Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 16 of 51 (8495)
04-13-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
04-13-2002 4:57 AM


You fellows are going to let him ditch his "complexity" argument that easily? "Social darwinism" here is a red herring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 04-13-2002 4:57 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Robert, posted 04-14-2002 6:14 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 51 (8498)
04-14-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
04-11-2002 11:00 AM


I assume that in all of your "questions" you expect me to answer the evolutionist "consensus" on such questions. In which case, I am fully prepared to tell you what evolutionists think, having been involved in the debate for a bit. Obviously, some of your questions are silly:
"2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"
Hmmm... well I suppose I deserve a bump on my head if I said "Yes"? And what exactly would be the determining factor on whether or not evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Why, the opinion of evolutionary scientists! Of course, their view is superior to that of the inbred heathen creation "scientists".
"3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?"
The real question is, "If the origin of life by process of chemical evolution was well supported by the facts, would the origin of life be considered a part of evolution?"
"Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself."
Implying that the extreme minority of creation scientists who have innacurate degrees is common amongst creationists is quite dishonest.
Just for fun, I think I'd like to make a list of my own.
Cobra's Questions for Evolutionists:
1. Does your argument include pointless ad hominem attacks against creation scientists?
2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?
3. Does your argument imply that most creation scientists have bogus credentials?
4. Does your argument include mean-spirited generalizations in an attempt to portray creation scientists as incompetent and liers?
5. Do you put quotations around creation "scientists"?
If you answer "Yes" to any of the previous, please bang your head against a wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 04-11-2002 11:00 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 11:50 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 12:04 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 12:23 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 04-15-2002 4:18 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 51 (8499)
04-14-2002 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by gene90
04-13-2002 11:03 AM


Greetings:
Like I said before I have never accused evolutionists of these things so I do not feel a need to defend the accusations. This was just simply a thought that I had as I read your above questions.
Secondly, a person who is silent in the face of a crime is considered an accessory. Yassar Arafat has been enjoined by the whole world to condemn the terrorist bombings - when he has failed to do so it is thought that he approves of them himself. His silence is considered tacit approval of the terrorist acts.
Another thought - Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker tries very hard to make an argument that random processes alone can account for the complexity of the universe rather than an intelligent designer. In attempting to do this he writes a program which he entitles "Evolution". This famous evolutionist is apparently violating your question #1 (I believe it is #1) concerning evolution and random processes? Any thoughts from you guys on this?
I understand your arguments against the "linear" growth accusations concerning "lower" to "higher" development of species in evolutionary theory, but they seem to me to be rather weak. In reading Darwin's Origin of Species it seems to me that "improvement" is always uppermost in his mind. A less adapted species will die out - thus it will not evolve. Even a subtraction in its genetic code can be considered an "improvement" in the species if the subtraction actually helps the species to survive. Of course, this is all assuming that evolution is true.
Robert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by gene90, posted 04-13-2002 11:03 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-14-2002 1:52 PM Robert has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 51 (8505)
04-14-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 3:15 AM



Cobra_snake writes:
2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"
Hmmm... well I suppose I deserve a bump on my head if I said "Yes"? And what exactly would be the determining factor on whether or not evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Why, the opinion of evolutionary scientists! Of course, their view is superior to that of the inbred heathen creation "scientists".

I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT). At heart evolution is simply chemical reactions, not a single one of which violates 2LOT.
The Creationist position that evolution violates 2LOT has to rank near the top of any list of the most boneheaded claims of all time, but strangely enough it is also one of the most effective claims in the Creationist repertoire. This is because Creationists take their arguments not to scientists but to boards of education and state legislatures and public debates and presentations to lay audiences. Over time they've discovered this argument really works with people unfamiliar with science. This argument's got legs!! This gives the 2LOT claim a lot appeal for Creation scientists, because they take their message almost exclusively to the laity rather than to scientists.
The Creationist 2LOT claim is usually couched in terms designed to be understood by laypeople, but in these forms it is usually a misstatement. Creationists usually explain 2LOT as saying that the universe is running down, or that complexity cannot increase, or that higher life forms can't develop from lower. In reality it says nothing like this.
While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system.
But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system. It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution. Because the earth is not a closed system, 2LOT arguments cannot be used to place limits upon it.
When they advance this argument, leading Creationists are actually disrespecting audiences who have put trust in them. The reality is that not only is the Creationist 2LOT argument wrong in a scientific sense, it's wrong even in a Creationist framework. That's because all Creationists concede that microevolution happens. Microevolution can't be denied, since animal breeders of all stripes take advantage of it all the time, and bacteriology and virology show us that mutations are an undeniable fact. Well, guess what? If one microevolutionary step is okay with 2LOT, then two microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT, as are three steps, four steps, and so forth. Even a million microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT.
Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 3:15 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 51 (8507)
04-14-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 3:15 AM


I have enough to say about several of your points that I'm making several posts.

