Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 152 (414305)
08-03-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rob
08-03-2007 6:14 PM


No problem at all
He tries to do what you guys ask... put it all in 'secular language' that you can understand all the while being PC.
That's how I see it too. No matter what Behe says, whether he tries to accomodate the opposition or not, he will inevitably be in the same boat in their eyes.
I have a similar stance as Behe does. I believe in special creation, however, I object to science attempting to conform to belief. This is a bad character flaw that I see in many avowed creationists. But I should add that evolutionists are just as indictable, only in the opposite direction.
Aside from which, there are practical reasons for how I have deduced what I have. There are limits to what the physical world can explain. Science is only equipped in dealing with the natural, not the supernatural. In my estimation, we are only able to see design. From a scientific standpoint, you cannot assume God when detecting design. All you can assume, is design.
This is why I say that I am an ID'ist, not a creationist.
Unfortunately, that's all you need to say to get the atheistic community up at arms. That's because they understand the implications. If there is design, then obviously there is/are designer(s).
My belief says that design is God. And I know Behe feels the same in his personal life.
Behe's detractors, though, want to believe that he is smuggling in God through the backdoor. What they fail to realize is, if there really is a God who is responsible for all of the laws of nature, at some point, there is no way of getting around that point.
So why must Behe be expected to walk around eggshells when they have automatically ruled design and/or God out of bounds as an a priori rule?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 6:14 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 106 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 152 (414317)
08-03-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 7:03 PM


Re: !!!
either way, this'll be a youtube classic
I just looked and they had it, but it was removed by the user. Eh, someone else will post it eventually I suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 7:03 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 152 (414322)
08-03-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
08-03-2007 7:15 PM


Re: No problem at all
He's in "the same boat" because the ID movement relies on deception. He has to try to pass off his views as something that would be acceptable in the science classroom instead of honestly admitting that he is offering a religious apologetic.
What credible evidence are you basing your suspicions on, especially in light of the fact that he shuns the creation camp simply because the perception of such would give him a bad name?
Behe doesn't beleive in special creation - or if he does he's lying when he says that he accepts common descent.
I'm pretty sure that he does, unless, of course, he has no opinion on his origin.
Except that we don't see intelligent design. THere is no design theory which even starts to take on evolution.
Give me a specific argument they support, then offer a specific rebuttle. Its pointless arguing over semantics without specifics.
If that's how Behe feels he ought to be honest about it. He shouldn't let the DI make him toe the party line designed to smuggle religion into science classes.
He seems to have been appointed as a credible source whether he wanted to or not.
Nobodies ruled it out. It just isn't science - as you admitted.
I said that the study of God is not a scientific endeavor, nor could it ever be by the very nature, or rather, the supernature of it. What I said, quite clearly, was that detecting design is.
Behe tiptoes around the point not because of the opposition. It's HIS side - the ID movement - that demands that he hides it when talking to the general public.
I think he is conforming to the standard set forth by his antagonists. For years, evolutions luminaries have made the argument that you can't make pronouncements about God from a scientific standpoint, being that science deals solely with physical evidence. Now that he obliges their objection, he is now accused of smuggling God through the back door.
Well, which is it? Or is Rob right?-- that no matter what they choose, they will always be trapped by contradictory and paradoxical regulations and conditions that prevent it from actually being achieved.
This is the a priori ruling out I speak of. Its damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Can you at least appreciate the unfair circumstance-- that you're presenting impossible conditions to meet?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 7:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 6:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 152 (414397)
08-04-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by DrJones*
08-03-2007 11:14 PM


The great "I AM"
great so who provided the design for "God"?
"I AM" -Exodus 3:14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by DrJones*, posted 08-03-2007 11:14 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 08-04-2007 4:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 152 (414550)
08-04-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
08-04-2007 6:20 AM


