What are Darwinists so afraid of?

it doesn't matter how many times you try and express that there is no debate concerning toe. You simply saying that doesn't make it true as many, not just a few, bright scientists see the falicy of toe and are very much in the debate. It would be good for you to at least acknowledge that. It's the "there's no debate" kind of dark thinking that is responsible for a big lack of academic freedom in science classes in public schools.

The debate is between religious belief and evolutionary science.

If you don't think this is correct, go to a good university library and find the floors devoted to evolutionary science and see what kind of debate you find in the many journals.

Hint: You won't find creation "science" because it is not science. Same for ID.

They are Not Science! They are apologetics (defense of religion).

.

because most universities are dominated by the lack of academic freedom confusion doesn't mean there is no debate. There are so many good scientists that are involved in the deabate but you just wish to relegate them to apologitics. Their creationism study is a very scientific theory and I think it is sad that you guys are so predjudiced against it that you say there is no debate. Very dishonest...although I don't believe you realize that it is dishonest . By the way, so many of histories amazing scientists were creationists like Sir Issac Newton.

"Philosophy of dirty babies" placemark

oops - mah bad!

Takes me back to when I was a kid - the creeds were recited at church. One day while driving home my brother asks what are they talking about when they mention the unconscious pilot? Ya know how some family stories never die...?

many bright scientists, eh?
you refer to the DI's paltry little list of "scientists" who have some vague and unspecified dissatisfaction with natural selection?
ever heard of "project steve" and the ratio it indicates?
Biologists with qualms about the ToE are outnumbered about 5000 to 1 by those with no such qualms.
Moreover, qualms do not equate to a scientific challenge.
Without a scientific challenge, there is no debate.

oh, by the way - you have STILL not attempted to answer the three specific questions I posed to you several days ago, despite multiple reminders.

It is amusing that you blithely accuse others of dishonesty while throwing out the typical canard "so-and-so was a creationist".

You DO realise that Newton died long prior to the publication of Origin of the Species, yes? And that he died before the modern reactionary YEC formulation of the literal interpretation of Genesis was developed, yes? Calling Newton a "creationist" in this context is more than slightly disingenuous.

Oh. Then please explain to me how the chemistry itself manages to be ordered into a systematic body. Which it must be, in order to be chemistry. According to what principle does this occur???

The systematic organization of chemistry? I understand most chemists would attribute that to the Russian Professor Dmitri Ivanovich Mendele'ev, who observed regularities in the properties of the elements, classifying them into the well-known periodic table.

The shape of that table has subsequently been explained by the discovery of atomic orbitals.

Evolution is mathematically impossible. This can be demonstrated any number of ways using probability analysis. However, the simplest explanation I have heard, years ago, still holds: it's like believing that a tornado can blow through a junkyard of airplane parts and assemble a 747.

Philosophy should be reserved for those aspects of human endeavour for which it is best suited, such as platitudes.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion tortoise. As unenlightened as it may be.

From my viewpoint, you are not advocating science, you are advocating religion. You keep going off on these obtuse "philosophical" journeys, which, when they finally come to ground, always end up supporting a particular brand of theology.

From my viewpoint, such things as life, consciousness, mind, information, intelligence, geometry, quantum field theory, extra dimensions, et al., are theologically neutral.

I understand most chemists would attribute that to the Russian Professor Dmitri Ivanovich Mendele'ev, who observed regularities in the properties of the elements, classifying them into the well-known periodic table.

Indeed, HayekRocks! But note what is implicit in this remark: Mendeleev observed something that evidently existed independently of his act of cognition. He noticed this something was characterized by "regularities." From whence came the regular properties?

I was making a general point that there is a lot of anti-Christian "journalism" stories which often makes Christians defensive and angry. I was not speaking in the first person.

Hey, Gumlegs. You ignored my plea not to post a rebuttal. Since you did, I have to break my pledge, made on the grave of dear dead Darwin, with my hands on a pile of bones from Missing Links, and coupled with a plea that a mounted skeleton of T. rex might fall and crush me if I broke the pledge. It didn't, so I get to reply.

Sorry, I didn’t interpret anything in your post 1365 as a plea not to reply. At any rate, keep an eye out for falling T. rex bones. Some of the bigger ones can really spoil your day if dropped from a great enough height. And my fingertips are starting to blister, too.

It's not just my opinion about Jim Jones. His conduct of the People's Temple wouldn't meet the standards of any Christian denomination I know of. I don't care what J.J. might say. Haven't you ever heard of people on the Left lying? Besides, J.J. when eventually set up his cult, HE became the source of authority (like all cult leaders), not the Bible. As I said about Hitler, these leaders will use bits of rhetoric from orthodox sources, but they are, to say the least, not consistent.

