basically just listened with interest to that one lecture (out of ~25) but there was a huge amount of material that she taught and taught very well in my opinion."
"Microevolution is a misnomer as I see it. Adaptations that occur in species are clearly predefined in the DNA and RNA. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria, vaccine resistant viruses are still viruses and poison resistant rats are still rats. We have yet to observe a macro level change occur in any living organism. All three of these examples have the ability to adapt back to their original forms in a number of generations with some exposure to the proper stimulation.
The concept of a gradual migration into a new and unique species appears to make sense on the surface but the observable examples do not support the assumption. The sterile mule and the tigon come to mind. The Purdue study of watercress shows that sometime genetic code will repair itself to negate any random gene variation. This is similar to mentally retarded having normal children in the human species. In all cases to date all living organism tend to retain the purity of their genetic code and resist change."
Stefan,
'Indeed the deeper you delve the more complex things get.'
Although not irreducibly so!
Point is she did try to smuggle ID into the classroom.
Further point is ID cannot acquire a scientific status.
Next point is - let it be taught in the religious class.
Last point is have a merry Chrstmas
Anthony,
"What are you reading over Xmas Alfie?"
Hopefully, I'll finish Fintan O'Toole's "Ship of Fools" and make a start on Richard O'Rawe's "Afterlives". I'm just glad to be able to read again; I had not been able to read much since 2008 due to depression and OCD, which affected my concentration. But things began to improve in the latter half of this year (by a combination of medication and therapy) and I've finished a few books, such as "The Road", "Things Fall Apart" and "Skippy Dies". I hope I can maintain and build on this in 2011.
Stefan,
[Part 1]
I've only had time to look at the radiocarbon article; I'm not convinced. As I understand it, Baumgardner claims that the radiocarbon content (C14) in fossil, diamond and graphite samples is unusually high, which suggest that they are thousands and not millions of years old. This is because the radiocarbon level in these substances would have been decreasing over the years since the organism died or the diamond/graphite was formed. However, contamination both in nature and in the lab together with instrument constraints interfere with C14 measurements - this is called total "backround". Also, there is an upper age limit to radiocarbon dating of about 50,000 years before present because the radiocarbon levels in very old samples are too low to be accurately measured. In his re-analysis of previously published radiocarbon data, Baumgardner mentions only in passing that most of the data is not corrected for backround. This is problematic; for example, it does not factor in the contamination due to the sampling process for biological samples. When this is taken into account, the mean radiocarbon levels of the geological samples and the biological samples are within the range of each other, ie. the difference that Baumgardner sees between them is merely sampling process backround. Furthermore, the radiocarbon level in the geological samples themselves is in excellent agreement with instrument backround. However, some of the biological samples do have radiocarbon levels that cannot be explained by sampling process or instrument backrounds, but these are mostly coals and biological carbonates which are notorious for contamination in situ. So, Baumgardner's literature review doesn't really provide much evidence for his conclusions.
With regard to his own study, Baumgardner had radiocarbon levels measured in coal samples. These coal samples do show radiocarbon levels above instrument backround, but, as I said before, coal is easily contaminated both in situ and after collection. This is the most likely explanation as many other studies have measured antracite coal samples (which is less prone to contamination) at essentially intrument backround levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. Furthermore, Baumgardner's measurements show relatively large variation, which also suggests contamination.
In a later study, Baumgardner had the radiocarbon levels in some diamond samples measured. These too show levels above instrument backround. The unprocessed diamond had levels only just above instrument backround, while the processed diamond sampled had higher levels - this is strong evidence that the processed diamond samples were contaminated in the sampling process. The slightly-above-backround levels in the unprocessed diamond are probably due to an undersestimation of instrument backround, in particular backround from ion source memory, which other studies have shown to be higher that what the lab used by Baumgardner allowed for. Furthermore, it has been argued that instrument backround is not constant; it is sample-dependent and this was not taken into account either.
Saint?MaryHedgehog
‘i hate having scriptures quoted like a panacea at me.’
Me too. Scripture means nothing. Just the opinion of those men who wrote it. I laugh when they say ‘this is the word of god.’ It is using god to promote themselves not using themselves to promote god.