Re: No problem at all
Oh come off it. Behe is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute ! He's in it with Wells and Dembski and Philip Johnson and the rest. He doesn't shun them at all ! Do you really not know any of that ?
Of course I know he's a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Actually, come to think of it, he might even be a Senior Fellow at DI. But all of that doesn't matter since the Discovery Institute is about Intelligent Design, not creationism.
I should also add that when people say ID and creationism are one and the same, how is that Percy, an evolutionist, distinguishes the forums as pertaining to Intelligent Design or creationism?
Obviously there is a difference. Especially when you have to consider the fact that Wells is a Moonie, which has almost no remnant of Christianity left in it.
According to the reviews Behe is quite clear that he accepts common descent. Ergo he rejects special creation. It appears that his God intervens by genetically engineering life rather than creating separate "kinds".
I seriously doubt that is the case, being that his argument with flagellum, and more broadly, irreducible complexity, is based on how it is impossible to have arrived at even the simplest compounds without something necessitating the action thereof.
Behe's irreducible complexity argument claims that a system which meets the criteria cannot evolve. It fails because Behe relies on the assumption that evolution proceeds only by adding parts.
It has to, as you said, add parts. How can you have nothing create something, albeit relatively simple, and arrive at higher more specified complexity if it is not actually adding?
But aside from that, how was that supposed to answer my question? You calimed that Behe is only trying to smuggle in God, specifically. I asked you why you are so sure, aside from speculation. And this was your response. I'm not seeing how IC automatically assumes the Judeo-Christian God.
he's not a credible source. He's just the least bad one they have who's prepared to write books and go on the road.
Is his PhD less credible than anyone else's? You can't just say that he isn't a credible source simply because his view differs from yours.
detecting design is something that cannot be divorced from the proposed designer. By its very nature it relates to the purposes and capabilities of the designer.
No kidding. Who said that Discovery Inst doesn't say there is a Designer? They readily assert that. What I'm saying is that assuming the Designer does not mean that you must assume the Judeo-Christian God.
You agree that saying that the Designer is God isn't science. But he's perfectly free to do that. None of his antagonists say that he shouldn't. All he has to do is to admit that it isn't science.
I'm saying, and apparently him to, that there is no direct link between God and available evidence. How many times have I said that God, by the very nature of it, is not proveable? I've said it multiple times.
Behe is free to have whatever personal belief he wants. What he is also free to do is show evidence that supports the design inference. But really, what do you care? Why does it bother you to no end whether someone deduces that a Designer(s) exists?
The only reason he keeps quiet about it is because the DI have to avoid religious talk in their attempts to get ID into schools. The whole issue is about the US school curriculum.
What DI would like to see, is an alternative theory available for students to surmise themselves, instead of the monopoly that currently exists. You must secretly be terrified at the prospect that someone might actually believe his argument.
It's a big deal because the DI regularly lies on the issue.
What do they regularly lie about?
This "a priori" ruling still seems to be a complete invention.
There is a palpable fear among the masses that God not be let out of a box. This fearmongering by a certain group, of its own party line wants desperately to keep anything that might remotely be interpreted as God out of the way.
ID simply says that a Designer must exist, and that evidence of the design illustrates a Designer. Will most people likely assume God? Probably. But they don't need to be made sorry for that. They aren't teaching theology mixed with science as AiG or ICR. Science isn't interested in theological questions anymore than mathematics would be. Nor should I expect it to, unless it so happens to corroborate a claim.
What I abhor is trying to find scientific evidence that can be manipulated into conforming with the Bible which some creationists are apt to do.
Do you see the difference now?
What impossible conditions ?
That you've ruled out a Designer before the inquiry even began. Its like you're looking for the answer of 2 + 2, all the while denying the possibility of 4 as a credible answer.
I just want Behe to be honest.
What is he not being honest about that you can pinpoint? If you say that he's dishonest, give me some reason to assume that.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 6:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 6:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 7:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 152 (414665)
08-05-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
08-04-2007 7:41 PM