Even conceding all of the above, Jones was still using religion. I agree that he was twisted and his religious interpretations were twisted. How could I not? The problem is that he was part of an apparently endless line of people who use religion to control the behavior of others. If you chose to join a religion and accept its precepts and rules, that’s fine. Just don’t expect me to accept them.

If the Discovery Institute is "injecting religious interpretations," just what religion are we talking about? There is no deity named, no creed of beliefs, no prayers, liturgy, or other features of a recognizable religion. In fact, the D.I. denies that the intelligence they allude to is divine. You could claim that they are being sneaky and disingenuous in doing so, but it's your word or opinion against theirs. (Which is what you said about me vs. the people I say are not really Christian.)

It’s not just what I say about them, it’s what they say about them … at least in their more candid moments. Ever seen the DI’s “Wedge Document”? Here’s the first sentence from the introduction:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

I’ll admit they don’t exactly identify which “God” they’re talking about, but a dispassionate reader could certainly confuse the “God” referred to as a “deity,” don’t you think?

Later, under “Governing Goals,” a subset of “GOALS” we find this item:

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

I suspect that should be “human” beings. I don’t know whether the mistake is in the DI original or a problem with the website where this quote originated. But again, that reference to some “God” or other looks like a deity to me.

It may just be my suspicious nature, though. On the other hand, just who do they think they are?

Gumlegs: "... [Some churches] say the Bible forbids intoxicating drink. Others say this isn’t true. Some mainstream Protestant churches in this country won’t let their members drink coffee or dance...You may well say they’re wrong. They say they’re right. You both use the same Bible."

There is a difference between fundamental doctrine, which is explicitly stated in the N. Testament, and secondary things which various churches derive by their own logic from things they think they see in the NT. St. Paul specifically endorses drinking of wine, so obviously the Bible doesn't forbid intoxicating drink, but it does disapprove of drunkenness. If some churches choose to ban drinking among their members, that's their right, but it's not based directly on the Bible. It's somewhat like strict construction of the Constitution, vs. filling in the gaps with one's imagination. Religious liberals turn the Bible into a meaningless "living, breathing document," just as they do with the Constitution. Anyway, there is nothing in the text of the NT which bans lightning rods, vaccination, etc. You make it seem that the acts of anyone who claims to be a Christian can be used to discredit the generally very benign influence of Christianity in the West. The fact is that there is an objective standard for what is Christian (the NT), just as there is an objective standard for how the U.S. govt. is supposed to operate (the Constitution). You can judge these individuals by that standard.

You haven’t countered my point, which is that people use the Bible any way they want. “A” says it means or demands this. “B” says it doesn’t. Why should I listen to either – my church is “C.” And why should “A,” “B,” or “C,” when none of them can agree on what the Bible means, tell me in the name of the Bible what to teach in science class?

This is not an attempt to discredit religion. It’s to keep particular religious beliefs from being injected into science.

Gumlegs (regarding certain FR posts): "The attacks are not on Christianity in general (although they can be mistaken for that)."

There are plenty of attacks on Christianity in this thread which are very vicious and insulting. Furthermore, some of the attacks on the Old Testament are actually implicit attacks on the basis of Judaism.

I think you’re misreading the posts you characterize as attacks on religion (I see them as attacking individuals and their religious interpretations), but you obviously don’t so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The OT matters are interesting. There are posters here who insist that every jot and tittle of the Bible is written by God Himself and is therefore not only inerrant, but literally true exactly as written (with exceptions for those times when, for instance, Jesus is quoted as telling a parable). What then happens is that someone else, sometimes me, will point out an instance when, say, the Bible appears to miscount the number of legs on a locust. The resulting tap-dancing is worthy of Fred Astaire. “People in those days probably miscounted the legs on a locust – those little things jump around a lot.” Sure, people might have … but God? Notice that even in this rationalization, interpretation is rearing its ugly head. It’s all open to interpretation.

Again, this is not an attack on any religion, Judaism included. And what it all really boils down to is, “Why should your interpretation of your religion govern science?”

Gumlegs: “In the 21st century, [the TOE is] basic science and it needs to be covered in science class."

