Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International Aspects of Creationism/ID
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 61 of 79 (208518)
05-15-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
05-15-2005 5:37 PM


Re: is the problem science?
RazD writes:
People are welcome to their beliefs, but they do not get to say their beliefs are more valid than reality
If you go here (Msg 94)I suspect you will find someone who does.
EZ
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-15-2005 10:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2005 5:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:47 AM EZscience has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 79 (208543)
05-16-2005 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by judge
05-15-2005 6:56 PM


It suffers a little as english is his second language but is an improvement on US stuff
It suffers even more as science does not appear to be part of his knowledge base. I'm not sure why you think its an improvement on US stuff, as most of it appealed to US sources.
In any case, thanks for the info. Now I get to torture my dutch gf with evidence for more lame-os over here.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by judge, posted 05-15-2005 6:56 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by judge, posted 05-16-2005 8:01 AM Silent H has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 63 of 79 (208553)
05-16-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by judge
05-15-2005 6:56 PM


Do you know anything particular about this work?
I found it quite curious that I didnt see (perhaps I didnt look at enough of the pages(this is a real possibility) anything "new" about the origin of genetic information (genetic variance) as on the abcissus of his graphing AND YET he dedicated the book to Dawkins.
Is this really a creationist tract and not hoax like Chardin's piltown man where he didnt reaveal the rub for some years even after many knew?? Lewontin also in related matters would use a different pen name when writing to NYTImes book review.
The clue for figuring this out myself is that he speaks of "inbreeding" "on top" etc but if you can confirm that 50% is creationist while explaning the Dawkins reference without a meme of it I would appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by judge, posted 05-15-2005 6:56 PM judge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by judge, posted 05-16-2005 8:13 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 79 (208558)
05-16-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by EZscience
05-15-2005 11:07 PM


Re: is the problem science?
heh. I should clarify: they get to state what they want, but it doesn't give it any more credibiilty than the ravings of a madman at the reflection of the moon in a well and listening to his own echoes without independent evidence that reality substantiates the position.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2005 11:07 PM EZscience has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 65 of 79 (208562)
05-16-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
05-16-2005 5:20 AM


quote:
I'm not sure why you think its an improvement on US stuff, as most of it appealed to US sources.
  —Holmes
1. He is not a biblical literalist, for a start. A much better stsrting point as the common ground is bigger.
2. He at least makes an attempt to explain kinds in a way which may one day be accessible to scientific enquiry.
I gotta ask what you see in US stuff that is better than his book?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 5:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 05-16-2005 10:41 AM judge has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 66 of 79 (208565)
05-16-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Brad McFall
05-16-2005 7:33 AM


quote:
Do you know anything particular about this work?
I have read some parts of the book.
quote:
I found it quite curious that I didnt see (perhaps I didnt look at enough of the pages(this is a real possibility) anything "new" about the origin of genetic information (genetic variance) as on the abcissus of his graphing AND YET he dedicated the book to Dawkins.
I think that Us style fundamenatist creationists tend to see anyone who does not agree with them as evil }(
The Dutch , from my own experience, and by reputation perhaps are not so insecure.
He probably enjoys dawkins writings and is not afraid to appreciate the good things about it whilst disagreeing with the extent of evolution.
He also gives evil Darwin quite a good rap as well.
quote:
Is this really a creationist tract and not hoax like Chardin's piltown man where he didnt reaveal the rub for some years even after many knew?? Lewontin also in related matters would use a different pen name when writing to NYTImes book review.
Aw...don't be so suspicious. Despite evilutionist dogma, the world is full of people who find life coming from non life and microbes turning into men quite ..well....unbelievable, and there are a variety of attempted solutions.
Fundamentalists may just be good at marketing themsleves.
quote:
The clue for figuring this out myself is that he speaks of "inbreeding" "on top" etc but if you can confirm that 50% is creationist while explaning the Dawkins reference without a meme of it I would appreciate it.
50% cretinist , 90% cretinist, 10 % cretinist, how does one tell the difference. I honestly don't know.
I doubt whther the author has read any AIG material, he is just one guy who doubts "evilution" and attempted to give a better alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Brad McFall, posted 05-16-2005 7:33 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 05-16-2005 8:41 AM judge has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 79 (208572)
05-16-2005 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by judge
05-16-2005 8:13 AM


Ok, I wont be that suspicious.
I guess he derived his idea BECAUSE amino acids have THREE bases in the code. I just think I see how a memeist might using Dawkins' DEVIL's CHAPLIN, gain say Gould's death (and gap in communication between Gould and Dawkins) (in)to a social advantage, skipping a generation, that thus might constrict biology FURTHER (than a simple outworking of the inbreeding could explain on condition if one were forced scientifically to deal with variance less plurivocally than I think I read him to have said).
I'll drop this. Thanks again.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-16-2005 08:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by judge, posted 05-16-2005 8:13 AM judge has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 79 (208599)
05-16-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by judge
05-16-2005 8:01 AM


I gotta ask what you see in US stuff that is better than his book?
Oh I didn't mean to suggest that, and I should say my comment to you was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I viewed it as the same old same old.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by judge, posted 05-16-2005 8:01 AM judge has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 79 (210564)
05-23-2005 11:55 AM


