For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview

I didn't find those examples convincing, Mod. You seem to be making too much out of tentative phrases to my ear. But I guess we're just going to disagree about this. I agree. Sounded like evolutionist business as usual to me. A matter of simple fact. I think you must be saying this backwards somehow. And again, it seems to me they pretty clearly said Darwin proved there IS no Designer. I continue to agree with Randman on this. The only kind of Designer there could be after Darwin is the Deistic or theistic evolutionistic kind. They weren't being specific. I think they believe the only rational position is no God at all. I think that's clear enough from what they said. And there's nothing controversial about that to my mind. It's standard since Darwin. OK, I haven't read Behe. Yes, that says it. But I don't have a "hard" view of it in the first place. I can't even imagine Watson giving the slightest nod to the possibility of God except maybe for the sake of PR, or Wilson. I can't hear it any other way. The guys are atheists and they believe that Darwin justified atheism AND I AGREE WITH THEM.That's why I object to evolution, BECAUSE it discounts the true God after all, so there's no reason for me to get upset that they believe what evolutionists have always believed.However, again I'll just add that when they get around to describing what Darwin put together, mutation plus selection, a Creationist doesn't object to that at all. We believe this is the method of variation built into a Kind. What we object to is the theory that all life evolved from some primordial life and that it is purely a biochemical process from beginning to end. Seems to me this is the view of the scientists we are discussing, and they are perfectly right (objectively right) to believe as they do about God, given that they believe this view of how life came about.

Nice post. Naturally we disagree, but nice post! --Percy

They didn't say that, they said that humanity faced a dilemma, that humanity potentially arised by natural means. I agree that Darwin and his contemporaries began the journey of falsifying the concept of special creation. As athiests, obviously they hold this position. However, they don't say that science forces this conclusion logically, nor do they say that evolution proves this in any way. Their beliefs aren't in question. However, they don't say that evolution neccessitates athiesm, only that science is simpler without having to worry about God. Naturally, evolution is the opposite of creationism. Evolution doesn't logically exclude all concepts of God though, only your concept and concepts analagous to it.I think I see what you are saying. Of course Darwin paved the way to refute the God you hold to, but not all gods, including the God of theistic evolution. I know you feel that that God is theologically inconsistent, but those that have faith in that God feel very differently, and feel as strong as you do about their relationship with their God.

Well, thank you Percy, a nod of approval from you is rare and much appreciated. Thanks.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-20-2006 02:31 AM

THe beef is many evos here often refuse to come clean and admit that plenty of very prominent evos that have shaped evolutionary theory do indeed mix religion and science just as we claim.You yourself admit they express themselves fairly clearly on this.The reason for the "nastiness" as you call it is in part due to putting up with outrageous behaviour of evos pretending that such views and men do not exist. It is extremely difficult to get many evos to even admit to the most basic of facts such as what some scientists claim are the implications of evolutionary theory in respect to whether a Creator, Designer, or personal God exist.So we have to have these knock-down drag-out fights just to get the barest of facts admitted to by many evos.That's why I brought up Haeckel's forgeries so much. Many evos just flat out refused and do refuse to admit the drawings were faked; that the ideas presented were wrong, etc,....but just dogmatically assert their claims without any factual basis in reality whatsoever.So from time to time, I find another hard piece of evidence to verify the facts I have claimed, such as Watson and Wilson's words, are as I have said; that I am not lying; that critics of evolutionary theory are not unreasonable or stupid, and that we are bringing up valid and true points.As you can see, the difficulty in getting many evos to admit to anything at all can be astonishingly challenging, even to just admitting the simple fact these men think and state science is incompatible with belief in God.This message has been edited by randman, 02-20-2006 01:32 AM

Rand,Here's the deal. Even if some evos do believe this IT DOESN'T MATTER. Every piece of the theory of evolution is based on evidence. The motivations of the scientists are IRRELEVANT.This is no different than me claming that the discoveries of Issac Newton are invalid or untrustworthy because he was a christian.Are the discoveries of Josef Mengele less valid because he was a Nazi?This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 02-20-2006 02:12 AM

I am happy to discuss where I think evo models don't fit well with the evidence, but it sometimes takes whole threads like this to try to establish even the barest of facts, and even then, there are those insisting these facts don't exist.

