Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UnPC guide to Evo and ID
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 44 (346866)
09-05-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 3:04 PM


Re: Might want to save your money...
Wells is a liar because he repeats things that can be shown, and have been shown, to be false. The fact that he may believe his lies simply makes him delusional as well as a liar.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 3:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 32 of 44 (346898)
09-06-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 10:55 PM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
And to clarify, my objection was that people claimed that Wells had no prior knowledge of evolution prior to becoming a Moonie. This is ridiculous. The man had already Ph.D's beforehand.
How wilfully ignorant can you be!!! Read the bloody link!!! What you are saying is just complete tripe and you are now repeating it for the third time in the face of clearly contadictory evidence from Wells himself.
Where does your Bizzaro world timeline where Wells has 2 Ph.Ds before becoming a moonie even come from? In Wells' own article on the subject he makes it quite clear that he joined the unification church in 1976, 2 years before first entering a Ph.D program.
Jut read what he wrote!
Obviously, they want to paint this picture of a man who made a flippant decision based on little to no facts prior, even though he already held a Ph.D in biology.
You are living in cloud-cuckoo land. What people are quite explicitly saying is that Wells went on to higher post-graduate studies and particularly studies involving Darwinism and evolution because he was directed to do so by Reverend Moon.
That would be absurd.
Whats absurd is the way you seem to be both incapable of reading what Wells wrote, understanding what I and others have written several times and quite willing to keep on spouting errant nonsense which has already been shown to be false.
If you actually have an objection to the veracity of that link, if you suspect that Wells did not write it, then say so and maybe explain why. Otherwise you just seem to be stuck in denial.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 10:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 3:09 PM Wounded King has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 44 (346914)
09-06-2006 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 4:07 PM


And this is of course what nj's own post said, had he bothered to read it instead of just doing cut-and-paste.
Upon release form prison, Wells returned to Berkley and graduated in 1970 with a major in geology and physics and a minor in biology. Put off by the coldhearted drift to violence of the Berkley left, he fled the Bay area first for a commune and eventually to the California hills where he built a small, solitary cabin. There, he immersed himself in nature, much as Thoreau had done more than a centure earlier, and soon began to intuit a sense of design in the grandeur of it all. This discovery informed his spiritual reading, and he found himself coming back time and again to the Bible...
He recieved a veritable calling to study Darwin. This calling took him to Yale where he got his doctorate in religious studies and wrote a book on nineteenth century Darwinian controversies. Not sufficiently armed for the battle that was to come, he took his mission a major step further. In 1989, now a husband and father, the forty-seven-yead-old Wells headed back to Berkley to get a Ph.D in molecular and cell biology.
Of course, the "..." in nj's post represents the point at which Wells joined the Moonie cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 44 (346968)
09-06-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2006 10:45 PM