Re: No problem at all
So it doesn't matter that he's part of an organisiation dedicated to doing exactly what I said ? Why ask me for evidence when you already know it ?
PaulK, you are now being dishonest. Your assertion is that Behe is trying to smuggle in God to scientific curriculum. I asked you for specific evidence that he is trying to do that, and you tell me, as a response, that he is a Fellow at DI.
My response: So what?
Why? Because DI is an Intelligent Design institute, not a creationist organization which you presupposed.
Thus, you've provided no evidence for your assertion, but consequently, have defended mine in the process.
And as you ought to know ID includes creationism. Paul Nelson is a YEC. You can't be a DI Fellow and shun the creationist camp - because part of it is firmly in the ID camp - and the DI would like to sign up the rest, too.
Because of the assertion that ID is really just creationism in guise, people such as Behe and Dembski keep creationism at an arms length distance, so as not to appear, to crazed people, such as yourself, as catering to specific creation arguments.
Obviously, there is much in common about creationism and ID. Most notably, their stance on macroevolution. That alone finds great parity among the two camps, however, that does not automatically include all aspects.
Paul Nelson is free to believe in a young earth, just as Hugh Ross is free to believe in an old earth. In fact, proponents of ID don't quibble about age estimates because its inconsequential to the task at hand.
You are taking two things and erroneously joining them together to come to a faulty conclusion.
I don't say that they are the same, the more so since I say that Behe, unlike most of the ID camp, is not a creationist. But ID includes creationism and is dominated by creationists. It just allows a few non-creationists to take part.
If Behe is not a creationist, as you now say, then what is your objection? Its one thing to disagree with ID, but its another to claim that he is really just trying to get people to believe in God.
The way I see it, of course Behe personally believes that God is the designer. He is free to believe that. What he is advocating, and I agree, that when you are coming strictly from a scientific view, you can't make pronouncements about God that is going to definitively answer any questions. All that you can do is show that design is indicative of a Designer. If people come to the conclusion that God is the Designer, as I do, so be it. But its not a requirement. The Designer could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Giant Pink and Purple Unicorn for that matter.
The point is that science is not theology, and theology is not science. I figured you would appreciate the distinguishing terms. I guess not.
So you seriously doubt that Behe believes in common descent.
How could common descent and irreducible complexity exist in the same function? Common descent says that slow gradations explain how all lifeforms are intimately connected by a single progenitor, whereas IC says that arriving at higher lifeforms from a single progenitor is impossible, being that, the removal of even part of the sum renders it ineffective.
As I said - and you evidently failed to read - Behe's argument presumes that evolution ONLY proceeds by adding parts.
Right, so how could Behe also believe in common descent when he asserts that arriving at that possibility does not logically follow?
You aksed for a specific argument made by the ID movement and a specific rebuttal - in the context of my point about the absence of ID theory. Showing that ID relied on bad anti-evolution arguments semed to be what you were asking for. Neither your question or the text you quoted immediately prior to that made any mention of "smuggling in God".
Paul, please try and follow the dialogue. Your initial sentiment was that ID is really just creationism is disguise. You claimed that Behe is a liar. I asked for specific evidence about how is lying that would justify you for calling him a liar.
Very simply, what is he lying about?
Has it ever crossed your mind that he believes in his argument? Behe could be ultimately false. That doesn't make him a liar, that makes him ill-informed. If you want to talk about Behe comes to faulty conclusions, that's an entirely different matter altogether.
He's got no significant publication record in evolutionary studies - so far as scientific journals go. Most of his arguments are published in popular level books.
Yeah, no kidding. Why do you think that is? Because they don't like what he has to say. Behe has spoken out several times about the bias that exists in mainstream science journals.
When they don't insist that the designer IS God. Which is really what its all about. Discovering that extraterrestrials engineered life on Earth wouldn't do anything to undermine materialism.
Because they aren't trying to insist that God is the Designer. They CANT make inferences like that from science. That is a theological question.
And I should add that Direct Panspermists also fall under the category of intelligent design which says nothing at all about God or any kind of deity.
The ID movement can't honestly succeed in claiming scientific proof of God - which is what they want. Undermining materialism. "Renewing" culture. Those are their goals.
What they want is what every one else wants-- the truth, and nothing but the truth. There interpretation of the evidence suggests that design is indicative of a Designer. Beyond that is up to the discretion of the reader. They aren't telling you that you need to believe in God.
If he actually did things the scientific way instead of being part of the ID campaign to undermine science education I wouldn't worry.
Why do you insist that you have the patent on science and nature? Who says he is trying to "undermine science?" ID is offering a dissenting opinion as opposed to the current monopoly.
The problem is that they don't HAVE an alternative theory.
Obviously they do, otherwise, what are we arguing about?
If anyone's terrified, it's the DI. They're the ones who make hysterical claims about being "persecuted'. They're the ones who want to skip actually doing science before getting their opinions inserted into textbooks.
Ummm, no, they want a fair shot. And you are only fueling and illustrating the very persecution you claim doesn't exist!
the ID movement has taken a lot of the theology out of its public statements. Yes it embraces a wider range of theological views than the YEC creation science movement. But it's still anti-science.
So they are scientists, who use scientific arguments, because they are 'anti-science?' Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Maybe they just think science was hijacked by people who include philosophical assumptions.
Has he admitted that his IC argument is a complete failure ?
He obviously doesn't believe that it is failure.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 7:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 4:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 152 (414690)
08-05-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
08-05-2007 10:51 AM


