Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:03 PM
153 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 148 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute loses one
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4275 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 76 of 103 (238448)
08-29-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
08-29-2005 10:22 PM


Re: protocols, please
Thanks. I actually read it just minutes after making my post. As I was typing it I figured this would be good place to find a thread on the subject. ;)

I guess it all comes down to what you consider as natural selection (NS). If it is selection by nature (which seems reasonable) then sexual selection (SS) should be included in NS.
But I could also easily imagine that to some SS could be seen as a force driving to speed NS up by having the individuals chose those mates who not only survive long enough to have offspring, but tend to have offspring that will in themselves survive.
That is, SS sees one step further than NS.

(Off topic: I just realised it's "beside the point". Or does "beyond the point" work too?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2005 10:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2005 7:14 AM Maxwell's Demon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 77 of 103 (238519)
08-30-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Maxwell's Demon
08-29-2005 10:46 PM


Re: protocols, please
yes

that is where you can get into run-away sexual selection mechanism.

and yes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 08-29-2005 10:46 PM Maxwell's Demon has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 78 of 103 (238571)
08-30-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
08-28-2005 7:43 PM


Re: protocols, please
Hi RAZD,

Been away a few days. Has a draft questionaire been assembled yet? Probably should start a separate thread on it, if not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 7:43 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2005 12:32 AM Monk has not yet responded
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2005 1:28 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 79 of 103 (238761)
08-31-2005 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Monk
08-30-2005 11:51 AM


Re: protocols, please
topic hasn't been promoted yet. we may want to work by e-mail on this, to hone it and then put that in the PNT for review.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 08-30-2005 11:51 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 80 of 103 (238779)
08-31-2005 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Monk
08-30-2005 11:51 AM


would someone promote this topic please?
i've posted a pnt here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=1182&m=1

it has yet to be promoted. i imagine the admins have some issues regarding it, but maybe it just got lost.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 08-30-2005 11:51 AM Monk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-11-2005 12:59 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Nic Tamzek
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 103 (242175)
09-11-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by arachnophilia
08-31-2005 1:28 AM


Re: would someone promote this topic please?
I was looking at those suggested questions -- they look too much like a survey. This population isn't a random sample of anything, so you aren't doing a survey. It seems that what you are really interested in is whether or not any signatories were misled into signing.

E.g., no one cares if the DI 400 believe in God or not -- what matters is whether or not the signatories who signed up to the DI 400 list were made aware that their name was going to be used as anti-evolution, pro-ID propaganda. While I'm sure many of the signatories do support that usage (many are straight-up creationists), there is a good chance that many others are, for example, theistic evolutionists who think that evolution is good science, but that oppose those who campaign for atheism under the flag of evolution. They may naively assume that the Discovery Institute is an ASA-type association for religious scientists. Many theistic evolutionists hear "intelligent design" and think of the idea that God is guiding the universe, which is not in opposition to science (although a matter of theology, not science). They don't realize that the real goal of ID is bringing divine intervention -- special creation of organisms and/or DNA -- back into science.

Others may simply have taken the statement at face value (which almost any scientist could agree with, taken at face value -- even Richard Dawkins!), with no knowledge of the ulterior motives behind it, and the uses to which it would be put.

You may find it surprising that anyone could be naive about these things, but there is still a large segment of the population that is not web-addicted, that does not google everything that they come across. Particularly this applies to older folks. I think the guy who dropped out of the DI 400 was a professor emeritus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2005 1:28 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1094 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 82 of 103 (243521)
09-14-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
08-25-2005 2:52 AM


How smart was Davidson that he could get so duped to begin with ?

I suppose you would make the arguments of opponents in this topic if the subject was Antony Flew.

Herepton


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2005 2:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 9:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:49 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2005 6:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 103 (243526)
09-14-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:55 PM


On Flew
I suppose you would make the arguments of opponents in this topic if the subject was Antony Flew.

You mean the not-so-atheist who not-so-recanted his not-so-atheism in an interview that falsely claimed he had converted to Christianity? That guy?

You know, people on your side make him out to be some kind of atheist rock star, but I had never heard of the guy before the Christians lied about what he had done and said; and even by then he had become a deist, not an atheist.

I don't give a fuck what the old fart says, though. I realize that people who need their beliefs dictated to them from a book and a guy in a dress, like yourself, might have a hard time understanding this, but I don't need someone else to tell me why I'm an atheist, and what someone else believes has no bearing on what conclusions I come to. I'm an atheist because that's the inescapable intellectual conclusion from the evidence, not because some limey geezer does or does not agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 6:35 PM crashfrog has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 103 (243640)
09-15-2005 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:55 PM


How smart was Davidson that he could get so duped to begin with ?

well, that's sort of the question we're trying to answer.

speaking of which, we should get back to finding some more emails. do people still wanna do this?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by cmanteuf, posted 09-16-2005 5:17 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2005 12:35 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Monk, posted 09-17-2005 1:02 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 6:10 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 4812 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 85 of 103 (244217)
09-16-2005 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 12:49 AM


arachnophilia writes:

do people still wanna do this?

