Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UnPC guide to Evo and ID
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (346675)
09-05-2006 12:45 PM


Anyone read this yet? Its supoosed to be pretty popular?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 6 by Clark, posted 09-05-2006 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 17 by dwise1, posted 09-05-2006 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 44 (346683)
09-05-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
09-05-2006 1:15 PM


Re: How about you reading it?
I don't know about them being PRaTT arguments. After all its Wells that wrote it. He's not exactly a Hovind, if you know what I mean. I think you would agree that he's a bit more reputable than that. But yes, I'm thinking of reading it, but I was trying to get others opinions on it before hand.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:15 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (346689)
09-05-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Clark
09-05-2006 1:37 PM


Thank you Clark
Thanks for the Panda's thumb critique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Clark, posted 09-05-2006 1:37 PM Clark has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (346690)
09-05-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
09-05-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Not PRATTs?
Take each of the cover points and try to defend them.
We've been asking, just in the last few days for the scientific evidence for ID but no one has posted any. Maybe if you bought the book you could jump into those threads and be just devestating.
Where are these threads taking place? I'd like to offer some insight.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (346700)
09-05-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
09-05-2006 1:53 PM


Re: Might want to save your money...
Read over the Panda's thumb discussion. It makes a case that Wells is a liar; not someone you'd want to support with your money.
So quickly you condemn someone over without having reviewed the facts yourself. Say it ain't so Ned... I know you're Canadian but I'm sure you guys have a form of Due Process over there, aye? Heh. In all seriousness I'm sure its written well even if you don't like what's being written.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 1:53 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 2:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 2:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (346703)
09-05-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
09-05-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Might want to save your money...
You can say that folk like Dr. Dino or Ron Wyatt are simply ignorant, but Jonathan Wells has no such excuse. When he continues to post things that have been shown to be wrong, when he has the training and obvious intellegence that he exhibits, there seems no other possibility than concluding that like Jerry Falwell, Gene Scott, Pat Robertson, Henry Morris and others he is nothing but a liar.
That's a pretty bold charge. Do you have anything definitive to present that I might see this lying in action?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 2:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 2:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 44 (346708)
09-05-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
09-05-2006 2:41 PM


Re: Might want to save your money...
On which one? They are all liars and conmen. It would be easier to list what they say that is not a lie. That is a short list seen since there would be few if any entries.
I'm not a fan of such acolytes as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. In fact, I think they tend to do much harm to Christ. But comparing Jonathan Wells, who once was imbued by the Druid-master of evolution, to a liar is pretty bold to do. Your example of such lying is equally unfounded.
One of his Lies (speaking of the specific Liar Wells now and not all of the other liars that ride on the Medicine Wagon of Televangelism) is that there is some war on Christianity by what he calls (a made up name) Dawinists. Nothing could be further from the truth as the simple fact that I and many other Christians accept the conclusions drawn from the evidence that supports the TOE proves.
Please explain how this makes Wells a liar. If Wells believes that Darwinism at heart is a major factor in the Spirit of the Age, then that's what he believes. That doesn't make him a liar. I happen to agree with him. I'm a liar Jar, as is everyone else, but I lie not about my adamence on this point. I highly doubt that Wells somehow wouldn't actually believe what he espouses. I could just as easily say that you're lying about being a conservative christian republican because nothing you say is even remotely akin to those time-honored beliefs. The reason I don't call you a liar is because I believe that you probably earnestly feel as though you are a Christian. Whether you are not is inconsequential. All that is required is for you to have knowledge of whether or not you are making false claims. That's what a liar is, not someone who is simply incorrect on any specific matter.
But hey, all this is getting off topic. The question was, "has anyone read this book. If so, could you ofer a critique." I don't need conjecture. I don't need speculation. I don't need assertions. And if you haven't read the book then your criticism is useless to me.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 2:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2006 10:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 31 by jar, posted 09-05-2006 10:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 44 (346726)
09-05-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
09-05-2006 3:07 PM