You write so acerbically but with great vigour.
Stefan,
Like most things thus far discovered in biology science will in time increase our knowledge of the evolution of the flagellum. It is our experience up to now. Natural explanations of the natural world. It is all we have.
Alfie
‘It is true that, without a time machine, we cannot know for certain how every organism evolved; however, we can come up with theories of evolutionary pathways that make predictions about homologies between and within organisms and about the fossil record (all though the latter will certainly be fragmentary). Thus, the theories can be tested, and the most plausible ones retained.’
It is perfectly fine for science to say it does not know. Imagine what we would think of it if it were not to know but told us that it did know and the answer lay in the mysteries of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Biological science is improving all the time. It forensically discovers evolutionary pathways or at least theorises about them in a way that sounds intelligible. Irreducible complexity never persuaded me although I thought about it. And why do they fail to specify the designer? To conceal that it is religion not science. It also creates the ‘Russian doll’ problem of the irreducible complexity of the designer needing a design.
Stefan,
[Part 2]
Even if you accepted Baumgardner's claim that there is intrinsic radiocarbon in these samples, it still gives ages well beyond the biblical time frame. To account for this, Baumgardner hypothesizes (1) that the biblical flood took 99% of the carbon out the biosphere and buried it underground and (2) that the C14 production rate was much higher for several hundred years after this flood. This, he claims, would result in a much smaller level of C14 in the atmosphere before the flood and a rapid increase in this level in the few hundred years after it. Leaving aside the wealth of evidence that the fossil and geological record took millions not thousands of years to form, the big problem with this flood hypothesis is that dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) shows that the radiocarbon levels have been roughly constant (with fluctuations of about 10%) for the past 10000 years; this is totally out of line with the wild increase about 5000 years ago that is predicted by the flood hypothesis. Thus, the hypothesis is fatally flawed.
All in all, I think that Baumgarnder's paper can seem superficially plausible, but after a bit of scrutiny and research, I don't think it stands up.
For more on this, see Kirk Bertsche's analysis of Baumgardner's paper:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
And the subsequent debate between Bertsche and Baumgardner:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?103916-RATE-and-Radiocarbon
Stefan,
Like much else posted by you in defence of ID, the critique always seems to me to me as having more plausibility to it.
Michael Egnor – ‘The claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.’
But according to Jerry Coyne this was based on a study by Michael Denton which he later declined to stand over?
Coyne goes on to make the following point
‘The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor. Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor's claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious--so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact … Scientifically, evolution is a settled issue-- a fact.’
I am no scientist but this seems a statement of such common sense that there is nothing challenging in it. To me it is so much intellectually easier to absorb this than the notion that an invisible man jumping in and out from behind a bush is behind everything.
I suppose it is a bit like not being a lawyer and being confronted with opposing legal arguments. Egnor compared to Coyne sounds as persuasive as OJ Simpson. OJ just did not sound plausible.
Coyne goes on:
‘Let’s examine Egnor's main criticism of evolutionary theory. "The fossil record," he writes, "shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts." This is sheer nonsense. As all biologists know, we have many examples not only of gradual change within species but also of "transitional forms" between very different kinds of species. These include fossil links between fish and amphibians ,
reptiles and birds , reptiles and mammals and, of course, the famous fossils linking apelike creatures with our own species, Homo
sapiens . Does Egnor not know
this, or is he simply trying to mislead the reader?’
I suppose one major advantage that evolution has over ID is that many believers in god accept evolution. ID is the preserve of the religious, for the most part the evangelical types associated with the Discovery Institute.
Anyway, good that you enjoyed your Christmas.
Stefan,
‘Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design theory isn't scientific, when both intelligent design and Darwinism are merely the affirmative and negative answers to the same scientific question: Is there evidence for teleology in biology?’
That’s like comparing astronomy to astrology.
But it is not only Darwinists who dismiss it a pseudoscience. The judge in the Dover trial threw it out as non scientific; creationism under a new name.