Another Dutch Treat regarding Evolution
It turns out the Dutch Minister of Education recently stated that evolution is an incomplete theory and that there needs to be a debate regarding its stature, suggesting that Intelligent Design theory is an equal replacement theory. She also lamented the divide between religion and science (which is interesting since if she actually knew what ID was then she should not be admitting that intention so publicly).
So it appears that the IDists are beginning to decloak in the Netherlands and get the wedge strategy working.
Unlike the US program, the Dutch offensive appears to be backfiring. Almost everyone, including her own Xian party members, have responded negatively, stating politicians should stay out of science completely, and to leave it up to scientists to work such things out.
They said there isn't really an interest, much less a need, for debate on that topic.
Ahhhhhhhhh... the netherlands stays on track for now.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-23-2005 11:57 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 79 (210578)
05-23-2005 12:54 PM


Ukraine
Greetings all,
I am Ukrainian currently living in the US. As I wrote in the "Is Creationism a Predominantly US..." thread, there are no Ukrainian creationists, at least among educated people. However, recently, two links were posted on a Ukrainian Web forum called "Maidan," referring to Ukrainian creationists. Here are these links (in Ukrainian, the text is in Cyrillic):
http://www.cris-evol.com
http://nt-creaz.nm.ru/zvern-fulltext.htm
The first link is to a book, written, apparently, by a person with some education in biology, but with many references predominantly to US creationists. The second link is to a text of a letter, written by several Ukrainian scientists (some biologists, some non-biologists) and school teachers, addressed to the President of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, with a petition to do something about "amending" biology textbooks currently adopted in Ukraine. It struck me that among those things that the authors of the letter want to be "amended," there is some usual creationist nonsense about archeopterix being fully bird, etc.
Richard

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ProfessorR, posted 05-23-2005 12:58 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 79 (210580)
05-23-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ProfessorR
05-23-2005 12:54 PM


Correction, Re: Ukraine
The second link is to a letter addressed, actually, to the Prime Minister of Ukraine, c/c'ed to the Minister of Education (not to the Pres. of the Natl. Acad. Sci.). Sorry for the inaccuracy. --R.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ProfessorR, posted 05-23-2005 12:54 PM ProfessorR has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 79 (211830)
05-27-2005 2:08 PM


Oh my mistake, the Dutch were screwed up before this
I just had a major shock. When the MP wanted to introduce ID to debate I thought that was to be a wedge to get it into dutch schools. I was mistaken.
Today I learned that in fact, it IS CUMPULSORY TO LEARN CREATIONISM AS AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY TO EVOLUTION in Dutch schools. Holy Katzenjammers!
That's right, Creationism is mandated by law here as a valid alternative in Biology.
Interestingly enough, the MPs attempt to get ID into debate has, as some ministers have put it, "woken a sleeping dog". Now MPs are beginning discussions to remove Creationism and teach only evolution.
Me and my gf found this very shocking, and strange as she has no memory of ever learning Creationism in her biology class. But anyway, I guess Holland is a picture of what the US could be if Creationists had their way... still most people believe in evolution.
Their National Institute of Biology is backing the move to drop Creationism, and not interested in pursuing ID either.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by GVGS58, posted 05-29-2005 7:44 AM Silent H has replied

  
GVGS58
Junior Member (Idle past 6236 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 73 of 79 (212309)
05-29-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
05-27-2005 2:08 PM


Re: Oh my mistake, the Dutch were screwed up before this
Long time lurker here, not much posting here, but as I'm from Holland I might shed some additional light here.
Creationism was to me taught as spontanous generation: an outdated theory. I realize Creationism can be taught differently in other schools, but the textbook I had treated it not seriously, and I never heard an outcry of Christians.
Just because it's in the law to teach Creationism doesn't mean it's treated very seriously. That's not to say Creationsim is non-existent in Holland (I've met a few of them personally, fellow students at a Biology University), but I don't consider it a pressure group.
The 'debate' the minister wanted seems to have changed to a general debate concerning the place of science in society. While I very well can imagine this debate can turn bad, it might also turn good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 05-27-2005 2:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 2:04 PM GVGS58 has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 79 (212358)
05-29-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by GVGS58
05-29-2005 7:44 AM


Re: Oh my mistake, the Dutch were screwed up before this
The 'debate' the minister wanted seems to have changed to a general debate concerning the place of science in society. While I very well can imagine this debate can turn bad, it might also turn good.
Yes, I was glad about the reaction her statements got and while I am still disturbed to find out Creationism is legally mandated, I am also glad to see that MPs are interested in removing that anchronism.
Do you know much about that legislation? When it came about and why it can be taught differently between schools?
My gf says the only thing she was taught was that it used to be believed in until evidence accumulated which made evolution the best scientific theory. Thus it was mentioned only as a negative in her school.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GVGS58, posted 05-29-2005 7:44 AM GVGS58 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by GVGS58, posted 05-29-2005 4:15 PM Silent H has replied

  
GVGS58
Junior Member (Idle past 6236 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 75 of 79 (212382)
05-29-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
05-29-2005 2:04 PM


Re: Oh my mistake, the Dutch were screwed up before this
I don't know how or when this legislation came about. All I know is that at my school (Catholic school) it was taught the same way as your gf had experienced: as historical interest, but scientifically bankrupt. There was not much more than a few lines spent on it.
I guess that with a legislation like 'Teach Creationism', it's not mentioned in what way it should be taught. Since Holland is not a very fundamentalist country, this meant in most cases 'in a historical context'.
I think the legislation is mostly an anachronism indeed, and may be gone soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 05-29-2005 2:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 05-30-2005 3:01 AM GVGS58 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024