The criminal conduct of J. Wells
Ah, yes. Jonathan Wells. As I recall, he pursued his doctorate for the explicitly expressed purpose of fighting against evolution. I mean that he came right out and said as much.
And what about those who specifically pursue a doctorate to explicitly defend evolutionary biology?
I will give you a synoptic overview of Johnathan Wells written by an author by the name of Jack Cashill. In the chapter, "Darwin's Heirs, Cashill goes into a discourse on Wells that I will now quote that goes into how Wells found himself disenchanted with the prevailing theory of evolution:
"Given this book's focus on America, Haeckel's continuing influence on the nation's academic culture demands his inclusion. The man who has made that continued inclusion immensely awkward for the science establishment is none other than Jonathan Wells. When 'Icons' was published, Wells expected a rough response. What he got was evern rougher than anticipated. Indeed, one review in the 'Quarterly Review of Biology' compared him to the Talented Mr. Ripley of movie fame, a charlatan and murderer.
If, however, he Darwinists and their allies thought "The Talented Mr. Wells" would go away, they obviously hadn't taken full measure of Wells. "I spent year and a half in prison defending my principles, I wasn't about to back down now," says Wells.
More like Forest Gump than Mr. Ripley, Wells has often found himself at the intersection of destiny and history. Born in New York City in 1942, Wells grew up in suburban New Jersey, excelled in high school, and narrowed the post-Sputnik space race by sending his homemade missles as much as a mile skyward. A go-as-you-please Protestant by upbringing, Wells majored in geology at Princeton where he found Darwin and lost whatever faith he had. A born rebel, Wells dropped out in his junior year while in the top 1% of his class.
On August 28, 1963, he happened to be visiting friends in Washington when he all but stumbled on Martin Luther King's famed march on Washington. So inspired was Wells by the marcher's peaceful discipline that he began his own study of Ghandian pacifism. With the Vietnam War heating up and his draft imminent, he couldn't see to land a job beyond driving a cab in NYC. As Wells expected, his number came up quickly, and he spent the next two years in Germany as guest of the US Army.
Encouraged by many leftist Germans with whom he came into contact, Wells began to question the war effort. After his discharge in 1966, he headed to Berkley both to finish his education and to advance the cause of pacifism. When the Army insisted he report for reserve duty, Wells, with tv camera's whirring, read a defiant letter of refusal on the steps of Berkley's Sproul Hall, the ultimate radical platform. Needless to say, the Army was not pleased. Shortly thereafter, Wells was grabbed off the Berkley streets by a pair of plainclothed MP's and imprisoned, still defiant, for four months of solitary confinement at the Presidio stockade and for another eight months at Leavenworth.
Upon release form prison, Wells returned to Berkley and graduated in 1970 with a major in geology and physics and a minor in biology. Put off by the coldhearted drift to violence of the Berkley left, he fled the Bay area first for a commune and eventually to the California hills where he built a small, solitary cabin. There, he immersed himself in nature, much as Thoreau had done more than a centure earlier, and soon began to intuit a sense of design in the grandeur of it all. This discovery informed his spiritual reading, and he found himself coming back time and again to the Bible...
He recieved a veritable calling to study Darwin. This calling took him to Yale where he got his doctorate in religious studies and wrote a book on nineteenth century Darwinian controversies. Not sufficiently armed for the battle that was to come, he took his mission a major step further. In 1989, now a husband and father, the forty-seven-yead-old Wells headed back to Berkley to get a Ph.D in molecular and cell biology.
No mention of his doctorate being recieved in order to overthrow evolution.
"Two years later a friend alerted Wells to a provacative new book called 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson. Wells consumed the book in a gulp and, still in another Gumpian moment, discovered that Johnson was a law professor there at Berkley. Wells called Johnson immediately and invited him to lunch. Intellectual historians may one day trace the beginning of the influential anti-Darwian movement known as "Intelligent Design" to that very lunch, a coming together that Wells does not think was merely a chance meeting.
If at Yale Wells grew to understand the philosophical holes in Darwinism, at Berkley, he began to see the scientific ones, none of which were blacker than the one opened by Earnst Haeckel.
" -Jack Cashill
Anyway, i think that is a sufficient starting point to help you understand how Wells began his dissent from Darwinian evolution.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 09-05-2006 3:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 4:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 20 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2006 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 21 by Clark, posted 09-05-2006 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2006 10:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2006 4:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 44 (346770)
09-05-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wounded King
09-05-2006 4:45 PM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
Sounds pretty explicitly as if he intended to recieve his doctorate in order to recieved in order to 'overthrow evolution' at the behest of Reverend Moon as part of an orchestrated effort. It seems that Mr Cashill is pretty unreliable, he doesn't write for the Washington post does he?
As you can see by his history, Wells was in the field of science long before Moonies were ever around. In fact, he already had a double major, a minor, and a previous Ph.D before he went back to Berkley for his second. The dumbest thing he's ever done was to except a "love bomb" from the Moonies.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2006 4:45 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 6:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2006 7:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (346860)
09-05-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
09-05-2006 6:50 PM


