What are Darwinists so afraid of?

And my reading tells me that abiogenesis is immediately akin to tortoise's famous "purple elephant under the bed."

That isn't really true though. Whether or not abiogenesis happened, the hypothesis that it did does not really rely on null priors. That immediately makes it a far superior hypothesis to the one about a purple elephant living under my bed (c.f. Occam's Razor). Abiogenesis is an argument about probability, not an argument about possibility. Conflating improbable and impossible is a failure of reasoning.

BTW, did you know purple elephants eat Twinkies? I put one next to my bed everyday when I leave for work, and when I get home it is almost always gone.

That's what I like about FR ... an exegesis on bumblebees, a beautiful Lady Physicist, purple pachyderms, and Twinkies, all within a few posts of each other. And all that for a discussion on the nature of the Universe and or abiogenesis while a doodler or three toss in Bible references. Whatta place!

In text books taught to kids in public schools you have various drawings showing the slow evolution of one type animal into another over supposed millions of years. TOE doesn't call for instance a fish to jump into a land animal. It calls for a slow process which if were true would be very obvious in many fossils. That's just not the case...it would be good if you guys would at least admit that.

If Yockey's insights are correct, then not only is the soup course over, but the whole banquet is over.

And if pigs had wings....I have already explained, twice I believe, why Yockey's insights are based on assumptions that have been known to be false for thirty years. As an information scientist would put it, GIGO.

But I will check beyond what has been posted. Who knows, maybe he has corrected his assumptions. Thank you for the suggestion.

You know, if I had infinite time and energy I'd like to go on with this debate, because your arguments are mostly rational and not excessively rude. However, after answering a few of your points I will bow out, because this could go on forever and this thread has long outlived its usefulness. I think crevo threads are generally useless, anyway! No one's mind is ever changed, and many people who frequent them seem to regard them as a playground to assert their feelings of mental superiority.

This "no true Scotsman" slogan seems popular with your side, but proves nothing. Jim Jones was a cult leader, not a Christian, at least by the time he formed the People's Temple and Jonestown. The marks of a cult are well described elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. The basic beliefs of Christianity are laid out in the New Testament, so you can compare them with Jones' heretical policies. The doctrines of the People's Temple were not based on the NT. Period.

The Salem witch trials may have used Biblical references, because that was the cultural milieu of the time. However, it was a civil trial, AFAIK. It was a product of a benighted, prescientific era. Like many other Christians, I regard mingling of government and church as anathema, not just because it infringes on religious freedom, but because compelling church membership (as in many countries with established churches) and allying government with religion corrupts the church. Most of the great crimes sometimes attributed to Christians were committed by established churches in cahoots with corrupt governments. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is one reason the Constitution forbids establishment of a national church. (Some have said that the church is purest and most authentic when it is a persecuted minority. However, an underground church can't have much of a benevolent effect on society at large, which is what Christianity is supposed to do.)

If you read the recent biography of Keppler (Keppler's Witch), you can see that the attack on his mother simply used witchcraft as a pretext. The motives were personal and financial, not theological--in other words, good old envy, which also happens to be the foundation of much anti-Semitism and most Leftist movements.

As for lightning rods, vaccination, etc.: There is no Christian doctrine forbidding any of those things. Again, Christianity is the teachings of Jesus, not what individual self-described Christians do. Jesus spent much of his ministry healing people of physical disease. Why would he ever oppose healing people today? If I had time, I could dig up some of the names of the many physicians who were devout Christians. I have already posted about the many hospitals and universities founded by Christians. You don't paint a true picture by ignoring that and focusing on a few instances of behavior by ignorant people in cultural backwaters or long ago.

Someone else accused me of bashing a whole string of scientific specialists. Believe it or not, my education and work career were in one of those fields. I have great respect for scientists, esp. if their work has some social utility and is not merely an intellectual game played for their entertainment at taxpayers' expense. I don't seek to challenge the scientific validity of the TofE. I only post occasionally on crevo threads because I get outraged at 1) the nasty attacks on fellow Christians, 2) the posting of things which would not be in the least bit out of place on some leftist forum like DU, and 3) absurdly hyperbolic arguments alleging that evolution is the keystone of modern science.

I sometimes wonder where all the traditionalist conservatives have gone. As one myself, I worry about any further erosion of the foundations of our society, which is based on Judeo-Christian values, not on science, let alone the TofE. Yet the moral basis of good citizenship has been completely hounded out of our schools, while some people who claim to be conservatives are enraged only by the feeblest of challenges to the TofE, something which was not even considered secondary school material in my day (and not on religious grounds, either). As others have said, why must Christians always be the ones giving way? Anyone who wants to learn evolution, or teach it to his children, can do so outside the schools. My tiny village public library has several books by Stephen J. Gould, for example.