Re: No problem at all
I very much doubt that anyone has ever claimed that "ID and creationism are one and the same.
Have you been reading PaulK's responses?
No remnant of Christianity left? Except that Moon claims Jesus appeared to him when he was 15 and asked him to complete the ministry he began 2000 years ago.
Then by the same token creationism and ID are the same. Just because the word "Jesus" appears in a belief, does not somehow mean they are the same. Islam talk about Jesus too. Would you say they are very similar?
Or better, perhaps something more personal. You are a deist and believe in God. I believe in God too. How many parallels exist between your beliefs and mine? No many.
Of course IC does not automatically assumes a Judeo-Christian God, but the Discovery Institute and ID spring from Christian origins, virtually all advocates of ID are evangelical Christians, and the Discovery Institute freely admits its Christian mission, as here from their Wedge Document
So are they supposed to apologize for it? See, these are the impossible conditions I'm talking about. Without realizing it, yourself and Paul are basically saying that I can't believe in the Judeo-Christian God and be a proponent of ID. Because if I do, then I'm obviously pandering.
Yet, no mention is made of the countless professing atheists that believe in evolution.
You say that to be an evolutionist, it does not require one to also be an atheist. I am saying to believe in Intelligent Design does not require you to believe in a Judeo-Christian God.
Nobody would care what Behe (and creationists in general) believes if he would refrain from pushing his religious beliefs into public education, but he doesn't.
Then if he doesn't, Paul should simply make the argument that ID is nonsensical, not that its only goal is to push Christianity to the forefront.
No science currently taught requires special dispensations from school boards or state legislatures, and this is as it should be. ID should follow the same route into public education as the science already taught there, which is by building a consensus within the scientific community.
Are you kidding me? I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice.
Behe is not a credible scientific source for extremely good reasons. Working within the scientific community at Lehigh University (hopefully from a poorly lit and dank basement office), he knows the importance of building a scientific consensus before claiming legitimacy, yet he advocates for ID within education anyway.
Ah, right... Because Darwin or Huxley didn't do that.
Behe wrote a book. Millions of people purchased that book. The SOLE factor in many others rejecting that book, is because it contains one forbidden word... "Designer." That is enough to stop the presses within an atheist-dominated arena, which clearly, science now is.
The man achieved his PhD and his teaching degree the same way everyone else did. His expertise is no less credible than anyone else's of the same stature. The only reason you say that he isn't credible is because he thinks differently than you.
I don't know if "terrified" is quite the right word, but many of us are extremely concerned about creationist efforts to include Christian religious teaching in public education.
Harvard: Started as a Christian school.
Yale: Started as a Christian school.
Princeton: Started as a Christian school.
Cambridge: Started as a Christian school.
William and Mary: Started as a Christian school.
In each one of them, secular influence has eroded virtually all remnants of their past. The point is, high scholarship existed before, specifically under Christian tutelage, and the world didn't implode from it. The point is, God doesn't need to be specifically included in anything, other than, perhaps, a theology classroom.
What do you think would happen if ID were to be taught alongside creation?
    DI specifically and IDists in general are lying when they say there is a controversy within science. The controversy is on a sociocultural/religious level, not a scientific one.
    Which unmistakably infiltrates within the dialgoue no matter what. Creation and ID are not new concepts. Nor was evolution a new concept started by Darwin.
    The Wikipedia entry on Project Steve makes clear the paucity of actual doubt about evolution within the scientific community
    Are you sourcing this as something I'm supposed to take seriously?
    However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population, Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list.
    Well, you've convinced me! There is definitely a conspiracy going on which Elvis, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Tupac are masterminding.
    It's a big deal because the DI regularly lies on the issue.
    Even supposing that was the case, why is that evolutionists are allowed to dismiss Haeckle, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Peppered moths etc, for the demonstrable frauds they are, and get to say that those stains do not speak for the majority?
    I mean really, you have a list of names that haven't been actually confirmed nor denied, compared to people that went to great lengths to take bones from one specie and fuse them together with another, acid treat it to create the illusion of age, and then bury it in a rock quarry, wait three years, and dig it up.... all so they could further an agenda. That's not science, now is it?
    There IS no comparison, sir.
    Palpable fear among the masses that God's message might be heard? In one of the most religious societies in the world? Come on!
    Then what else am I to deduce, Percy? Nobody was particularly outraged by phrenology. But it appears that some people are going to implode at the mere mention of ID.
    No one is ruling out a Designer (which you render with a capital D, I note). In the face of efforts to intrude ID into science education, all they're doing is noting the complete lack of scientific evidence for a Designer, or even a designer.
    Its real simple. Nothing can't create everything. Nothing that exists within the physical world did not come to exist without causation.
    Yet, that doesn't stop people from composing all sorts of fanciful theories. Should we dismiss them all from simple discussion because we aren't entirely certain, empirically of our origins?
    They're called theories for a reason, Percy. It means we don't know fully. And in some cases, things will always be a theory, being that, one of the critical components of science is observation.

