Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neither Evolution nor Creation are
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 72 (5463)
02-25-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
02-25-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
It has to be a great conspiracy!
BTW, I can back up my claims. Just ask.

I think the conspiracy is more serious than even you suggest Schrafinator. No one has ever observed Stephen Jay Gould and Benny Hinn together. The idea that they may be separate people is "only a theory" and I need evidence - real hard solid evidence, not bald assertions or inferences - that they different.
Hinn's haircut is clearly the product of advanced design - it is highly complex and highly specified, and more significantly, the probability of it occurring by chance (say, after a rough night's sleep) are vanishingly small. But his congregations are made up of the poor and needy, so they couldn't possibly donate sufficient funds to pay for the immaculate grooming.
I suggest that the most likely candidate is a highly successful, highly paid popular author: the cunning part of the conspiracy is that by hiding behind a mask of Darwinism, the polar opposite of all he really stands for, Gould-Hinn diverts all possible suspicion.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 02-25-2002 9:21 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 1:15 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 12 of 72 (5474)
02-25-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert
02-25-2002 1:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!
I love this argument about direct observation: one can imagine all these creationists refusing to believe anything until it can be directly observed.
Take, for example, a medicinal trial. Would they say that Lansoprazole cannot be proved to reduce stomach acid unless they can actually observe it having an effect on the cells involved? I mean, they would actually need to see the chemical doing its work directly with a microscope that can work at the molecular level — none of this inferential stuff.
quote:
Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false. He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.
As for the grand conspiracy theory about scientists being out of a job if evolution was proved false — far from it, they would have research grants aplenty to explore the exciting new field of creation science. But surely Robert isn’t serious about his point. Would he look at the power and wealth of the mainstream Christian church through the ages and conclude that it was a vast conspiracy to keep its clergy in work? It’s such an unworthy topic to raise: that’s why I felt obliged to poke fun at it in an earlier post.
(Actually, I note that Robert mentions Mark, gene, and Schrafinator by name, but misses me out. I suspect this is because he knows I have seen the truth about this conspirancy. His refusal to counter me suggests he is afraid of the debate. On the other hand if he does debate with me, I could take Phillip Johnson’s line and claim this is the kind of topic Creationists are willing to discuss so it must be worthy of consideration. http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_011202.htm)
quote:
Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions: Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?
At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.

What test? A test of absolute observability that only applies to this interpretation of this area of science?
What you need is a test for which:
a: the biblical account succeeds but evolution fails;
b: is applicable to other areas of science, with the same results (if they fail the test, they are not scientific).
And a definition of what you would regard as evidence towards this test would help.
Meanwhile, I still await observable evidence (in accordance with the definition you give above) that Benny Hinn and Stephen Jay Gould are separate people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 1:15 PM Robert has not replied

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


Message 16 of 72 (5509)
02-26-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert
02-25-2002 11:11 PM


