For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

Often, there is imo such a level of disinformation and misinformation, misunderstandings, etc,...directed at me and other critics of evolution, that it is difficult to correct the mistakes on one thread. I would like to address the following comment by percy which was made in an effort, imo, to seriously try to undermine my credibility and dispute a basic fact of what occurred in an interview which relates to the significance of Darwin as expressed by prominent evos.Percy wrote: I have recently located an audio link to the interview which clearly indicates right off the bat exactly what I said took place, namely that there was mention of random genetic changes, and specifically the words "autonymous" and "independent" were used contrary to what percy claimed.Here is the link. You can click to hear these exact sentiments and words in the audio. It baffles me how someone could have honestly listened to this interview and claim the evos being interviewed did not make these claims. Listen for yourself. Click on the part that says to click to listen to the audio.http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002725.htmlSince I don't know of another way to correct this, I have proposed a new topic for percy to subtantiate his claims, just as many such as shraf have done and been permitted to do concerning even peripheal comments I have made.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 12:45 AM {Added quote box material at the beginning of message. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2006 02:05 PM

There is also the comment by the Harvard professor that science shows that the idea that God guided evolution is wrong. For these guys, the significance and meaning of evolutionary theory is to show there is no Creator, period. They explicitly state that, and yet in the prior thread, people act like they did not say this. The audio though is very clear.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 12:56 AM

thanks for that link as a reference....Listening to the audio again. There are some quick phrases right off the bat. One is that the acheivement of Darwin is "not to present the idea of evolution but to present the idea of evolution by random genetic change that was then sorted out by natural selection, by the environment; hence the origin of the diversity of life as we know it on earth by autonomy, ah by autonomy, independent of any outside force,..."Also, he expands to say this raises the idea that human life "having arisen though uncontrolled or undesigned process on this planet independently." It's pretty clear that the great acheivement from his perspective is in being able to show, in his view, that there is no Designer, that life arises autonomously, and really downplays the science side of evolution in favor of emphasizing it's theological significance from his perspective. Imo, they are flat out perverting and misusing science.He does use the word autonomous, but I suppose you could say that random genetic changes does not only refer to mutations, but certainly it would include that. They also, once again, explicitly and several times in the interview assert that "there is no Designer" that proper understanding of biology excludes belief in a Creator.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 01:37 AM

If you have the transcript of the show, that would make it easier.

You say they do not refer to the origin of life, but they do elsewhere in the same interview. They explicitly state that science demonstrates there is no Creator, and they started off by saying "the acheivement of Darwin" is to show "there is no Designer."How much clearer can you get?Glad to see you did acknowledge that the word autonomy was used. One reason I recalled autonomously rather than autonomoy was because in context they should have used autonomously to be grammatically correct, and it was right there, just as I stated, and yet you claimed you Tivoed the show and "watched very carefully."Note their large emphasis on the word "autonomy", both in inflection in their speech and in repeating it. Moreover, although early in the speech they do refer to "origins of diversity" which is close to origins of life, they make it clear later in the interview that in their view they mean that "no Designer" equals "No Creator" and so their sentiment in using words like "independent" and "autonomy" is that Darwin showed there is no God.That's what they think his great acheivement was, and they say it in the interview.Imo, rather than trying to snidely chide me, you ought to admit that the substance of what I was saying is correct, and that you were wrong to make those accusations towards me.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 10:27 AM

Percy, I don't buy your line it was "of great concern to me." First off, I was going on memory and did a fairly bang up job if you ask me whereas you had a copy of the tape and "watched very carefully" and still insisted that the there was no use of the word autonomously when in fact they repeated the fact of diversity of life arising by "autonomy". The correct word should have been autonomously since autonomy on it's own cannot create life.Now, I did based on memory miss the little phrase "diversity of life" and there is a good reason for it. They clearly and unequivocally assert that Darwin showed and the science shows that there is no Creator, period, and so that would include the origin of life as well as development of life, and it's pretty darn clear.So while you nitpick easily understandable minor lapses in recalling what was said, you had the thing on Tivoes and still misprepresented what they claimed, and misrepresented me. My claims are correct. They are saying the acheivement of Darwin is that Darwin showed there is no God. They say this early on with "no Designer" and later on specifying that religious belief is wrong and that there is no Creator. They are abundandly clear in what they are saying, and their emphasis in inflection on autonomy and independently, etc,...are clearly meant to connect to their claims of atheism only being in accordance with Darwin and biology.Now, I agree that they are confused, screwed up, make a lot of logical fallacies, and they refer to "genetic change" when talking of what Darwin proposed when, obviously, no one knew back then what genes were, but they still explicitly mention "random genetic change" which clearly includes mutations, and also mention explicity that this shows "autonomy" and "no Designer" and "no Creator."You are just wrong here all the way around.