Cobra_snake writes:
"3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?"
The real question is, "If the origin of life by process of chemical evolution was well supported by the facts, would the origin of life be considered a part of evolution?"

I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution.
But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions.
This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore. Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science.
The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 3:15 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 51 (8508)
04-14-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 3:15 AM



Cobra_snake writes:
2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?
This is so obviously true I don't know why you're raising it. Redstang and Jet are almost wholly enamored of this approach, despite people taking the trouble to actually root out the original text in which many of the quotes appeared to show how they were taken out of context.
Creationists prefer the out-of-context quote approach because, like the 2LOT argument, it is just so darn effective, and not because there is any truth or substance to it. Faithful Christians reading these quotes should ask themselves why, if evolutionary scientists believe evolution is seriously flawed or even blatantly wrong, that evolution hasn't long since slunk away into the dustbin of scientific history. Why would an evolutionary scientist dedicate his professional life to something he doesn't believe? Does this make any kind of sense to anyone?
Look at it another way. What if a scientist were to quote a Creationist, say Wells for example, saying that ID is insufficiently supported by the evidence. Would you believe it? Would it make sense to you that Wells would be uttering a severe criticism of the very science he has worked so hard to develop? Of course not. Well, then, why would you believe quotes of evolutionists tearing down their own science?
By the way, there are a couple reasons you'll never see those on the side of evolution using this approach. First, they understand it is dishonest. Second, they realize the evidence should speak for itself, that just offering quotes is the fallacy of argument from authority.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 3:15 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 22 of 51 (8510)
04-14-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Robert
04-14-2002 6:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
... a person who is silent in the face of a crime is considered an accessory.
Surely not? An accessory is one who assist the perpetrator in committing a crime but dose not participate in the crime itself.
Being silent in the face of wrongdoing is often to be condemned, but those who remain silent are hardly accessories.
In the case of evolutionary biologists you're suggestion seems to be that they should condemn the misuse of their science. You will be aware that many leading evolutionary biologists to just that: Jones and Gould are eloquent in their frequent denunciation of racism and biological determinism. To expect every evolutionary biologist to do so explicitly is a great danger - to see this, one need only think of the communist and fascist regimes where scientists were required to endorse a specific set of socio-political doctrines and their application to science.
Many evolutionary biologists are involved in research (on single celled organisms, for example) which have little application to the socio-political sphere. Of those evolutionary biologists who do touch on socio-political matters I have not come across the work of any contemporaries who do espouse anything remotely akin to "social darwinism." Do you know of any?
Equally, do you know of any whose work engages socio-politcal issues who do not condemn socially discriminatory applications of darwinism when they do cross the path of their work? I would be genuinely interested to hear of it.
[b] [QUOTE]Yassar Arafat ....[/b][/QUOTE]
I really don't think we should even start that discussion on this forum. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss it elsewhere on the net.
[b] [QUOTE]Another thought - Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker tries very hard to make an argument that random processes alone can account for the complexity of the universe rather than an intelligent designer.[/b][/QUOTE]
He does not. Indeed, to say so is to reveal almost complete incomprehension of the positon the book advances. It is not random processes alone but constrained random processes which is a hugely different matter.[b] [QUOTE]In attempting to do this he writes a program which he entitles "Evolution".[/b][/QUOTE]
A good, if naif, example of a constrained random process - in this case with a predetermined goal.
It is important to bear this in mind, because they represent two separate phases of the process, and often in discussing one phase in detail there is no need to reference the other. Thus one may read passages, or pick quotes, which deal only with the mutations without dealing with the constraints. To take the example of your favourite equation, F=ma, there will be passages in any disussion of Newtonian mechanics which explain the nature of acceleration with no reference to mass. It's a danger, especially when reading the quotations of others, to think that excerpts represent the entire thesis.
[b] [QUOTE]In reading Darwin's Origin of Species it seems to me that "improvement" is always uppermost in his mind. A less adapted species will die out - thus it will not evolve. Even a subtraction in its genetic code can be considered an "improvement" in the species if the subtraction actually helps the species to survive. Of course, this is all assuming that evolution is true.[/b][/QUOTE]
"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking. An animal which evolves the means to survive better in a warm climate is up the creek without a paddle if the environment changes quickly adn its "improvement" may well lead to its extinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Robert, posted 04-14-2002 6:14 AM Robert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:51 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 23 of 51 (8550)
04-15-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
04-14-2002 3:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

1. Does your argument include pointless ad hominem attacks against creation scientists?

No.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?

Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

3. Does your argument imply that most creation scientists have bogus credentials?

Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

4. Does your argument include mean-spirited generalizations in an attempt to portray creation scientists as incompetent and liers?

See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

5. Do you put quotations around creation "scientists"?

Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

If you answer "Yes" to any of the previous, please bang your head against a wall.

I do, everytime I argue with a creationist
(Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 3:15 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:57 AM compmage has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 51 (8610)
04-16-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
04-14-2002 11:50 AM


Hello Percipient. Just to let you know, I respect your opinion greatly as it seems to me that your are fairly unbiased. However, I think you have unfortunately been misled by evolutionary scientists in regards to the creationist's stance on the 2LOT.
First, I would like to clarify my position. I am not convinced either way whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT. However, I am convinced that the idea of an atheistic cosmos is contradictory to the 2LOT (if the universe isn't a closed system, I don't know what is!)
"I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)."
Yes... but these physicists and chemists and such are most likely almost to a person evolutionists. My point is, whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT is a subject FOR debate, not a subject that must be determined BEFORE debate.
"This is because Creationists take their arguments not to scientists but to boards of education and state legislatures and public debates and presentations to lay audiences."
I'd just like to point out that, at debates, there is an evolutionist there to point out such boneheaded claims.
"Over time they've discovered this argument really works with people unfamiliar with science. This argument's got legs!! This gives the 2LOT claim a lot appeal for Creation scientists, because they take their message almost exclusively to the laity rather than to scientists."
I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law.
"The Creationist 2LOT claim is usually couched in terms designed to be understood by laypeople, but in these forms it is usually a misstatement. Creationists usually explain 2LOT as saying that the universe is running down, or that complexity cannot increase, or that higher life forms can't develop from lower. In reality it says nothing like this."
Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly.
"While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system."
I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.
"But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system."
Oh believe me, I've heard this quite a bit in the literature I've read, so I know.
"It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution."
Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.
"Because the earth is not a closed system, 2LOT arguments cannot be used to place limits upon it."
I don't think this is entirely true, due to the reasons described above.
"When they advance this argument, leading Creationists are actually disrespecting audiences who have put trust in them. The reality is that not only is the Creationist 2LOT argument wrong in a scientific sense, it's wrong even in a Creationist framework. That's because all Creationists concede that microevolution happens. Microevolution can't be denied, since animal breeders of all stripes take advantage of it all the time, and bacteriology and virology show us that mutations are an undeniable fact. Well, guess what? If one microevolutionary step is okay with 2LOT, then two microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT, as are three steps, four steps, and so forth. Even a million microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT."
True, but creationists deny that microevolution extended equals macroevolution, and indeed even evolutionists seem to argue this point.
"Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place."
The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 11:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 04-17-2002 6:26 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 04-17-2002 6:39 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 37 by Peter, posted 04-17-2002 7:41 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 04-17-2002 10:46 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 40 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-18-2002 4:52 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 51 (8611)
04-16-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
04-14-2002 12:04 PM


"I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution."
Yes, it is my opinion that evolutionary scientists would have no difficulty with including abiogenesis in their theory if in fact abiogenesis was supported by empirical facts and/or observations.
"But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions."
I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science.
"This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore."
You mean kinda like the Second Law?
"Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science."
True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science.
"The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces."
But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 12:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2002 7:08 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 04-17-2002 7:02 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 51 (8612)
04-16-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
04-14-2002 12:23 PM