Robert, you’re obviously serious and I was facetious— I apologise. Let’s look at your suggestions seriously. I’ve re-ordered some of your quotes to suit the flow of my counter-argument.
[b] [QUOTE] Whenever a theory is labelled "scientific" it carries an authority that cannot be denied by the common man. [/b][/QUOTE]
Society as a whole tends to seek authority for its views — most people frankly can’t be bothered thinking through everything for themselves. Sometimes it’s the church, sometimes it’s Science, sometimes it political dogma. And you know, it’s pretty cool to have people look up to you and respect your authoritative views scientists are only human and fall for it as much as churchmen and politicians. Frankly, I prefer a position of complete skepticism of authority of all kinds.
[b] [QUOTE] According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "science" is defined as: "...A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain..."[/b][/QUOTE]
This is only one of the 5 main definitions the OED gives, but it is a reasonable one to choose and I won’t quibble overly, though I think the OED definition is inadequate for modern usage. I don’t have access to a recent copy to see if it has been updated. Your own specific use of the definition also led me to mistakenly interpret the points you were trying to make.
[b] [QUOTE] According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal (obviously such an "observation" is impossible!) Neither have evolutionists demonstrated that a single-celled animal has the ability to "create" a multi-celled animal.[/b][/QUOTE]
You do emphasize the observation don’t you? And you use demonstrated in a context that implies scientists would need to show a single celled animal becoming multi-celled in order to be scientific valid. But that is not what the definition says about demonstration — it does not say science is about demonstrating, but about a connected body of demonstrated truths more or less colligated by being brought under general laws.
In the case of evolution, a demonstrated truth could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution, colligated by chemical and physical laws governing genetic order, fossilization, dating and so on. Trustworthy methods would naturally include the inferential logic used in other fields of science and proven by observation and demonstration to be suitable for the discovery of new truth in those domains.
It’s pretty scientific by the definition you have chosen.
[b] [QUOTE] Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities [/b][/QUOTE]
To me this does suggest a collusion or conspiracy. Perhaps you menat something more innocent, but your tone belies this.
[b] [QUOTE] Evolutionists have created their own type of fundamentalism. [/b][/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this? I’m really not sure. Do they take texts literally?
[b] [QUOTE] What got me thinking about this is the recent PBS series on Evolution. I noticed that little or no evidence was produced that scientifically (that is observation or demonstration) proved evolution. [/b][/QUOTE]
Yeh, I saw this too — it was pathetic. I thought it was just the poor editorial standards of American television. But its discussion of evolution was no worse than CNN’s coverage of the current war or some of the so called factual documentaries on the History channel. I think this is just a case of incompetence rather than conspiracy.
[b] [QUOTE] Apparently I am being labelled a "Creationist" here[/b][/QUOTE]
Surely you can forgive us for that — you made no particular distinction between your position and the creationist one in your post.
[b] [QUOTE] At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal[/b][/QUOTE]
Can you give a definition of noble that fits? If so, post it back and I’ll get started on this one — it should be fun.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 11:11 PM Robert has not replied

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


Message 29 of 72 (5584)
02-26-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Robert
02-26-2002 12:43 PM