    "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 10:51 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2007 7:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 83 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 7:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 84 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 9:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2007 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 85 of 152 (414740)
    08-05-2007 11:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
    08-05-2007 7:33 PM


    Re: No problem at all
    The point being made is that the DI is there to promote religious views. And that they aren't being honest about it.
    Then is TalkOrigins promoting atheism by the same rationale?
    You think that a lawsuit against a law FORBIDDING the teaching of mainstream science in science classes is asking for "special dispensation" ?
    Evolution wasn't a part of mainstream science in those days Paul. That's kind of the point.
    Behe's book is not rejected because it contains the word designer. It is rejected because its arguments are lousy.
    According to your opinion. Yet you say nothing about "memes," a completely fictitious, unsupported assertion by Dawkins.
    His PhD is in biochemistry. That doesn't make him an expert on evolution
    That makes him qualified to study the very thing he writes about in his books-- biochemistry.
    Haeckel's fraud - if fraud it was - was to support his own ideas, rejected long ago.
    If it was?
    The Piltdown man fraud was just one hoax by an unknown individual with unknown motives.
    An unknown motive? Its pretty obvious what the motive was-- to further the fledgling theory. As well, we have pretty good idea who did it.
    Archaeoraptor was unmasked as a fake before scientific publication, and it was created by the seller, not scientists.
    In a 1999, an article of National Geographic, a world renowned scientific journal, presented the article "Feathers for T-Rex?"
    There is some evidence of fraud with regard to peppered moths - on the part of Jonathan Wells. You can't blame evolutionists for his behaviour.
    Look, I'm not trying to get this thread to go in to a tit for tat blame game. I'm simply addressing the point that calling Behe and the DI a bunch of liars without any actual evidence.
    Just say you that don't agree with the theory and be done with it.
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

    "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2007 7:33 PM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2007 12:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 90 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2007 3:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-06-2007 9:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 95 of 152 (414896)
    08-06-2007 9:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
    08-05-2007 9:35 PM