Re: Wells, liar or not?
As noted before, NJ, it is reasonably easy to see if Wells is a reliable source of information or not.
Did he or did he not misquote here
I'm not sure who is even quoting here; Mark Perakh? Anyway, I don't know what is contained in the accusers book nor do I know what is contained in Wells book. From another excerpt, it reads:
Wells alleged quoting: From my experience both with Marxism and with the realities of the Soviet system, I can assert that . it is ID advocates whose behavior is reminiscent of the oppressive Soviet regime” since they subject Darwinists to “continuous denunciations, verbal assaults, derision, and ultimately to dismissal from their positions.”
Claimants alleged quoting: "From my experience both with Marxism and with the realities of the Soviet system, I can assert that in the dispute between the Intelligent Design advocates and their opponents, including pro-evolution scientists, it is ID advocates whose behavior is reminiscent of the oppressive Soviet regime."
The claimant asserts that Wells deliberately placed the claimants words in such a manner so as to mislead readers, which would obviously be tantamount to deception. I can't say what's true or not true at this point, but if it were true it would certainly diminish Well's credibility.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 6:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (346864)
09-05-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Wounded King
09-05-2006 7:50 PM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
Wow! I can actually hear you steadily shifting the goalposts. How come this strong claim has been abandoned with no accession as to its falsity, but instead we have these protestations that you are still right because Wells already had a degree in which biology was a minor.
Why not read what Wells himself wrote, admit that you were mislead by Cashill's account and move on from there. Or if you don't believe that Wells wrote it give us some reason why not.
No, what I'm telling you is that it doesn't matter to me whether he seeks to eradicate Darwinism at all, especially when Darwinists want to eradicate Intelligent Design. Both sides thinks the other is a destructive heresy and both sides feel that hearts and mnds are at risk. However, if Wells aleged misquote was intentionally manipulative, that is another matter entirely. But his opinion on evolution shouldn't shock anyone, least of evolutionists, who seek the exact same goal in reverse.
And to clarify, my objection was that people claimed that Wells had no prior knowledge of evolution prior to becoming a Moonie. This is ridiculous. The man had already Ph.D's beforehand. Obviously, they want to paint this picture of a man who made a flippant decision based on little to no facts prior, even though he already held a Ph.D in biology. That would be absurd.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2006 7:50 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2006 1:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 44 (346968)
09-06-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2006 10:45 PM