‘Why do Darwinists--scientists--seek recourse in federal courts to silence criticism of their theory in public schools? ‘
They don’t seek to silence criticism in public schools. They seek to prevent that criticism being taught as science in the science class. They have no objection to it being taught in a religion class. They go to the courts to ensure that standards of science education are maintained and not eroded by religion. It was non Darwinist school board members in Dover who pressed the issue when they saw the church supplied Of Pandas And People textbook being offered as an alternative to science. It was parents who trusted their pastor to teach religion and the science teacher to teach science that pushed the Dover case. And it was the ID people who had the chance to make the case for ID as science who ran away because they knew what Forrest was going to do to their case.
What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?
What is it about astronomy that it does not want evaluated by astrology?
‘Without that time machine no-one knows definitively what happened.’
That is simply not true. There are methods of investigating the past that are well established in every discipline that do not rely on time machines. Do you seriously suggest that we need a time machine to establish that the earth is older than 6000 years?
From my remarks on Baumgardner's paper:
"the big problem with this flood hypothesis is that dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) shows that the radiocarbon levels have been roughly constant (with fluctuations of about 10%) for the past 10000 years"
This is a little unclear; what I meant was this:
"the big problem with this flood hypothesis is that dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) shows that the radiocarbon level in the atmosphere has been roughly constant (with fluctuations of about 10%) for the past 10000 years"
It's a small but very important distinction; it could have been construed from the original sentence that radiocarbon levels in fossils have remained constant for the past 10000 years, which is not the case at all. Once an organism dies, it is no longer taking in carbon, so its radiocarbon level starts to decrease; this is because radiocarbon (unlike regular carbon) is unstable and decays over time. That is my understanding of it anyway.
Mise Eire
‘Sorry about the terrorist campaign unleashed on your blog a chara … Sorry for hoggin your blog?’
It’s fine. Only if it takes on the appearance of spam will it be curbed.
Tain Bo,
Enjoyed reading it myself but jargon sometimes is employed as a veil rather than a window. The power of the idea is not revealed through it, rather its lack of power is concealed.
Alfie
‘ both Robert and Stefan strike me as intelligent men’
Very much so.
But irrational views have always been held by the most intelligent of people. Look at some leaders of the Einsatzgruppen. One in fact, Otto Rasch, had 2 PhDs and was known as ‘Doctor doctor’. Yet they and the pastors in their ranks merrily marched the Jews off to their deaths, including the mass murder of Babi Yar.
The problem for Rasch was the adherence to the book – Mein Kampf in his case. With the ID people who come armed with PhDs as well, it is the bible.
I recall the phrase beware the man of one book.
I think Robert by his own admission has ruled out reason as applying to the bible. He has decided to submit his rational faculties to it because he believes it is the word of god.
‘that's why I find their biblical creationism baffling.’
Me too. But they know the arguments made by reason and have opted to go for the creationist myths. It is their choice. But they need to accept that their opinion on this matter is just that, an opinion. It cannot be forced on anybody else.
‘science leaves a hell of a lot of room for God to set the physical laws of the universe in order to be conducive to the formation of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and indeed life. Why complicate matters with a theory that would require an international conspiracy of disinformation by scientists, a conspiracy that would transcend race, creed, culture and ideology? Maybe the discussion won't change any minds, but it has to be good for both sides in this debate
to subject their own views to scrutiny.’
That is true. But I doubt if this is the first time Robert or Stefan have been exposed to this type of critique. Stefan, I think allows for a greater degree of interpretation in relation to the bible whereas Robert insists on a more literal reading.
I think you can reason with them but not necessarily reason something into them. To accept the bible is the abandonment of reason.
Stefan,
"I'd be interested to see the new species you talk of as observable phenomina in modern history."
Speciation by polyploidy (doubling of the number of chromosomes) has been observed in plants; for example, a new species of primrose, Primula kewensis, was generated in Kew Gardens, while a new species of goatsbeard, Tragopogon miscellus, is a natural polyploid hybrid of T. dubius and T. pratensis. In the animal kingdom, a new species of mosquito evolved in London's Underground.
Secondly, incipient speciation - where two subspecies seldom interbreed and begin to diverge genetically - has often been observed. For example, a species of maggot fly in North America and a mosquito species in Africa show incipient speciation.