Motives and agendas
I notice that he claims on the cover of his book that ID is not based on religious beliefs.
quote:
:"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
--- William Dembski
quote:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
--- Philip Johnson
You're trying to make it illegal to believe in God and anything else as if it were some how a conflict of interest. Anyone can believe as they do. All of these proponents believe in some form of Higher Being and they don't need to apologize for those beliefs. Its a real simple deduction that leaves us with two options from which to choose: Life is either intentional or unintentional. They believe that a Higher Cognizance intentionally created the material world, whereas you believe that nothing created the material world. When you keep reducing what evolution and ID are, the major split is found right here in the simplest of philosophies. So, please explain why its criminal to believe that God is science or that science is modeled after His design? SETI and panspermists also fall under the Intelligent Design umbrella. Why not the same outrage against them for coming to their conclusions that run counter to your time-honored beliefs?
That is not the allegation which has been made against him. What was claimed is that he repeats the standard "evolution is an atheist theory" trash. Now the creationist in the street can be half-forgiven for reciting this rubbish, but Wells must surely know who his opponents are.
I too believe the heart of the evolutionary theory to be atheistic. Absolutely, and without apology I believe that. That doesn't mean that people can't try and cut and paste God where they want, however, once they learn that evolution espouses a directionless and capricious display, they might be less inclined to try to make God fit in their small margin of possible intent. Most evo's believe that the universe spawned from a state of nothingness. No room for a Creator. Most evo's believe that life originated at random from a few simple chemical compounds: A Creator had nothing to do with it. Most evo's believe that changes for inexplicable reasons are separate from any percieved intent. No room for a Creator here either. In fact, one must 'create' in order to be a 'Creator,' so please explain to me where exactly a Creator fits within any evolutionary-laden theories, then explain to me how somehow couldn't come to the conclusion that isn't an atheistic doctrine at heart.
Wells and I are worlds apart doctrinally. I think the Moonies are basically a cult and there is nothing theologically that I find myself in agreement with him. However, we can't undermine the man's work in his field, just like my diagreement with Eugenie Scott doesn't mean that I can't recognize her hard won efforts in her field.
Well, may we at least say that what he teaches is "based on known falsehoods"? to quote the disgustingly mendacious phrase from the cover of his book.
What known falsehoods are those. Without specifics its pointless in telling me that. But I'll give you some specifics. Stephen J. Gould reportedly spoke about the Ernst Haeckel frauds in one of his many interviews. He says that what Haeckel did was atrocious and that he had deliberatley exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He decided to chide him for his inaccuracies and outright falsifications. But apparently in a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Gould admits to having prior knowledge of the falsities some 20 years before and said nothing. So, for at least 20 years, Gould and presumably some others knew of the frauds but decided not to spare a generation of students on the demise of recapitulation. That's an omission too great to simply dismiss.
quote:
I could just as easily say that you're lying about being a conservative christian republican because nothing you say is even remotely akin to those time-honored beliefs.
Really?
quote:
:"It is mystifying that many conservative Christian Bible colleges and seminaries also seem to loathe creationists."
--- Jonathan Sarfati
I've never met any self-avowed fundamental Christians, (beside's Jar), that found itself in disagreement with creationism, either on the basis of scientific principles or theological aspects.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2006 10:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 09-06-2006 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2006 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 09-06-2006 4:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 35 of 44 (346986)
09-06-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
I too believe the heart of the evolutionary theory to be atheistic. Absolutely, and without apology I believe that. That doesn't mean that people can't try and cut and paste God where they want, however, once they learn that evolution espouses a directionless and capricious display, they might be less inclined to try to make God fit in their small margin of possible intent. Most evo's believe that the universe spawned from a state of nothingness. No room for a Creator. Most evo's believe that life originated at random from a few simple chemical compounds: A Creator had nothing to do with it. Most evo's believe that changes for inexplicable reasons are separate from any percieved intent. No room for a Creator here either. In fact, one must 'create' in order to be a 'Creator,' so please explain to me where exactly a Creator fits within any evolutionary-laden theories, then explain to me how somehow couldn't come to the conclusion that isn't an atheistic doctrine at heart.
What an insulting and obstinate diatribe from pure ignrance and self-deception. Where you get off claiming that "most evo's" anything is pure hubris! You are welcome to believe whatever hallucination you would like about what we "evo's" believe but please excuse us when we fail to take anything you say past such wretched overgeneralization in any way seriously.
Just because you cannot understand the difference between methodological naturalism and atheism does not imbue you with any sort of immunity from having to deal with rational arguments from those of us who CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE!
I happen to believe in God and that He is the creator of the universe and everything within it including the laws and processes of that lead to the evolution of life on this planet. This God is much more awe inspiring than some mystical anthropomorphic entity that creates things wholesale from nothing.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 2:41 PM Jazzns has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (346995)
09-06-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jazzns
09-06-2006 2:05 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
I happen to believe in God and that He is the creator of the universe and everything within it including the laws and processes of that lead to the evolution of life on this planet. This God is much more awe inspiring than some mystical anthropomorphic entity that creates things wholesale from nothing
In that case, your God is cruel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 2:05 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 3:15 PM robinrohan has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 37 of 44 (346997)
09-06-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
