Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 231 (286729)
02-15-2006 12:39 AM


nwr, in message 4 of this topic, writes:
For ease of reference, the earlier thread on this topic was Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?.
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 think you need to admit when you're wrong. I have the program TiVo'd, I listened to it very carefully for portions that touched on your claims, I earlier transcribed portions of it, and Watson and Wilson do not make any comments about mutation and randomness in the first 30 minutes. There's no mention of random mutations, no mention of the origin of life, no use of the word "autonomously".
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.html
Since 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 9:39 AM randman has replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 02-15-2006 11:12 AM randman has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 231 (286732)
02-15-2006 12:45 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 12:56 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 231 (286738)
02-15-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
02-15-2006 12:45 AM


thank you for promoting this
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 02-15-2006 12:45 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 231 (286739)
02-15-2006 1:19 AM


The earlier thread
For ease of reference, the earlier thread on this topic was Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 1:28 AM nwr has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 231 (286741)
02-15-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
02-15-2006 1:19 AM


Re: The earlier thread
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-15-2006 1:19 AM nwr has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 6 of 231 (286807)
02-15-2006 9:04 AM


I still have the written transcript if anyone needs clarification of what is being said.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 10:09 AM Asgara has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2006 10:57 AM Asgara has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 7 of 231 (286819)
02-15-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-15-2006 12:39 AM


Hi Randman,
This is from my Message 254 from the previous thread, Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?:
Percy writes:
By the way, you can see in the above quote where your error in thinking they were discussing the origin of life comes from. He said the "origin of diversity of life", and you must have thought he said, "origin of life." We also find where you probably thought the word "autonomously" was used, since Wilson uses the word "autonomy". Sorry I didn't pick this up the first time I watched the show, but you said they used it when discussing the origin of life, which of course they never did.
I again suggest that you read people's posts all the way through instead of whatever it is you do, skim them or ignore them or whatever.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 12:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 10:18 AM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 231 (286831)
02-15-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara
02-15-2006 9:04 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 02-15-2006 9:04 AM Asgara has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 231 (286837)
02-15-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
02-15-2006 9:39 AM


have you listened to the whole thing?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 9:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 10:53 AM randman has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 231 (286849)
02-15-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
02-15-2006 10:18 AM


Re: have you listened to the whole thing?
I understand you feel wronged, but nitpicking your way through my posts and the interview and making Talmudic distinctions favoring your own point of view is probably not a good use of time.
This from you in Message 1 of the original thread is what I felt was wrong:
Randman writes:
One said that in a lengthy statement and another summarized that with the "no Designer" comment and the other concurred, stating life had "risen autonomously."
But it appears you still misunderstand the nature of my objection. Clearly, Darwin, Watson and Wilson believe that life had arisen in this way. The problem is that neither Watson nor Wilson ever made any such comment as you put quotes around. They never at any point stated that life had risen autonomously. My concern wasn't that you were misrepresenting their views, but that you were misrepresenting the content of the interview. And given your history of misinterpretation, this was of great concern to me.
My other concern was your assertion that they believed they were making scientific statements concerning God. They did not. Had you been present during the interview to make your misinterpretation clear, they would have clarified to say they only meant that in life's processes there is no evidence nor need for a designer. Scientists of their standing well understand the absence of evidence issue.
The big impact of evolution was outside of science in the socio/cultural realm, and this is what they were referring to. It is also what creationists often refer to, as their frequent complaint is evolution's contribution to the moral decline of western culture.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 10:18 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 11:03 AM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 231 (286851)
02-15-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara
02-15-2006 9:04 AM


a bit of the transcript
Can we have the two mintues after Rose says "put Darwin in perspective" (that is about 1 or so minutes in)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 02-15-2006 9:04 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Asgara, posted 02-15-2006 1:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 231 (286854)
02-15-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
02-15-2006 10:53 AM


Re: have you listened to the whole thing?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 11:10 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 13 of 231 (286857)
02-15-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
02-15-2006 11:03 AM


Re: have you listened to the whole thing?
randman writes:
You are just wrong here all the way around.
Okay, I understand you feel this way. I won't argue it with you. You can have free rein in this thread to convince others of how wrong I was. Good luck!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 11:03 AM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 231 (286859)
02-15-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-15-2006 12:39 AM


What possible difference does it make?
Some people believe that Darwin's contributions show that it is possible to account for the life we see without reference to God or even the existence of GOD.
Okay.
Fine.
So what?
The issue is not what was said but that you seem to be bothered by them expressing their opinion. What possible difference does it make? Why would anyone care what they believe?
What is your problem?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 12:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-15-2006 11:29 AM jar has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 231 (286864)
02-15-2006 11:19 AM


btw....
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024