Furthermore, ring species provide compelling evidence of how small cumulative changes can lead to the formation of new species. There are many examples of these, such as the ring species of Ensatina salamanders, which contains seven different subspecies. Two distinct subspecies coexist in southern California and interbreed only rarely, but a chain of interbreeding populations which encircles the Central Valley of California connects these two subspecies.
I think most creationists have accepted that new species have emerged, but they consider them "varieties within a created kind".
Sorry Alfie but birds with different beaks come to mind regarding your speciation example.
I see no one has taken up the role of criting Le Fanu then!!!
Anthony,
"I might go for the Hitchens Hitch 22 or the Marty Frampton one on dissident republican. Both are in the house."
I thumbed Hitch 22 in Easons before Christmas as my interest in Hitchens was aroused by the Paxman interview. In the end I opted for Blanketmen and Afterlives and I was'nt disappointed by O'Rawe's expose.
There are some more studant testimonies on this video plus the lengths the teaching institution was prepered to go legally to disuade Crocker from contesting her case.
I went back and listened to the interveiws I have with Crocker and I think she gives a fair representation of her argument in that she taught one class in the twenty five critiquing Darwin, hardly biased teaching in favour of ID, which Anthony you say cannot acquire a scientific status but the reality is that it is by scientific means that we find design in nature and why there is an ever growing list of dissenting scientists from Darwinian theory. You cannot teach a contentious theory without critque and I think Crocker was right in her approach to do what she did.
http://www.coralridge.org/equip/l2d-new/learn_2_discern.aspx?mediaID=2799&id=L2D081621&mediaID=L2D081621&title=Ben%E2%80%99s+Bad+Scientists
In quoting the phrase beware the man of one book, to what book of the Bible (ta biblia - "the books") are we attributing this too?
Fiery Terry
Stefan,
‘On this we both agree...the Church should be open to the same societal scrutiny as other human institutions but allowances must be granted when secular law in greater society grants and bolsters infringement of natural law’
We agree up until the ‘but allowances …’ bit.
What natural law are you talking about? Not that I dislike the concept, pinning it down causes me a problem. Explain an infringement of it. And then presumably a golf club has as much right to comment on it as a church. And the extent to which a church should evade societal scrutiny as one of the ‘allowances’ should also apply to a golf club.
No privileging of religious opinion – do we agree on that?
Alfie,
‘Why do you think God would punish billions of people because of some eejit eating a fecking apple?’
When we strip away all the science that basic question remains a major barrier to belief.
Behe is the guy who said the intelligence behind the design might be aliens! Even here we see the attempt to mask the creationism. They know they don’t want to go in to bat at the crease with a Jesus Loves You sticker on the bat. The history of the ID movement on this is so revealing
Stefan,
"Sorry Alfie but birds with different beaks come to mind regarding your speciation example."
In the plant and animal kingdoms, speciation has been defined as the production of a novel population of individuals that can no longer breed with the progenitor population or any other population. As Mark Pallen observed, "If new species emerge gradually through branching evolution, rather than through sudden creation, we can expect to find intermediates along the path to speciation, from partially interbreeding populations via populations that can interbreed only with reduced or loss of fertility, to fully isolated populations." This is what we find.
"I see no one has taken up the role of criting Le Fanu then!!!"
I still haven't gotten around to reading all of the other pieces you mentioned and, like Anthony, I've neglected my other committments through my involvement in these discussions. Indeed, my family is wondering what I'm doing online so much! To my mind though, what Le Fanu is arguing in relation to science's unanswered questions is analogous to arguing that, just because civilisation is flawed, we should all take off our pants, run around naked and start flinging shit at each other.
Anthony, I've answered your questions re natural law over in Papal Bull thread as I thought them more relevant over there.
Stefan,
I no longer know what thread I am on.
The phrase 'a common thread' comes to mind Anthony!
Alfie do you have any examples of speciation defined as the production of a novel population of individuals that can no longer breed with the progenitor population or any other population or are we stuck at the intermediate stage of incipient speciation?
Stefan,
My understanding is that each of the new species I listed cannot normally or naturally breed with their progenitor species or other closely related species; if they do, they almost always produce infertile or inviable offspring - just like lions and tigers.