[QUOTE][b]Yes, I agree that it is "cool" for someone to look up to you and respect your authority. However, such can be abused, and it is the abuse that is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Sure — and the abuse of authority by churches and religious bodies is wrong too, if and when it occurs? I presume you agree. [QUOTE][b]I will have to take odds with you about this quote of yours:
In the case of evolution a 'demonstrated truth' could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution...
There are clearly similarities and differences between species. It is begging the question to say that because there are similarities between species that evolution must be true. The differences could be irreconcilable.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I agree completely. I didn’t say that the similarities prove evolution - I said the relationship of species could be a demonstrated truth. Much more is needed — including general laws governing the possible processes, observations etc.
It could be the case that a demonstrated truth of related species could not be connected with other demonstrated truths and other observations and could not be colligated with these under general laws. [QUOTE][b]As to the second part, the succession of forms is purely a biased reading of the fossil record. If, for example, one hundred years from now a scientist digs up the skelaton of the Elephant Man he could conclude that he has found a new species. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
He would be a very poor scientist indeed if he did — but it’s just a bad example! The taxonomy of fossils is an extremely detailed study which proceeds using the same techniques as have been applied to living species - it includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain from our OED definition. (DNA fingerprinting has revolutionized the techniques of taxonomy for living species — sadly not applicable for fossil species.)
Identification of species isn’t really the problem — identifying the relationships between species found is the issue, especially related species found at exclusively different time periods. There are those (generally Young-earthers) who argue that the time periods are illusory — and there are those (transformed cladists) who argue that even if true, no inference of descent can be drawn.
However, in the first case the Young-Earthers must reject methods which have proved trustworthy (not foolproof, but trustworthy) in other fields, which fall under general laws, and which are to some degree demonstrably accurate.
In the second case, transformed cladists have to reject inferential reasoning which has proven trustworthy — not foolproof in other fields. (Personally I have a lot of time for transformed cladists: the approach appeals to my skepticism.)
To reject evolution as mistaken is one thing — as unscientific is quite another. I think the above examples clearly show that evolution is assessed on a scientific footing. The processes used in studying evolution seem scientific in every respect.
[b] [QUOTE]"...physical laws governing genetic order..." woould be a good demonstration of evolution if such can be proved. So, again, I will rephrase my question:
How can you genetically prove that a single-celled animal can become a multi-celled animal over time? [/b][/QUOTE]
The physical laws I was referring to cover such things as the chemical bonds in DNA. I was trying to point out that genetics is governed by these laws proven in other fields, thus the study of genetics in evolution is colligated under (not proved by) these laws. Thus, if I claimed that evolution depended on a process that required one atom of Hydrogen to bond to 4 of Carbon, I would be unscientific because I was breaking laws which govern the process.
Special creation tends to break such physical laws because it requires interactions with supernatural forces not which — by definition — can not be colligated. This is one of the reasons special creation as an explanation is not scientific.
Inferring that a single-celled animal can be become multi-celled is not unscientific. But let me be clear, I have no concern to prove evolution — I am concerned with whether the processes used to infer it, study it and evaluate it are sound. Perhaps someone else will answer your question with an answer rooted in genetics: it’s not an area I have much interest in.
[b] [QUOTE]Inferential logic used in other fields of science? Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?[/b][/QUOTE]
Firstly I am not at all sure what you mean by Darwinian Logic - if you elaborate I will respond. Perhaps a separate thread for the logic of Darwinism?
Secondly, you get to this topic via inferential logic used in other fields of science — this is one of the reasons I half-heartedly objected to your use of the OED definition of science. For example, recent definitions in the Encarta dictionary give study of the physical world, systematic body of knowledge, and something studied or performed methodically. With this one can more accurately delineate Political Science from Physical Science.
Thirdly, the political implications. You mentioned this in an earlier post on another topic and I thought hard about whether to respond. I decided it best not to as I assumed you were lashing out thoughtlessly at being flamed. But I cannot ignore this now, can I?
Looking carefully at your comments in this mail, I am not sure you even have a point to make here — though you seem to be trying to suggest that I hold Darwinism responsible for some political ills:
[b] [QUOTE]I want to emphasize that I have never used Social Darwinism as a means of refuting Evolution, but your statements seem to indicate that evolution has some kind of responsibility in inciting some of the greatest buthers history has ever seen. [/b][/QUOTE]
I assume this is an honest mistake and you have either misread me or confused me with someone else who did suggest that the theory of evolution has some kind of responsibility. It’s easily done in a busy forum, so a simple word of apology will suffice.
(Counts to 100 before continuing )
You will understand that there is no logic in moving from a descriptive statement to a prescriptive statement. American kids are fatter than Scottish kids has no implication whatsoever unless one adds new premises to it — such as being fat is a bad thing and something should be done to mitigate bad things. But none of this follows from the purely descriptive statement American kids are fatter than Scottish kids. And of course, even the new premises contain no information that can logically say what to do about it.
If Hitler or anyone else adds premises to an argument then they are responsible for the truth of the additional premises and the validity of the resulting new argument that follows from adding a new premise.
If Hitler or anyone else wishes to move from description to prescription, that is their responsibility alone.
Evolution is a purely descriptive science — it includes no prescriptions for living.
So, can I ask, do you have a point to make about the application of Darwinism by politicians — tyrants especially? Is there a difference between Hitler’s use of Darwinism and the use of holy scripture by the inquisition, the witch-hunters, the conquistadores, or Cromwell in Ireland amongst others?
[b] [QUOTE]Fundamentialism is more than taking a text literally. It is a closed mindset that only sees the world thought its rather limited set of presupposed values. There is also a narcissistic tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human. Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.[/b][/QUOTE]
Are you saying that evolutionists have a tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human? You cheeky monkey!
I think we can both agree that evolutionists can be arrogant and pompous — like any other group of our fallen species. I don’t know of any evolutionists who would even begin to think along the lines of that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific. There are certainly criticisms of evolution which are non-scientific — special creation for one, but any evolutionary biologist worthy of a degree should be able to comprehend the possibility of scientific objections to evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends[/b][/QUOTE]
.
Sounds fine to me. Churchmen and scientists of many persuasions (including palaeontologists) and biologists, have often striven to achieve knowledge at the expense of their health, welfare and careers.
[b] [QUOTE]In seeking to serve God[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah — not seeking objective truth, then.
[b] [QUOTE]by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal.[/b][/QUOTE]
The argument from bathos is not one I have come across in the field of evolutionary debate before. However, I would like to start another thread on this issue of the motivation of scientists — I’ll think of a first post and get it started tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:43 PM Robert has not replied