"This is so obviously true I don't know why you're raising it. Redstang and Jet are almost wholly enamored of this approach, despite people taking the trouble to actually root out the original text in which many of the quotes appeared to show how they were taken out of context."
I've got no problem with people claiming that quotes are out of context as long as they provide documentation, as the members of this board often do. (I wasn't really referring to this board in this statement)
"Faithful Christians reading these quotes should ask themselves why, if evolutionary scientists believe evolution is seriously flawed or even blatantly wrong, that evolution hasn't long since slunk away into the dustbin of scientific history."
Well, a number of political/emotional/religous factors could be involved. And the quotes aren't generally quotes saying that evolution is wrong, but they give quotes in which the author suggests that a particular portion of evolutionary theory is not supported by the evidence, or a certain mechanism for evolution is not supported by the evidence.
"Why would an evolutionary scientist dedicate his professional life to something he doesn't believe? Does this make any kind of sense to anyone?"
Not to me, and that's why I know that the quoted scientists don't believe the theory is bankrupt, they just believe that a certain mechanism/prospect of evolution is not supported by the evidence.
"Look at it another way. What if a scientist were to quote a Creationist, say Wells for example, saying that ID is insufficiently supported by the evidence. Would you believe it? Would it make sense to you that Wells would be uttering a severe criticism of the
very science he has worked so hard to develop?"
Like I said before, the quotes I see generally seem to be critiquing a certain mechanism/prospect of evolutionary theory.
"Well, then, why would you believe quotes of evolutionists tearing down their own science?"
The quotes don't generally seem to be evolutionists tearing down their own science, but rather suggesting that a particular prospect/mechanism of evolution is not suppported by the evidence.
"By the way, there are a couple reasons you'll never see those on the side of evolution using this approach. First, they understand it is dishonest."
I don't want to play nanny-nanny-boo-boo, but I would just like to point out that not all evolutionists are the model of honest individuals.
"Second, they realize the evidence should speak for itself, that just offering quotes is the fallacy of argument from authority."
The creationists are trying to show that the evidence speaks for itself. They generally first make a claim, then they follow up with experts in the area that agree with them. Do you think anyone would believe creation scientists if they simply said "Transitional forms for all major forms of fish are entirely lacking"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 04-14-2002 12:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 1:07 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 04-17-2002 7:30 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 51 (8613)
04-16-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
04-14-2002 1:52 PM


"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking."
I thought that this was the main flaw in Dawkins' argument (there was a goal).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-14-2002 1:52 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-16-2002 1:11 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 51 (8614)
04-16-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by compmage
04-15-2002 4:18 AM


"No."
Good.
"Personally? Never. I have seen others 'claim' this, however it is not a 'claim' given that it can be backed up by evidence."
It is sometimes claimed without evidence.
"Again I have never personally implied this but those that have have been able to show that it is fact."
I'd certainly be interested in these proposed "facts".
"See above."
See above. I want the supposed conclusive evidence that shows such accusations are valid.
"Yes because I have yet to see a creation "scientists" follow the scientific method. It is therefore misleading to call them scientists, hence the quotations."
Au contraire, it is not misleading at all to call creation scientists just that, given that many of them have postgraduate degrees from prominent universities. Even if Creation SCIENCE is not scientific, that does not detract from the fact that said scientists are just whay they claim to be.
"I do, everytime I argue with a creationist
(Just incase you don't pick it up, this is a joke)"
It's actually a pretty good joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by compmage, posted 04-15-2002 4:18 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 04-16-2002 3:33 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 29 of 51 (8616)
04-16-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:43 AM


My A-number 1 complaint against creationists is not the misquotes, it's not their religious zeal or faith and it's not even their heavy handed banning on discussion boards. The biggest problem is that they think that good science is conducted via public opinion. Their efforts are all aimed at influencing public opinion, from the 'Discovery Institute' to AIG. They refuse to submit their work (what little there is of it) for review and discussion in mainstream journals. Instead, they create their own journals and close these to opposing views. I know this because I was told by the editors of ICR Impact and AIG's CENTQ that old earth articles will not be considered for publication. How odd since the converse is NOT true. All articles submitted to journals are based on their scientific merit (with the exception of perhaps Science and Nature who also require some 'pizazz'). In short, revolutions in science do not take place in the court of public opinion, they take place in the minds of those proposing change and are confirmed in the field and on the pages of scientific journals where they are judged harshly by their peers. I do not see this critical approach taken by creationists. Instead, I hear people like Kurt Wise say (in essence) "The science be damned, if all the observations and all the data went against young earth creationism, I would still hold young earth creationism as true". This is a very compelling personal testimony and plays well in the court of creationist opinion; however, in the court of scientific revolution this is the equivalent of a death sentence for creation 'science'.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 04-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:43 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 30 of 51 (8617)
04-16-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cobra_snake
04-16-2002 12:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking."
I thought that this was the main flaw in Dawkins' argument (there was a goal).

Not the flaw in his argument, but certainly the flaw in his language. Unfortunately, as a popular science writer, and a kenspeckle controversialist, he uses words like "selfish" which imply motivation: at best they can be used as a restricted analog to mean something like 'self-replicating'. Indeed, I would venture that 'self-replicating' is about as far one can go in ascribing direction to evolutionary processes: even 'self-preserving' I think is a bit too strong, except insofar as one may say that a molecule with "default behaviour" to self-replicate is in a sense 'self-preserving.'
Dawkins unfortunately goes over the top and uses language such as "tyranny of the selfish replicators" which can only mislead the less-than-fastidious reader into thinking of the processes so described as goal-directing.
His scientific papers (thankfully) are scrupulous in avoiding such language.
See Dawkins? See me? See "not impressed"?
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-16-2002 12:51 AM Cobra_snake 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