Rand,Honestly, I think your main problem is that you focus on the motivations of "evo scientists" like they are some monolithic group. Many contributions have been made to evolutionary science over the years by scientists who were atheists, christians, jews, etc. etc. There is no conspiracy.All you have proven (at least IMO) in this thread is that some scientists can't reconcile evolution with belief in certain gods. This certainly isn't news to me.

I think it is important to establish that there are eminent evolutionists that do believe evolutionary theory excludes the possibility of a Creator, and get that on the record, and I think I have done that, and am in no way overstating things or misrepresenting such evos in that regard. Did anyone ever say there was? There are illogical rules and reasoning, sure, and serious flaws, which create imo some delusional dogmatism among evo proponents, but that is different than conspiracy.

Hey Rand,Thanks for the reply. It looks like SuperNintendo beat me to most of the "punchline" here, but I'd like to add my two cents. Actually, they're not really mixing "religion and science". At least not in this interview. They are expressing personal opinions on this subject. As such, they neither speak for all biologists nor for anyone other than themselves. I've noticed that "believers" (using the term generically) often have difficulty separating personal opinion from science. You've pointed it out yourself repeatedly: Behe for instance does good science (or at least used to) - when he's not trying to mix ID and his ultra-orthodox Catholicism into it. When he expounds on religious topics, he's expressing a personal opinion that has nothing to do with his scientific reasoning. Same with Wilson and Watson in the interview.It might be a fascinating thread (if it hasn't already been done) to explore the philosophical difference between the religious reliance on unquestioned authority vs. the scientific philosophy of "question everything". After all, as I mentioned, despite Wilson's extremely high standing in the biological and especially ecological community, I even disagree with him on some of his scientific findings. For "evos", just because someone is a muckety-muck doesn't mean they're necessarily the be-all and end-all of the science. Nor does it mean that they speak for most (or, for that matter, for any) when they're expressing personal opinions. I honestly still don't get why this upsets you. Of course, why wouldn't I? That's what they said. I strongly doubt that any "evo" ever claimed that no scientists hold and express the view that evolution precludes the existence of god(s). After all, most of us are at least familiar with Dawkins, who's probably the most vocal of that ilk. Doesn't mean it's either true or that many evolutionary scientists don't hold contrasting views. Still don't see why you're so upset about it. I truly don't wish to get involved in another Haeckel argument. Besides being singularly off-topic for this thread, NONE of your interlocutors on this particular subject that I've read here EVER claimed Haeckel DIDN'T fudge his original drawings. George Romanes corrected the drawings as early as 1901 - and they still showed von Baer's original idea (which Haeckel built on) from the early 1800's was valid. IOW, the biogenetic law and Haeckel's "forgeries" were discarded at the turn of the century (19th) - the former because of the discovery of paedomorphic organisms like Ambystoma, and the latter because of the discovery that he'd faked the drawings - but the basic premise was still valid - to a point. Vertebrate classes DO share some common features early in embryonic development. THAT's why Haeckel is still cited - in spite of everything he got wrong, and in spite of committing one of the deadly sins of biology. Get over it. Watson and Wilson's words are not evidence of anything except their personal opinions. I still don't get why this is a problem. At best you're focusing on trivialities, IMO, rather than any substantive critique of evolution. I disagree. The issue with the Rose interview, for example, appears to be your insistance that the personal opinions of some scientists are by definition representative of all scientists. This is simply not the case. Hence the 200+ posts on this thread.

SuperNC, to be fair and since Rand has shown improvement in this area since being admonished about it, Rand did not say "evo scientists," which would be indicitative of monolithically grouping them all. He did prefix the phrase with the word "many."