A pro-evolution poster noted that evolution was too complex for most people to fully understand. I agree. That's one reason it is not really suitable for teaching at the middle school level. As you yourself say, your son's class material on evolution was cursory and oversimplified. Wouldn't it be better if he got more time spent on truly essential, basic math and science? Why not do some experiments which yield clear-cut, reproducible results right there in class, rather than teach material which relies on extrapolation, inference, and application of many basic sciences which the students haven't learned yet? "Oversimplified" scientific theories open the door to pop crackpot science, like Al Gore's hysterical stuff.

"That’s silly for any number of reasons. Here are a few: there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that claims that man is indistinguishable from animals."

My point is that that there is nothing in that theory which DOES affirm that man is in any way different from any other animal, and the idea that he is not has been banished from the classroom, for the first time in our nation's history. Dawkins, who is a real evolutionary scientist, not a crackpot politician like Hitler, gleefully uses the TofE as a springboard for demolishing belief in moral free will, which is the foundation of civilized society. That's what I mean about radical leftists being delighted by teaching of evolution.

I really don't care if the Left sneers at "fundamentalists" for opposing teaching of evolution. They're essentially preaching to their crowd. I honestly don't think many uncommitted people are swayed by that stuff. What does bother me is seeing nominal conservatives using the exact same language, language which you would never have seen in any conservative venue only a few years ago. I think the reason is that younger posters here have unconsciously picked up ideas drilled into them by liberal faculty, or liberal media.

As for the association of Christianity with conservatism: Your citation of Jesse Jackson and some other guy isn't relevant. Any scientist should know that scattered outliers shouldn't distract you from an obvious trend. Haven't you seen the studies showing that church attendance was strongly predictive of voting Republican in the last election? (More so than any other variable they examined, IIRC. And don't get me started on how un-conservative Bush and the Rep. leaders are. They're still better than Kerry and the Demonrats.)

ME:"Most will never become scientists, and don't really need to know evolution. They do live by ideas, however."

YOU: "Most will never become writers, so why teach them English? Most will never become mathematicians … why bother with algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, etc? Most won’t grow up to join the NFL, so what’s the point of phys ed? Shall we go on? You want to limit the small bits of science they do get. Why don’t I see this as a step in the right direction?"

Oh come on. You can't really think that the only reason for learning English is to become a writer. And math is completely neutral and abstract, and basic to all real science, so no one opposes that, either. Phys. ed. is not valuable for training in pro athletics, but because it promotes health and probably actually enhances "book-learning" as a result. Yours is the kind of hyperbolic argument I object to. TofE simply does not belong in the same category of basic science as high school physics, math, and chemistry. I posted elsewhere that all the potential premed and science students in my secondary school studied no biology of any kind, but took physics, chem, and math instead. It did not hurt them in the least, because biology, geology, and other derived sciences can't be taught effectively without more basic sciences being mastered first.

"Religion is related to the Theory of Evolution in the same way it is to the Theory of Gravity, which is to say, not at all. Want to attack the Theory of Gravity now?"

Come on. Theories of gravity imply nothing about the nature of man. Evolution does. Besides, the two theories are radically different. You can do simple experiments which demonstrate the nature of gravity, and get very precise, reproducible, quantitative results. In contrast, you can never prove conclusively that all the extinct species of organisms in the fossil record originated as postulated by the TofE. The DNA is gone, the critters are dead, and experiments would take millions of years, anyway. The case that they did originate by evolution is strong, but it's not directly verifiable in the way that most physical science theories are. It's based on elaborate, complex, indirect inference and extrapolation. I think it's better that younger students learn the simple, readily testable kinds of science, to immunize them from Al-Gore style foolishness. I repeat, evolution is not basic science of the kind which ordinary citizens need to know. American students are notoriously weak in basic math and science, so why waste time on evolution?

"Anyone attempting to convert it into a prescription for organizing society is abusing the theory."

Maybe so, but abusing theory is almost inevitable among human beings. And if you think the TofE is neutral as far as having no implications for religion and society, then you should argue with evolutionists like Dawkins.

"Spinning off on illogical tangents and trying to tell me how those demonstrate a problem with the Theory of Evolution isn’t going to convince me of anything other than your inability to reason."

There you go, veering into the insult mode so common among the pro-evo crowd. I'll just say this: I think you demonstrate an inability to see beyond the most simplistic kind of logic. You drag up exceptional cases in an attempt to distract from powerful associations. You frame the issue as one of good science education, when there are much more profound ethical issues involved, and (as I have shown) evolution is not a necessary or proper subject for basic science education, anyway. Learning evolution is not going to help us catch up with the East Asians and other competitors, who concentrate on rigorous math and physical science. Besides, I didn't mention those "tangential" issues to discredit evolution, but to deal with the public policy and ethical issues of compelling its study in public schools. Those issues are the only ones which really belong in a political forum, anyway. Instead, what we get from your side are endless reiterations of how wonderful the TofE is, how science would collapse without it, how all its opponents are drunk, illiterate, stupid, bigotted, "forcing a specific religion on others," etc. This fanaticism in advocating evolution goes a long way in supporting the belief of opponents that the TofE is in fact a secular religion.