    Re: No problem at all
    Pointing out that you're wrong to say that there's no remnant of Christianity left in the Unification Church is not equivalent to saying that Christianity and the Unification Church are the same.
    The disparity is what I was trying to distinguish. Reason being, it was basically said that the ID movement is about pushing Christianity in schools. But that isn't true, and I gave an example.
    Of course IC does not automatically assumes a Judeo-Christian God, but the Discovery Institute and ID spring from Christian origins, virtually all advocates of ID are evangelical Christians
    So what, though? If you get to say that ID is pushing Christianity, then I get to say that evolutionists are pushing atheism by the same token.
    What we're telling you is that ID springs from evangelical Christianity, not science.
    It springs from looking around you and surmising that 0 + 0 = everything doesn't add up. Its a logical deduction with or without Christianity. Heck, these teleological arguments predate Christianity and are well attested for in virtually the entire pantheon, albeit, however crude their arguments may have been.
    Nor of the countless professing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention scads of believers in more minor religions, who also believe in evolution. That's because evolution springs from scientific research and not from any religion.
    It springs from a philosophical view just like most everything else. Darwin's initial observations follow science. I make a point not to demonize the man, as he was just doing his job. His predecessors have taken on all of the trappings associated with the postmodernist movement that swept through Europe during the time when Origins were completed. For most evolutionists it is not, by any stretch, a dispassionate endeavor. There is much philosophical meaning derived from it. Your forum, alone, is ample evidence of that.
    Anyway, I can't complete the rest of it right now because I have to reboot the computer and I don't want to lose the information.

    "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by Percy, posted 08-05-2007 9:35 PM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2007 3:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2007 7:04 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 100 by Percy, posted 08-07-2007 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 111 of 152 (415051)
    08-07-2007 11:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
    08-06-2007 9:44 AM


    Re: No problem at all
    You're committing a couple fallacies here, but the primary one is that you're attempting a defense by changing the focus of attention. The topic is Behe and ID. If you'd like to discuss whether evolution is actually an effort to promote atheism, despite that people of all religions around the globe including Christianity accept evolution, then open a new thread.
    Well, Percy, that HAS been a subject which has come up a few times. The attempted repartee I generally receive is an immediate parallelization between evolution and creation, and or, Intelligent Design. Yet you say nothing then, presumably because at that particular time it suits your own arguments.
    The point is that you attempt to stack the deck in your favor, without ever thinking that it might be incredibly hypocritical for you to do so.
    You think that a lawsuit against a law FORBIDDING the teaching of mainstream science in science classes is asking for "special dispensation" ?
    Evolution was very much a debatable, "hot topic" back in those days, much in the same ID is right now. Try not to look at the theory where it is currently in stature. It was still very much a fledgling theory in those days looking for increased support. In the same way that evolution was seeking some kind of asylum, so ID is attempting to reclaim the footing it lost.
    But I will mention once again your rather serious error when you stated that Tennessee had a special law permitting evolution when the reality is that it forbid evolution. You know, Google and Wikipedia are just a click away. You could actually check your facts before inserting your foot in your mouth all the way up to the hip.
    Why would I need to when I'm already familiar with it? What did I say otherwise? I'm not contending any of that. I'm simply saying that the Dover trial and the Scopes trial were fought for much of the same principles. I was pointing out that you overlook those parallels.
    What has memes or Dawkins to do with this topic?
    Paul mentioned something about how lousy and unfounded Behe's claims are. So I mentioned one completely unsupported theory that he has not set his crosshairs on. Why not, if scientific truth is the aim?
    He hasn't submitted his ideas for scholarly review by submitting papers to scientific journals and conferences, so of course there is no scientific consensus behind his views, but he continues to promote them to the lay public as if they had some scientific legitimacy.
    Is that Behe hasn't submitted them, or is it that they are met with virulent hostility or total indifference?
    The stuff about scientific frauds is off-topic, it is the same fallacy I mentioned before ("Oh yeah? Well so are you!")
    Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies. I asked him at least three times to support his assertion. He couldn't. He just keeps saying that ID'ists are liars, blah, blah, blah. They're just mean-spirited talking points that he's erroneously fashioned in his mind.
    Then he gives me some asinine example of the supposed "lies," and attempts to indict ALL of Intelligent Design with it. I then ever-so-gently reminded him of the monumental, demonstrable frauds associated with evolution. Does that mean I indict all evolutionists as liars? No. But running along the same lines as him, I would be totally justifiable in doing so.
    Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.
    quote:
    Look, I'm not trying to get this thread to go in to a tit for tat blame game.
    Sure you are! You just did it at least three times in this message alone!
    I have no desire to go tit for tat. I would rather we just have a nice discussion, which most of them you are more than capable of. There are other people who just can't do that. They have to immediately meet everything I say, no matter how benignly I put it, with noticeable venom.

    "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by Percy, posted 08-06-2007 9:44 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 113 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 117 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2007 4:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2007 1:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024