If your only point was that some people in this world are evolutionists and believe that evolution disproves a God, then there is no contest, no debate and that's that. That wasn't what you were trying to say though. We were discussing what was specifically said in the Rose interview, and that viewpoint isn't really put forward.Your original beef was These two scientists did no such thing, and that is where the disagreement lies. So you are saying that evos demand a much higher standard of evidence and confirmation before they accept an assertion. I know that you aren't saying that of course, but that is basically what we are seeing.These men may think and state that science is incompatible with belief in God, but they never at any point state this during the Charlie Rose interview. I have even pointed out to you that the word 'incompatible' wasn't mentioned by anyone during the entire interview. You are interpreting, reading between the lines so to speak, to arrive at your conclusion, and I don't think that is particularly valid.

No, they are not just expressing personal opinions. They are expressing the view that science excludes the existence of God. They are specifically applying science to religious belief. I could just as easily say belief in evolution, in gravity, in anything is personal opinion as well, but the fact something is personal opinion does not mean it is not a scientific view from the perspective of the person having the opinion. It is their scientific view that evolutionary theory dismisses the concept of a Creator as unreasonable. I know and glad you can do that, but as you can see, many evos have a hard time admitting what was said and not said. Well, the drawings were not discarded until just a few years ago, and there are still evos right here on this forum as recently as last week that insist "the Biogenetic law" is acceptable scientific theory and has not been discarded and that I am somehow lying to suggest that it has! I have never said that. Why do you and others insist that I say all scientists reject belief in God? It seems insane to hear you guys day after day create a straw man to argue with.First, I am trying to establish basic facts, such as Wilson and Watson did say these things. Even though you admit they did, Percy did not and basically called me a liar for saying they did the first time this came around. So before we jump the gun, and you assume you know what I am saying, I really just want to come to some sort of agreement on basic facts, like this guy said this; these were the first depictions of such and such; Haeckel's drawings were wrong and there is no biogenetic law.....really, really basic stuff.But a good portion of evos refuse to accept even the most basic evidentiary claims, such as what is printed or said is printed and said.So really this is not the thread to discuss the significance of their views. I am just trying to set the record straight that they believe science excludes a Creator. On a different thread, we can elaborate on why or whether it is significant, but I have had evos try to say, sort of as you have, that this is personal opinion when in reality it is their scientific view. It is all bundled up together, and imo, it is a large reason why they consider even the notion of introducing evidence for a Designer to be something deeply wrong. They essentially have made evolution a religious belief internally.

Hi Randman,I really don't know why you continue doing this. I have told you that I am willing to correct your misrepresentations as often as you make them, as I will do here again, so I don't know why you keep repeating them. There is nothing for you to gain and much to lose by continuing to falsely smear your opponents. Your claimed that Wilson and Watson made certain statements concerning the origin of life. I listened to the show and found no such statements. That's because they're not there. It is likely that you misunderstood statements regarding "the origin of the diversity of life" to be about the origin of life. This was all explained clearly in Message 79: There's more, but that's sufficient to show that once again you are dead wrong and you're making false charges.Randman, what I would like to do in this thread is discuss the topic, not defend myself against the same false assertion over and over and over again. You have repeatedly demonstrated a very reckless disregard for the truth. I'm sorry that you're still upset that I said your claims that their comments were about the origin of life were wrong, but your claims *were* wrong.You need to stop demonizing those you disagree with and accept reponsibility for your own mistakes. You have to stop interpreting disagreement with you as dishonesty and bias, and you have to recognize when your own mistakes are the cause of your difficulties.--Percy

No, you said you listened closely and that they never mentioned "autonomously" when they did use that word in the form "autonomy" and did so in a context where autonomously would have been grammatically correct.They did specify, contrary to your claims and as others have agreed with me, that they believe science exludes a Designer, a Creator, and a personal God.In terms of the first time I heard the interview, in retrospect, they could be said to refer to evolution after abiogenesis, but their logical point is the same. They claim life arose without a Designer, and so by logic that has to include that God could not have designed the first life form, something Darwin openly suggested as well.Your entire characterization of the interview and the beleifs expressed have been demonstrably proven wrong on this thread.