Motives and agendas
I notice that he claims on the cover of his book that ID is not based on religious beliefs.
quote:
:"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
--- William Dembski
quote:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
--- Philip Johnson
You're trying to make it illegal to believe in God and anything else as if it were some how a conflict of interest. Anyone can believe as they do. All of these proponents believe in some form of Higher Being and they don't need to apologize for those beliefs. Its a real simple deduction that leaves us with two options from which to choose: Life is either intentional or unintentional. They believe that a Higher Cognizance intentionally created the material world, whereas you believe that nothing created the material world. When you keep reducing what evolution and ID are, the major split is found right here in the simplest of philosophies. So, please explain why its criminal to believe that God is science or that science is modeled after His design? SETI and panspermists also fall under the Intelligent Design umbrella. Why not the same outrage against them for coming to their conclusions that run counter to your time-honored beliefs?
That is not the allegation which has been made against him. What was claimed is that he repeats the standard "evolution is an atheist theory" trash. Now the creationist in the street can be half-forgiven for reciting this rubbish, but Wells must surely know who his opponents are.
I too believe the heart of the evolutionary theory to be atheistic. Absolutely, and without apology I believe that. That doesn't mean that people can't try and cut and paste God where they want, however, once they learn that evolution espouses a directionless and capricious display, they might be less inclined to try to make God fit in their small margin of possible intent. Most evo's believe that the universe spawned from a state of nothingness. No room for a Creator. Most evo's believe that life originated at random from a few simple chemical compounds: A Creator had nothing to do with it. Most evo's believe that changes for inexplicable reasons are separate from any percieved intent. No room for a Creator here either. In fact, one must 'create' in order to be a 'Creator,' so please explain to me where exactly a Creator fits within any evolutionary-laden theories, then explain to me how somehow couldn't come to the conclusion that isn't an atheistic doctrine at heart.
Wells and I are worlds apart doctrinally. I think the Moonies are basically a cult and there is nothing theologically that I find myself in agreement with him. However, we can't undermine the man's work in his field, just like my diagreement with Eugenie Scott doesn't mean that I can't recognize her hard won efforts in her field.
Well, may we at least say that what he teaches is "based on known falsehoods"? to quote the disgustingly mendacious phrase from the cover of his book.
What known falsehoods are those. Without specifics its pointless in telling me that. But I'll give you some specifics. Stephen J. Gould reportedly spoke about the Ernst Haeckel frauds in one of his many interviews. He says that what Haeckel did was atrocious and that he had deliberatley exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He decided to chide him for his inaccuracies and outright falsifications. But apparently in a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Gould admits to having prior knowledge of the falsities some 20 years before and said nothing. So, for at least 20 years, Gould and presumably some others knew of the frauds but decided not to spare a generation of students on the demise of recapitulation. That's an omission too great to simply dismiss.
quote:
I could just as easily say that you're lying about being a conservative christian republican because nothing you say is even remotely akin to those time-honored beliefs.
Really?
quote:
:"It is mystifying that many conservative Christian Bible colleges and seminaries also seem to loathe creationists."
--- Jonathan Sarfati
I've never met any self-avowed fundamental Christians, (beside's Jar), that found itself in disagreement with creationism, either on the basis of scientific principles or theological aspects.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2006 10:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 09-06-2006 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2006 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 09-06-2006 4:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (347002)
09-06-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Wounded King
09-06-2006 1:54 AM


Re: The criminal conduct of J. Wells
How wilfully ignorant can you be!!! Read the bloody link!!! Where does your Bizzaro world timeline where Wells has 2 Ph.Ds before becoming a moonie even come from? In Wells' own article on the subject he makes it quite clear that he joined the unification church in 1976, 2 years before first entering a Ph.D program.
No, the assertion was that Wells had no exposure to the theory of evolution prior to joining the Moonies. You're asserting that Wells was tricked by the Moonies, as if he had no objections of his own or that he was incapable of rationalizing on his own merits. This is what I'm objecting to. As for my timeline, I was incorrect. I stated that Wells already had a biolgy degree before joining the Moonies. That's true. But I also said that he already had 1 Ph.D prior to joining the Moonies and that his second Ph.D came later. That was incorrect.
"According to Darwin's theory, however, the whole history of life is the outcome of random variations and survival of the fittest. Although some features of living organisms (such as eyes) appear to be designed, Darwin claimed that this is only an illusion. Living things are the result of an essentially directionless process, and we are merely the accidental by-product of blind natural forces which did not have us in mind. When I finished my Yale Ph.D., I felt confident that I understood the theological basis of the conflict between Darwinism and theism.
But Darwinism was clearly winning the ideological battle in the universities, the public schools, and the mass media, largely because it claimed to be supported by scientific evidence. I knew enough about biology to know that this claim was quite shaky, but few scientists were willing to challenge it. Those who did were often lumped together with young-earth biblical fundamentalists and thereby discredited in the eyes of most scholars.
I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program, this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While there, I studied embryology and evolution."
-Johnathan Wells
If you actually have an objection to the veracity of that link, if you suspect that Wells did not write it, then say so and maybe explain why. Otherwise you just seem to be stuck in denial.
I was questioning the veracity of it at first, but had to review his previous works first. After reviewing a few of his other articles, the writing style seems to match up pretty well. I believe that Wells wrote that article.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2006 1:54 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2006 3:57 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