Stefan
‘Just as Jesus was a threat to the conservative establishment of his time so is this ID concept.’
Not in the slightest. There is nothing progressive about it. While an old idea the current movement is pushed by the conservative religious right. Those associated with it seem to be for the most part right wing Christian evangelicals. Those presenting evidence for it lied in court – and were caught – in a bid to mask this. In fact the case has been made US capitalism can act as a bulwark against the theocrat drift toward ultra conservatism because of its dependence on people in the sciences. Business requires reasoning not theological ranting.
‘Jesus' teachings taken literally would mean a complete redistribution of wealth and a society set up with a very different focus in life in complete contradiction to all present Imperialist world powers.’
Liberation theology told us that much. Who in the Discovery Institute is calling for anything remotely like this? Is there anyone in the Discovery Institute that remotely resembles a liberation theologian? It has never been on the agenda of the right. And of course we know who moved to crush the liberation theologians.
Alfie,
Would be interested n your take on Ship Of Fools. You know my view on Afterlives so I hope you find it a good read. Good to know you are on the mend. Reading is good therapy but if things are not right, picking up a book can be the most daunting of challenges.
Anthony, I acknowledge you identify ID as an 'old idea' but all the same, even whilst I draw resources from DI I must stress they aren't the sole protaganists in the concept.Even whilst most associated with DI seem to be for the most part right wing Christian evangelicals utilising elements of their argument isn't a prerequisite for full subscription to their political aims.
The liberation theory of Gustavo Gutiérrez is a far cry from Archbishop Desmond Tutu's 'there is no difference between the teachings of Karl Marx and Jesus Christ' and the CDF, in my opinion, were right too highlight these focusing on institutional dimensions of sin to the exclusion of the individual and for allegedly misidentifying the church hierarchy as members of the privileged class
Stefan
‘Separating ID from this as a scientific approach, cause that's what it undeniably is irrespective of what a judge rules’
Not so. ID’s claim to be science is denied by theistic and atheistic scientists alike. So much for it being undeniable. Denying it the status of science is the very thing that has kept it our of the science room. Read the history of the ID movement. It wasn’t even started by a scientist. Look for the peer reviewed work and the research programmes. Not much there. Even with no scientific training I can see much that is suspicious about the entire project.
‘From an ethical viewpoint the ruling of ones countries lawmakers are not
necessarily right or wrong in the big scheme of things as we see with
conflicting laws in different countries addressing the same subject
matter’
Can’t apply – if there is a natural law which ‘just is’ as you claim then the lawmakers either have to be right or wrong.
‘As Robert Robb rightly said "that the courtroom is not where science
should be, or will be",’
He could have added that the science class is not the place where religion should be. The courtroom was used by parents who wanted their children’s rights protected from religious intrusion. Religious people in Dover wanted their children taught proper science. They even believed that there was intelligent design but that it was a theological rather than a scientific concept. They felt the people pushing ID were lying to them. They sought to have it tested in court. The court found in their favour and that the ID lobby had been lying.
‘you can't legislate against a concept that the design in nature is born of intelligence rather than chance.’
Nor should the concept be legislated against. But those who provided fraudulent testimony at Dover and who tried smuggling the concept into the classroom as science were rightly legislated against.
Robert,
Richard makes a compelling case which has not been answered with any degree of persuasiveness. Just ‘blame the Brits and stick your fingers in your ears.’
Alfie,
‘To my mind though, what Le Fanu is arguing in relation to science's unanswered questions is analogous to arguing that, just because civilisation is flawed, we should all take off our pants, run around naked and start flinging shit
at each other.’
While his work might not be rated highly by the scientific community it is said that he writes beautifully. For that reason I have his book ‘Why Us?’ one in the Amazon basket.
If Le Fanu's work isn't rated highly by the scientific community then it's not through his lack of crudentials I whipped off his website...
"He studied the Humanities at Ampleforth College before switching to medicine, graduating from Cambridge University and the Royal London Hospital in 1974. He subsequently worked in the Renal Transplant Unit and Cardiology Departments of the Royal Free and St Mary’s Hospital in London. For the past twenty years he has combined working as a doctor in general practice with contributing a weekly column to the Sunday and Daily Telegraph. He has contributed articles and reviews to The New Statesman, Spectator, GQ, The British Medical Journal and Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. He has written several books including ‘The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine’ that won the Los Angeles Prize Book Award in 2001 and ‘Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves’ that was published in Britain and the United States in February 2009."