They state that Darwin was the most important person to ever live, and contrasts him with religious leaders whom they say were wrong. Their view of science and approach to Darwin is fundamentally religious. For them, it's clear that they feel science does rule out God. That was the primary point they made, and something I was trying to bring out since these men, being giants in the field of evolution, show the biasness and error of misusing science in this manner.If you say, as they do, that truth can only be obtained by observation and not by revelation, and so by definition exclude God from being considered, then it is a serious fallacy, akin to brainwashing, to assert that science shows there is no God. It is a circular argument, not a rational one, and it is at the heart of evolutionist thinking.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 11:19 AM

Uh, for one thing I think 2 of the most esteemed scientists in fields related to evolution writing books about evolution and Darwin, stating the thinking, reasoning and significance of evolutionary theory has a lot more merit, than say, your ideas, at least in terms of identifying what evo leaders really think and have to say.The contention towards evos is they misuse or misapply science and exhibit logical fallacies in their thinking. Since these are the guys people like you listen to and are taught by, I think it's important to hear their honest thoughts because they clearly think in terms of combatting religious belief; that dispelling religious belief is a great acheivement, the greatest ever in fact, and it really shows the intent and thinking in their hearts.Now, mind you, they have done some great things such as Watson's work in genetics which he received a nobel prize for, but note how Wilson says at one point that he knows no serious scientists that hold to religious belief. He says that right after Watson says he knows of only one. They both though show that they are referring to one very prominent Christian scientist (whom I believe heads up the human genome project).Why did he, knowing full well of this Christian, insert he knows of no "serious scientist"? I can tell you why I think he does. He doesn't think science is compatible with religious belief at all, and so any scientist holding to religious belief is not a serious scientist. Listen to the tape.It's very illuminating as to the heart and mind of prominent evos, and it shows a disturbing non-objectivity and logical fallacies.

Those 10,000 clergy are not leaders, giants even, in the field of evolutionary sciences. If you cannot see the difference, that's your business jar, but it's still pretty obvious.

jar, the problem is with the biased and non-objective thinking of the originators and leaders in evolution.This is the third or 4th time I have answered you, and you've gone to ultra-large print as if that will make your deception more effective. As Faith and I have showed you time and time again, you ignore replies over and over and pretend they did not occur.I suggest you accept the fact I have responded and if you want to add something, that you do so, but continuing to ask for an answer when I have replied shows a basic dishonesty.This message has been edited by randman, 02-15-2006 12:21 PM

They said it. Just listen to the audio-link in the OP. I don't have a written transcript, but you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth. It's not in the beginning so you can move the cursor forward a little to save time.

The issue is whether the science is right when you have people that think illogically. This, imo, is a pattern. There is a lot of great scientific work such as genetics, but then you have people asserting a context as factual when it is not. There is a reason so many myths such as the Biogenetic law were perpetuated for so long. It's because they are taking stuff essentially on faith. They are advancing a sort of pseudo-faith that a narrowly defined and limited approach to truth that automatically excludes many thing a priori is a reasonable approach to truth. They see no illogic to their position, and so have a hard time seeing the illogic in their analysis to data when it comes to the issue of ToE overall.
Their minds are dominated by prejudicial thinking.I hate to resort to the proverbial NAZI example, but Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation on earth, but at the same time, they adopted prejudicial thinking in terms of race, and so despite their fantastic scientific advances, they also held to absolutely kookiness as well due to their prejudicial thinking.Imo, though not as extreme, that's what we see within the evo-community, the ability on the one hand to be perfectly bright and rational in some areas of science, but to be completely illogical and irrational when it comes to questions dealing with the veracity of ToE.

If you've got it, a little bit more would also helpl, but I'd hate it if you are actually doing the transcript. I think cavediver wanted verification of the part no serious scientist accepts God.

Note Wilson's comment "I guess science is right about it."What is the "it" referring to? It refers specifically to the claim that God has nothing to do with the origins and development of life on earth, period. In their view, not only does science indicate that evolution is the process for life to occur, but that science excludes God or a Creator from using evolution as the means to create, and that science shows that there is no God.That's what he is saying, and that's their claim in the interview. So contrary to what percy says and in answer to jar's questions abotu significance, they are specifically applying science to the issue of the Creator's existence and definitely stating He does not exist.Imo, that is a gross misuse of science, but is at the heart of evolutionism.

Maybe some though need to try the other link you provided.