If teachers of evolution really don't think that evolution "is solid fact and may not be challenged," why do they raise a stink at the prospect that a few publications on I.D. might be made available as purely optional outside reading, not even covered in the classroom? That was the issue in the PA school case.

It calls for a slow process which if were true would be very obvious in many fossils. That's just not the case...it would be good if you guys would at least admit that.

You've tried that same tired line several times on this thread alone. Give it a rest or I'll post more transitionals.

I remember in public school there were various drawings of different types of life forms slowly evolving into different types of life over supposed millions of years. The limbs are slowing growing or shrinking, various body part are developing, etc...it's not a sudden transformation. That is what is missing in the fossil record. The drawings are not backed up by the fossils. It would be nice if you would at least admit that. Here's a good article that verifies my point..http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

For the thinkers I named (a partial list indeed, two of whom are Nobel laureates no less), we are no longer speaking of a scientific method -- i.e., methodological naturalism -- but of a full-scale worldview, or cosmology, that holds the entire universe reduces to one single principle, the material. If that is not a "philosophy," then what would you call it, HayekRocks?

Materialism is both a school of philosophy and a Weltanschaung. In such ambiguous circumstances, one must be wary of the fallacy of equivocation. The gentlemen you mention have not, to my knowledge, contributed new insights to the philosophy of materialism. They simply embrace the world view. One cannot accuse them of philosophizing without a license, if they are simply using materialism as they find it.

Materialism, I would say, does not encroach on theology, so much as it deems it pointless, as a bicycle is to a fish.

feel free to post whatever you want...it's just your darkside that has you snookered into believing what are not really transitional fossils. They would be so numerous and obvious to all if they were. Hope you really look deeper because the truth is more fascinating and enjoyable than any bad science.

"And what to include in a high school curriculum is a political question of great interest to conservatives."

Indeed it is. I agree with you on that, although maybe not on the answer to the question. See some of my other posts.

Yes, there are many references, prophecies, and parallels to Jesus in the Old Testament. That's one thing which enhances the credibility of the Gospel. What I meant is that basic Christian doctrine is in the New Testament, not in various Talmudic-style commentaries and elaborations made by various churches or other people since the NT was completed. Many things blamed on Christianity by anti-Christians can not legimately be traced to any teachings of Jesus.

This is my last post on this thread. I swear.

I suggest you read my posts here on the cynical use of traditional symbols in propaganda. Use of Christian symbols and wording would be especially useful in dealing with those of the older, more religious German generation, like poor "Mutti" here.

This proves nothing about the religious inclinations of Hitler and the other Nazis. If you want a rather thorough analysis of that subject, you should try this link:

http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html

And don't ping me with a rebuttal, please, because I am really, really out of here.

Null beliefs are neither true nor false, they are simply null. Beliefs that are either true or false in some fashion have consequences, but null beliefs have no consequences except for the amount of time spent considering them. A rational and economical person does not waste time on null beliefs because they are all equally silly.

“Null beliefs” are epitomized by your figure of the purple elephant hiding under the bed, tortoise – right?

Oh my. Let me start off by saying that I think you have written a truly beautiful, cogent, thoroughly admirable article here, tortoise. Yet at the same time I say this, I have to add that I disagree with almost every point you make.

It all apparently boils down to the dreaded “observer problem” I gather. What is “null” for you is somehow very “un-null,” that is to say very alive for me. Does that necessarily make me an irrational and uneconomical person? Or might it suggest instead that the evidence we qualify as valid is different for you and me respectively?

My method requires me to consider any empirical evidence that bears on the problem under consideration. A whole lot of that admittedly comes from outside of science per se.

To illustrate, on the problem of God and man’s relations with God, I have to look at the human cultural record -- especially since science is mainly silent on this point. On that basis, it is manifest that humans have been known to have direct, that is immediate, experiences of God’s contacts with human beings that are sensible, perceptible to the human beings involved in such communications.

To the extent that such experiences are recorded in extant documents, I have to admit them as empirical evidence of the existence of God. Obviously, the Bible itself is evidence of such communications to any fair-minded person. But what is amazing to me is that the earliest record that I’m aware of in which such experiences are documented predates both classical Athens and Judeo-Christian Jerusalem. I here refer to the “Dispute of a Man, Who Contemplates Suicide, With His Soul,” which dates to 2000 B.C. from the First Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt. It makes crystal clear that the unknown author of this piece understood he had a foundational relationship to a God beyond the cosmos – not to a purple elephant hiding under his bed.