...might I suggest he has been ostracised by the same community simply because he criticises Darwin.
The arogant closing remarks of the reveiw of his latest book by Amanda Gefter in the new scientist clearly show how anything outside of the Darwinian framework of evolution is simply discreditted - "I am all for a good mystery, but there is an important difference between revelling in the excitement of the unknown and turning away from knowledge because you simply don't like the facts."
The facts are that scientific evidence shows Darwinian evolutionary theory as contestable and without blind random mutation to explain the origin of the species another plausible explanation is the role of Intelligence at its source.Theology is the study of religions, religious faith, practice, experience or spirituality.The scientific pursuit of explanations is not the study of theology and it is a mistake to claim Intelligent Design a theological.If science points towards an intellegent agency behind nature then thats a scientific concept.
Moreover the new evidence I submitted highlights contradictions in Dover 'ethics' of "the science class is not being the place where religion should be," with Eugenie Scott, the NCSE's executive director and scientific and educational consultant for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, encouraging biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution.
Anthony, my explanation of natural law I gave you earlier should deal with your statement - "Can’t apply – if there is a natural law which ‘just is’ as you claim then the lawmakers either have to be right or wrong."
Natural law is a law that is immanent in nature, ie can be discovered or found via human conscience but not created as opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state as represented by the lawmakers we speak of.
Tain Bo,
"Curious as to why a monster would dine upon grass not exactly terrifying.."
Perhaps one of the most terrifying monsters to have walked the earth was Adolf Hitler and he by many accounts was a vegetarian!!
Robert,
thought you had been jailed for illegal marching. Good to see you are still about
Robert
Welcome back your candor has been missed.
Touché my friend as expected an engaging reply.
Anthony,
"thought you had been jailed for illegal marching. Good to see you are still about"
Thank you Anthony. In the words of the great 'oracle', I have'nt gone away you know!
Alfie,
"But the biblical account flies in the face of all that we know."
If anything it flies in the face of an opposing interpretation of what we know. Evolution is a fascinating concept but if we agree on the criteria of a scientific theory as being observable testable,repeatable, or falsifiable then Evolution has no more scientific merit to it than Creationism.
Yo Roibeard mo cara welcome back to looney land, where women rule the roost and w##kers sit on the nest,anyway mo cara creationism wasnt meant to go as far as women with a brian, you see what the f##k you lot started in 69 when all we wanted was the right to beat the crap out of the wife on a Saturday night after a skinfull and then go to mass the next day with polished boots and eat the alter rails,good to see ya back even though all you say is, as they say down in the local conservative club in Anytout balderdash and piffle
Robert,
"Evolution is a fascinating concept but if we agree on the criteria of a scientific theory as being observable testable,repeatable, or falsifiable then Evolution has no more scientific merit to it than Creationism."
Mutation and natural selection have been observed both in the laboratory and in the field. Replicable experiments, such as Lenski's E Coli experiment, provide scientific evidence of such phenomena. Evolution is based on observations - such as comparative anatomy, genetics and fossils - that can be repeated. The theory of evolution has been used to make predictions; for example, based on homologies with African apes, Darmwin predicted that human ancestors evolved in Africa. This has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence. And as for evolution being falsifiable, if the fossil record were shown to be static or if genuinely anachronistic fossils were discovered, then the theory of evolution would be undermined.
Source:
www.talkorgins.org
Robert
“Perhaps one of the most terrifying monsters to have walked the earth was Adolf Hitler and he by many accounts was a vegetarian!!”
Hitler as an herbivore would still fall under one of gods more defective creations.
The Hippo although docile in appearance and a grass eating behemoth is responsible for more deaths in Africa than the mighty flesh eating big cats.
I could see why Job, would have used this animal with a bit of creative license much the same way the Greeks mistake the skull of an elephant and decided that the trunk socket must be that of a giant one eyed man thus the Cyclops was born.
Post a Comment