You're trying to make it illegal to believe in God and anything else as if it were some how a conflict of interest.
I don't know where you are getting that. Dr Adequate was clearly commenting on blatant dishonesty, and not on belief in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (347002)
09-06-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Wounded King
09-06-2006 1:54 AM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
How wilfully ignorant can you be!!! Read the bloody link!!! Where does your Bizzaro world timeline where Wells has 2 Ph.Ds before becoming a moonie even come from? In Wells' own article on the subject he makes it quite clear that he joined the unification church in 1976, 2 years before first entering a Ph.D program.
No, the assertion was that Wells had no exposure to the theory of evolution prior to joining the Moonies. You're asserting that Wells was tricked by the Moonies, as if he had no objections of his own or that he was incapable of rationalizing on his own merits. This is what I'm objecting to. As for my timeline, I was incorrect. I stated that Wells already had a biolgy degree before joining the Moonies. That's true. But I also said that he already had 1 Ph.D prior to joining the Moonies and that his second Ph.D came later. That was incorrect.
"According to Darwin's theory, however, the whole history of life is the outcome of random variations and survival of the fittest. Although some features of living organisms (such as eyes) appear to be designed, Darwin claimed that this is only an illusion. Living things are the result of an essentially directionless process, and we are merely the accidental by-product of blind natural forces which did not have us in mind. When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.
But Darwinism was clearly winning the ideological battle in the universities, the public schools, and the mass media, largely because it claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. I knew enough about biology to know that this claim was quite shaky, but few scientists were willing to challenge it. Those who did were often lumped together with young-earth biblical fundamentalists and thereby discredited in the eyes of most scholars.
I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program, this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While there, I studied embryology and evolution."
-Johnathan Wells
If you actually have an objection to the veracity of that link, if you suspect that Wells did not write it, then say so and maybe explain why. Otherwise you just seem to be stuck in denial.
I was questioning the veracity of it at first, but had to review his previous works first. After reviewing a few of his other articles, the writing style seems to match up pretty well. I believe that Wells wrote that article.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2006 1:54 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2006 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 44 (347003)
09-06-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
Most evo's believe that the universe spawned from a state of nothingness. No room for a Creator. Most evo's believe that life originated at random from a few simple chemical compounds: A Creator had nothing to do with it. Most evo's believe that changes for inexplicable reasons are separate from any percieved intent. No room for a Creator here either.
Maybe I don't know what you mean by 'evo' but if it is the common definition of someone who accepts the theory of evolution then not only does it include me, it makes the above quote false.
If you are using some other defintion then I'm wrong here, but a lot of that quote is just plain incorrect.
A lot of 'evo's believe in a creator and the one's who don't believe in a creater do not go as far as to say the creator doesn't exist or isn't possible, they just leave it out of the explanation because they see no reason to include it.
In fact, one must 'create' in order to be a 'Creator,' so please explain to me where exactly a Creator fits within any evolutionary-laden theories, then explain to me how somehow couldn't come to the conclusion that isn't an atheistic doctrine at heart.
The mechanisms behind the theory of evolution could be method of creation. God could have created man by allowing him to evolve from an ape ancestor. God could have created the first spec of life through the interaction of simpler chemical compounds. I don't see how the scientific explanations make a positive claim that god was not there while failing to mention him altogether.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 40 of 44 (347004)
09-06-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
09-06-2006 2:41 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
In that case, your God is cruel.
You are welcome to believe that robin. But remember, your morality and therefore that opinion, is subjective. Right? =)
Maybe we really CANT have a thread where you don't irrelevently inject your pet philosophy.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 2:41 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 09-06-2006 5:39 PM Jazzns has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 41 of 44 (347019)
09-06-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 3:09 PM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
No, the assertion was that Wells had no exposure to the theory of evolution prior to joining the Moonies.
Can you show where someone asserted this?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 42 of 44 (347027)
09-06-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
NJ writes:
so please explain to me where exactly a Creator fits within any evolutionary-laden theories, then explain to me how somehow couldn't come to the conclusion that isn't an atheistic doctrine at heart.
Could not a creator of true power have created the entire universe with its own set of natural processes (such as evolution)?
Why not use your imagination?
NJ writes:
..once they learn that evolution espouses a directionless and capricious display, they might be less inclined to try to make God fit in their small margin of possible intent.
Is it not you who tries to make God fit your small margin of intent? A truly all-powerful God stands as the creator of all the uiniverse - all the stars, planets, lifeforms and cultures that have ever and will ever exist. Is it not you who seeks to define God within the confines of a single book at the exclusion of all other ideas? Is it not you now pouring scorn on visions of God that differ from your own narrow-minded concept?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (347048)
09-06-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jazzns
09-06-2006 3:15 PM


Re: Motives and agendas
Maybe we really CANT have a thread where you don't irrelevently inject your pet philosophy.
I don't want to inject my philosophy, but you just said it so cavalierly as though there was no problem at all with this idea of God sponsoring evolution.
But never mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 3:15 PM Jazzns has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 44 of 44 (347071)
09-06-2006 6:30 PM


The Topic Is The UnPC book.
Please return to it after I reopen this thread. For now it is closed.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024