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


Message 58 of 72 (5699)
02-27-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
I may be missing a bit about how you define "relationship of species": I do not think that such could be a demonstrated truth of evolution.
I'm not saying relationship is a demonstrated truth of evolution: I'm saying relationship is a demonstrated truth. That scientists use this and other demonstrated truths in combination with observations and trustworthy techniques is what makes evolution scientific.
[b] [QUOTE]A demonstrated truth, in my opinion, would be an actual showing of how the evolutionary process works without recourse to "millions of years and natural selection."[/b][/QUOTE]
So, to complete my earlier point, to be scientific in the definition you proposed, we do not need a demonstrated truth of evolution for the study of evolution to be scientific.[b] [QUOTE]Nebraska Man, who was entered into the record as proof of evolution in the Scopes trial, was found to have been conjured up from a 20 year old dead pig![/b][/QUOTE]
It's such an old example of a fraud, hardly worthy mentioning. There are plenty of fraudulent fossils out there today, especially on the chinese market, and I found some moroccan "trilobites" for sale in Seattle at the weekend. These fossil frauds are, in the main, exposed by evolutionists - precisely because they are examining the taxonomy so minutely.[b] [QUOTE]Much of the debate over the fossil record that I have read is based entirely on the subjective view of the scientist who is examining the evidence. The debate over Ambulocetus, for example, is characteristic of this inane arguing about something that existed long ago, cannot be observed swimming or walking about now, but is "obvious proof" of a transitional form. It is all in the interpretation, and interpretation is heavily influenced by one's own presuppositions.[/b][/QUOTE]
I think you are mistaken about the nature of intepretation, or how interpretation is conducted in science.
Firstly, interpretation is used in all sciences - even the most rigorous, repeatable experiment needs its results interpreted to understand what went on during the process under examination. The argument "it is just interpretation" is no argument at all - except for those who wish to pursue an extreme skpetical position about any inferential claims.
Secondly, it is one of the joys of paleontology and, to a lesser extent, biology, that every interpretation is open to a barrage of critical scrutiny. Perhaps you could read some of the recent work on early hominids: you will find that it is not a question of one scientist saying "this is a transitional form which signifies X" and the community applauds and sits back satisfied. The claim will be countered, rival interpretations posited, the very nature of "X" called in to question, the competence of the dating queried, the integrity of the finder, every scratch on the bone interpreted and challenged. I like this process - it is rigorous, demanding, always open to reinterpretation (the analysis of fossil evidence is very often revisited to test for its fit for new hypotheses) and its often stressful for those involved.
I don't think the jibe, "it's only intepretation" does justice to it.
[b] [QUOTE]I do not have a problem if you consider evolution simply as a hypothesis to be proved. I have a problem when people try to shove it down my throat without providing proper reasons for doing such an act.[/b][/QUOTE]
I would object to someone shoving it down my throat even if it was perfectly and incontrovertibly provable! Being raised in a traditional presbyterian community I know all about having dogma imposed and, believe me, the teaching of evolution is far less oppressive. But tell me, how is evolution "shoved down your throat" - how does the teaching of evolution, for example, differ from the teaching of other subjects in the scientific field, or subjects in the humanities?
[b] [QUOTE]I retract my statements concerning social darwinism and humbly beg your forgiveness.[/b][/QUOTE]
No problem. Thanks for the apology.[b] [QUOTE]I would not say that they think their opponents "less than human" but to criticize someone as "non-scientific" simply because he/she disagrees with your theory is a part of the fundamentalistic mindset.[/b][/QUOTE]
The word "simply" here is an example of what Antony Flew calls the Fallacy of the Quasi-refuting Description. Clearly if the only basis for rejecting a view as scientific was because it was different then science couldn't proceed at all. But the reason for rejecting some creationist arguments as unscientific isn't "simple" and isn't to do with the fact of disagreement - it is the nature and grounds for the disagreement which can lead to the label "unscientific."
Of course, there are many shades of creationism so we shouldn't be using too broad a brush here. Let's try to be more specific: creationism tends to become unscientific when it fails to build upon the definition of science you presented earlier - demonstrated truths, accordance with general laws, trustworthy techniques, observations and demonstrations.
For instance, an "a priori" appeal to scriptural infallibility is unscientific if it requires a literal interpretation of the creation passages, because their explanations cannot be brought under general laws.
Scripture may be correct in every detail - but to assume it is correct and therefore reject any evidence which would contradict it is not scientific. My reading of the statement of principle on the Answers in Genesis website is that they do take such a view, and as such their approach is not scientific. Is that an unfair application of the term?
On the other hand, there may be scientific approaches which are mistaken - sometimes hopelessly so. Bad science, perhaps, can still be science.[b] [QUOTE]Alot of the arguing between evolutionists and creationists can be boiled down to this:
Evolutionist: You are non-scientific
Creationist: You are an atheist
The difference is only in the phraseology.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Not quite. And again you are sneaking in an "only" when in fact the linguistic difference between the two phrases is complex.
One can be scientific purely by the rigorous application of techniques without giving up any transcendental beliefs, so asking a creationist to take a scientific approach is possible and - when discussing matters scientific - reasonable.
Being a believer is not a matter of technique, but of faith. Faith cannot be turned on and off, or conscioulsy adopted, in the way a scientific approach can be.
Nice exchange, BTW. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:19 AM Robert has not replied