It is further crystal clear to me that this unknown author did not understand his experience as an engagement with anything “null.” Rather, he understood that his own life, and the meaning thereof, was somehow conjoined with the Truth of the deity that he had “contacted” in his own soul.

“Fashionable” modern science seems to give short shrift to such universal human experiences. But nonetheless, still science is not legitimately in a position to say that such experiences are “illusions,” or “nullities.” The universality of such experiences, across evolutionary time (history) and cultures, to my mind constitutes undeniable empirical evidence of their actual validity.

Your beautiful piece would be even more beautiful, had you the insight and/or wherewithal to grant the evidence of actual human history. Or so it seems to me. But I imagine that will not happen for you, until/unless you cease your resistance to the possibility of epiphanies of the type represented in the ancient Egyptian “Dispute.”

Still I value and even cherish your thoughts in regard to the question at hand here. Thank you ever so much for writing, dear tortoise!

BTW, did you know purple elephants eat Twinkies? I put one next to my bed everyday when I leave for work, and when I get home it is almost always gone.

LOLOL!!! Actually, I don't find this at all surprising. ;^) Whatever it takes to "get your atention" is fine with me, tort. HA! :^)

Be well, friend.

Thank you for the suggestion.

You're entirely welcome friend.

Materialism, I would say, does not encroach on theology, so much as it deems it pointless, as a bicycle is to a fish.

Oh, c'mon -- you must be blind to say that, guy. Open your eyes and get real! Certainly your obvious critical abilities can handle that problem, with a little effort from you. :^)

it's just your darkside that has you snookered into believing what are not really transitional fossils.

This "darkside" you speak of intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

fabian,

I note that you have not attempted to answer the three questions I asked.

You have instead brought up the oversimplified cartoons through which grade-schoolers are introduced to the basic premise of evolution.

In so doing, you have shown that your understanding of the ToE contains a few errors.
I shall endeavor to correct those errors, cursorially, now.

1. "I remember in public school there were various drawings of different types of life forms slowly evolving into different types of life over supposed millions of years."

Yes, an oversimplified cartoon, generally showing one individual creature morphing over time.
This is not the way evolution -speciation through imperfect replication, genetic isolation, and selective pressures- works.
The way evolution actually works is far too complicated to be accurately represented in a simple cartoon on a poster or an 8mm filmreel.
It is also too complicated to explain in detail to infants or the infantile.
A closer approximation, touching on population -not individual- genetics:
a) there is a range of genotypic and phenotypic normality of a species at t=n,
b) there are different ranges of genotypic and phenotypic normality for descendent species A, B, C, F, M at t=n+10,000,000y,
c) and there are predicted intermediate genotypic and phenotypic normal ranges OF INTERMEDIATE SPECIES AT T=N+1 to 9,999,999Y, which predictions have many times been validated by fossil finds.

2. "The limbs are slowing growing or shrinking, various body part are developing, etc...it's not a sudden transformation."

Yes, and that is typical of what the fossil record shows

3. "That is what is missing in the fossil record."

O RLY?
R U SUR?
Have you never seen the fossil record of the development of the bones of the inner ear, or of the vertebrate jaw, of of various other skeletal features?
What about the fossil record of the development of cetaceans?
Hominid skull and pelvic morphology?
Have you ever actually looked at the evidence?

4. "The drawings are not backed up by the fossils."

actually, they are, though -as noted before- the drawings are oversimplifications used to introduce infants to a complex topic.

5. "It would be nice if you would at least admit that."

I never admit error if there isn't one.

6. "Here's a good article that verifies my point..http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp"

ah... that's where you went awry.
a) "The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following: If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Open the www.answersingenesis.org home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.
HTTP 400 - Bad Request
Internet Explorer"

b) As the article you attempted to link to is unavailable, I must perforce fall back on a general familiarity with the contents of other articles on AiG: They tend to be utterly fallacious; They tend to be derived from secondary sources - usually other creationists - rather than directly from analysis of the evidence; They tend to rely heavily upon grossly misleading quote-mining, and gross misunderstanding of science

my wife and children hate me
Jane Fonda wants to rape me
because I make my livin'
by killin' tha baby seals

I catch an' club an' kill 'em
I skin an' gut an' grill 'em
so's I can make my livin'
by killin' tha baby seals

Oh I love to eat them baby seals,
they're tasty and so tender!
I skin their hides so pearly-white
and sell 'em through a vendor!
and tho' my trade is banned by law,
the seals have no defender!
'Cuz I love to make my livin'
by killin' tha baby seals!

- "Jodie Brown"

bumblebee#2 gives the solution to the problem, as well as illustrates the source of the error I cite as a caution.