I'd be happy to keep on finding email addresses. The rest of the stuff I'm not so interested in, but I enjoy digging facts out of the ether.

Chris


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:49 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 86 of 103 (244383)
09-17-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 12:49 AM


I was thinking of bumping this to bring it back to the top.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:49 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 87 of 103 (244390)
09-17-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 12:49 AM


Status Report
I'd like to see this continue forward. How many e-mails do we have, (i.e. percent complete)?

Note to Admins: Why hasn't Arach's draft list of questions been promoted as a separate thread?

ABE: Oops, sorry. I see the topic has been promoted here Message 1

This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 12:13 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:49 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1094 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 88 of 103 (244677)
09-18-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
09-15-2005 12:49 AM


Herepton:

How smart was Davidson that he could get so duped to begin with ?

Arachnophilia:

well, that's sort of the question we're trying to answer.

Herepton:

No, what I meant to say is that the whole thing was on purpose by Davidson - he was a Darwinist incognito from the start. If he was as claimed - genuinely duped, then he would have never let his story out of the bag. Davidson, (like any person in his position) would not want what happened broadcasted. Because he put the story out I must conclude the entire scenario was planned as some sort of poison the well scheme against DI.

Henry Herepton the Reptile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 09-15-2005 12:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 6:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 95 by arachnophilia, posted 09-18-2005 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1094 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 89 of 103 (244679)
09-18-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 9:09 PM


Re: On Flew
You mean the not-so-atheist who not-so-recanted his not-so-atheism in an interview that falsely claimed he had converted to Christianity? That guy?

No, the life-long atheist British philosopher who after carefully reviewing the evidence concluded an IDer must exist. Flew then became a deist.

Do you know what a deist is ?

You know, people on your side make him out to be some kind of atheist rock star, but I had never heard of the guy before the Christians lied about what he had done and said; and even by then he had become a deist, not an atheist.

Was this a late night post or are you convoluted naturally ?

IOW, just because YOU did not know who Flew was somehow negates the conversion ?

Flew was an atheist who became a deist. The only atheist rock star I know of is also the premier atheist evangelist - Richard Dawkins.

I don't give a fuck what the old fart says

Attempt to deflect away from evidence via reliance on an accepted negative cultural stereotype that octagenarians (old people) suddenly do not know what they are talking about when they disagree with you. IOW, ad hom postulated, caused by the inability to deal with the facts that effected the conversion.

You are a spoiled brat coddled by the Admins. Writing such a blatant ad hom insult justifies my observation.

I don't need someone else to tell me why I'm an atheist, and what someone else believes has no bearing on what conclusions I come to. I'm an atheist because that's the inescapable intellectual conclusion from the evidence, not because some limey geezer does or does not agree.

Atheism is not supported by any facts. It is a psychological state that has an almost incurable aversion to having a Boss. The intense desire caused by the psychosis provides the ends to justify the means.

Henry Herepton the Reptile

This message has been edited by Herepton, 09-18-2005 06:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 9:09 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 11:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 10:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 90 of 103 (244680)
09-18-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2005 6:10 PM


Herepton, who also cannot decipher the specific information of the irreducibly complex means to use quote boxes, writes:

No, what I meant to say is that the whole thing was on purpose by Davidson - he was a Darwinist incognito from the start.

ROFLOL.

So it wasn't the Discover Institute that misrepresented the statement as actual support for Intelligent Design and put it on their website as such, it was Davidson who misrepresented his postion on evolution ...

Even though this statement (the one in question eh?):

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

(1) Says nothing about Intelligent Design in any way,
(2) Says nothing about "therefore evolution is wrong" in any way,
(3) Says nothing that could not be said about any other science with similar statements (worded for the various theories involved): careful examination of the evidence for all theories is not only encouraged but actively pursued via the peer review process, skepticism of any theory to explain all the evidence is normal scientific SOP (standard operating procedure).

As I've said before there is nothing in this statement that is really critical of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms of evolution, therefore it is no surprise if they cannot explain all the diversity of life. Natural selection and mutation alone do not explain {sex}, and that's a pretty big element of species diversity.

Appears to me that Davidson is nowhere near as duped as you appear to by the DI propoganda.

Enjoy.

(and learn to use quote boxes eh?)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 6:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 7:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019