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


Message 65 of 72 (5817)
02-28-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Robert
02-27-2002 4:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
There is much to reply to here and I do not believe that I will get to all of it.
I annunderstand that - I'm busy too. I'm just going to cherry pick some points from this post of yours ... [b] [QUOTE]In 1871 St. George Mivart wrote this criticism:[/b][/QUOTE]
Mivart did actually believe in evolution. he had a particular problem, however, with the evolution of mankind, who he regarded to be morally unique and therefore, a priori, a product of special creation by God. Interesting trivial factlet - Darwin responded to Mivart's criticisms in the 6th edition of "Origin", and this was the first time Darwin used the word "evolution" in his book, following Mivart's use[b] [QUOTE]M. W. Ho and P.T. Sunders point out:[/b][/QUOTE]
An interesting pair. Saunders is a critic of neo-Darwinism, but proposes alternative formulations of evolution, particularly through his "Daisyworld" mathematical model which is one of the more interesting artificial life models. M W Ho is a fine scientists - one of the most trenchant critics of genetic engineering, especially of genetically-engineered farming. In one of her recent papers, she talks of the difference between the regulatory process of genetic engineering and the natural regulatory process of plants: "This regulatory system has evolved over hundreds of millions of years."
[b] [QUOTE]In 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia a symposium was held with leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution[/b][/QUOTE]
Cool. Have you read the proceedings of the symposium? If you pick out little quotes from them as some of the creationist web sites have done you might draw the conclusion that they were rubbishing evolution. Very far from it - their conclusions concern the neo-Darwinist model and whether it sufficiently explains the observable evidence of evolution. This is similar to the position taken by Saunders. The symposium was headed by Peter Medawar, a Nobel prize winning mathematician who very clearly did believe in evolution. Have a read of his paper on the future mental evolution of man, it's quite interesting in itself and shows clearly enough his interest in evolutionary processes ... http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Medawar/future-of-man.html.
Your quotes so far have underminded some of your previous arguments:
: shown that debate is lively in the field of evolution, though you were suggesting in an earlier post that debate is somehow stifled or monopolized;
: shown that people who disagree with the orthodox view can indeed work successfully in the field of science and indeed rise to its highest levels.
Your further quotes just show this even more.[b] [QUOTE]I am now going out on a limb and am going to quote some "juicy" ones that I have found in Creationist books. (I would like to remind those reading that I do not believe everything that creationists teach ...[/b][/QUOTE]
It's going to be a bit pointless digging into these then?
[b] [QUOTE]Theistic Evolutionist Dr. Philip Johnson[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh boy! Evolutionist?! He's going to love for you that. And he's a lawyer too - if you need help with your defence fund, I'll contribute a dollar or two.
[b] [QUOTE]Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. ... Proponents of the theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin[/b][/QUOTE]
Now what did we say in an earlier post about political uses of scientific theories?
Actually, Lynn Margulis is a very active and compelling proponent of the Gaia hypothesis and opposes neo-Darwinism on several grounds. If I can summarize her work in a sentence it would be that Darwinism is too competitive (thus the references to its capitalistic, cost-benefit approach) and that evolution is more likely the result of symbiotic relations between organisms. She talks of life as "a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe." I admire her work enormously, BTW.[b] [QUOTE]I have found an unbiased scientist (Mivart quoted above) saying that evolution is incompetant.[/b][/QUOTE]
Not unbiased - he believed a priori in the special creation of man.[b] [QUOTE]I have an evolutionist (Ho and Saunders) saying that there is no evidence that backs up the major premises of evolution - just evidence that proves the "minutiae of evolution." [/b][/QUOTE]
No. They say neo-Darwinism cannot explain it. Of course they think their own evolutionary mechanisms can.[b] [QUOTE]I have a theistic-evolutionist proving that the "evidence" currently provided for evolution cannot even stand up in a court of Law.[/b][/QUOTE]
But for calling him an evolutionist you might have to!
[b] [QUOTE]Finally, I have two highly respected non-creationist biochemists who claim that neo-Darwinism "is a complete funk".[/b][/QUOTE]
Do read work by Lynn Margulis, please. She rocks! http://www.temple.edu/CFS/margulis.htm [b] [QUOTE]And you guys want me to think that evolution is factual? I very much respect and admire you all, but at least you can now see the basis of my skepticism.[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh do be a skeptic. Just apply that skepticism fairly to all alternatives. Special Creation collapses when examined with the same skeptical scrutiny as you are applying to Darwinian evolution.
Good post, Robert. I do hope you find time to follow up some reading at least on Margulis, Ho and Saunders, and Medawar.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 4:27 PM Robert has not replied

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


Message 69 of 72 (5972)
03-02-2002 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Robert
03-01-2002 11:50 PM


Robert, I for one appreciate the time you take to reply courteously to a barrage of responses.
I'm not sure you can wriggle out of the accusation that you were "arguing from authority" in your previous post.
quote:
If I was making an argument against evolution based solely on what "such and such" said, then I think that the logical fallacy applies.
Indeed it would. Speaking for myself as one who responded to your post of quotations, I felt you were trying to undermine the principle of evolution by picking quotes - including some from a number of scientists who in fact were convinced that evolution does indeed occur and explains the diversity and forms of life we all enjoy and wonder at today.[b] [QUOTE]However, I was not so arguing against evolution. My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution - so please do not be defensive and try to pidgeonhole me with creationists. I am not.[/b][/QUOTE]
I think you'll see why we thought you were attacking evolution if you look at simply one phrase from your post.
[b] [QUOTE]After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution[/b][/QUOTE]
The first half misrepresents their conclusions - they cocnluded that there was insufficient time for evolution by natural selection. By being so selective you twist their statement into an attack on evolution itself. I think this may be what Allison means by out-of-context, but she is well able to answer for herself.
I think that to take a stand against evolution in one post ("To show the scientific history of the denial of evolution" as you say) and then step back from that to say "My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution" is somewhat ambiguous at best.
I am surprised you say of Mivart "Has any darwinian evolutionist even attempted to respond to his critique?" In my own reply I pointed out that Darwin himself responded to Mivcart in the 6th edition of Origin of Species. Mivart's criticisms remain the most trenchant of all, and are certainly raised in the university level evolutionary biology classes I know of.[b] [QUOTE]The point is that if scientists who have studied Darwin's Theory and have found it "incompetant", "unsatisfying" and "in a complete funk" why then should I believe it?[/b][/QUOTE]
The point is surely that you should try to understand why they don't believe it and attempt to understand what it is they believe. Remember, much of what you quoted were attacks on Darwin's "natural selection" not "evolution." Evolution is not Darwin's.
I myself have serious doubts as to whether natural selection can account for the diversity of life we find today, though I should say I have little doubt it is the main element in ensuring "fitness." I certainly am not a Darwinian - but I do find the evolution of species absolutely convincing and wonderful.
[b] [QUOTE]When evolutionists themselves state that there are no scientific reasons to believe in evolution why, then is it being forced down the throat of every schoolchild in America as "scientific fact"?[/b][/QUOTE]
That's a strange statement and I think very misleading. Do you have an example of an evolutionist saying such a thing? Are you referring to the Lewontin quote?
If you would like to elaborate on this point, I would very much like to respond. I'll leave the others to respond to the points you raised regarding their posts.
Have a good weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Robert, posted 03-01-2002 11:50 PM Robert 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