Well, that depends on the definition of "basic science." I follow Richard Feynman in thinking that physics is THE basic science, chemistry next, and the other sciences secondary derivations. If students haven't reached the point where they really know how science works, and all the ideas which go into such a complex theory (e.g. age of Earth from isotopic decay), then what they basically get is just arbitrary, rote information, rather than science. In chem. or physics, you go into the lab and play with stuff, learn how science is done, partially recapitulate the ontogeny of theories. You can't do that with evolution. Another theory now being fed to kids at a very young age is plate tectonics. Again, not what I consider basic science. It's hard to do chem. lab safely at home, or to afford the equipment, so it pretty much has to be done in school, but anyone who wants to read about evolution or plate tectonics can easily do so on his own.

I happen to be a big fan of Feynman and even have his lectures on tape. Naturally he would have thought physics is THE basic science, he was a physicist! In any case, science education has to go beyond what simple experiments the kids can do in class, even if it means introducing controversial topics like plate tectonics (please note use of wry humor here).

Gumlegs: "Of course science education at the secondary level is cursory and oversimplified. If it weren’t the kids wouldn’t be able to grasp it. It would be nice if the schools taught the scientific method."

The science education I got at the secondary level was not cursory, because it was what I consider truly fundamental--chem. and physics. You can do, in secondary school, all sorts of experiments which nail down fundamental truths about matter, and are very exciting to boot. I built a couple of cloud chambers in H.S., and watched the particle tracks for hours. Seeing evidence of actual subatomic particles was stunning. There are experiments in mechanics and optics which are simple but hardly cursory.

I believe the structure of the atom being taught through high school is known to be wrong. That’s the sort of thing I was referring to. Whether what you were doing in science class was exciting or not is beside the point – it was cursory and oversimplified. If it weren’t we wouldn’t need college and grad schools to further educate the real scientists.

Gumlegs: "You’re still playing the religion song. Religion doesn’t belong in science class."

True, it doesn't. But no one can convince me that what was at issue in the PA case was "introducing religion into science class." You could argue that it was a foot in the door, but honestly I don't see a vast army of fundamentalists waiting to demolish science education. That has about as much credibility as Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy." Christianity is actually on the run, driven out of schools and public life.

The religious motivation behind introducing ID in Dover is exactly what was at issue. It came out in the trial that the board members who were being sued were not only religiously motivated, but lied about it on the stand! The editing history of their book was also introduced into evidence. It was quite damning for anyone who wants to argue that there’s no religion involved.

Gumlegs: " my high school, for instance, biology was taught in freshman year, chemistry is sophomore year, and physics in junior year. Biology and chemistry were required; physics was an elective."

Furthermore, there is a great deal you can learn and do in biology without any reference to evolution. You can learn some of the stuff Darwin had to know before he came up with his theory, for example. Going immediately to the theory is bass-ackwards.

Only if you think theories are not important in science.

Gumlegs: "So if one can be a Pope and accept the TOE, doesn’t that mean that anyone objecting on religious grounds is, in fact, “forcing a specific religion on others”?"

Plenty of people don't agree with the Pope on this, so they could just as well say that the Pope, or atheists, secular humanists, etc. are forcing THEIR religion on the fundamentalists.

Um … forcing the schools to change or ignore a scientific theory is injecting a specific religion into science. Re-read your reply above. You’ve demonstrated exactly my point. Science can only deal in what it can measure. Anything else is extraneous.

I don't really agree about Dawkins. All that's necessary to get to his position is to dismiss anything supernatural, moral, or non-mechanistic from your thinking, where is pretty much exactly where we are in the public schools today. As I keep trying to get across, you can't look at the teaching of evolution on a mass scale in a vacuum. You have to consider the context, which is a school system devoid of any moral content. As for Einstein, his animal activities have no relevance to the intellecual climate, but Dawkins' mental processes certainly do.

To say that science cannot measure the supernatural (as I am saying), is not to say there is no supernatural (which is what Dawkins says). They’re not the same.

Not every subject can be covered at all times in every class. If every class must have “moral content,” we’re looking at Parson Weems spinning fairy tales about the young George Washington to teach a moral lesson.

ID, devoid of any religious implications, seems to boil down to something like, “Somebody or something somewhere is behind all this.” But if that is to be a scientific theory, it must be capable of disproof (like the still-elusive Precambrian rabbit fossil). So how would you go about disproving that? Finding evidence that would tell us, “No one and/or nothing anywhere is behind any of this” is a fool’s errand.

Gumlegs: "Now who’s using hyperbole and insults?"

What hyperbole and insults? All the terms I cite were used by pro-evolution posters against anti-evolution posters in this thread. Of course, not by you personally.

That would be the sentence of yours that I quoted immediately before asking the question. The sentence was, “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.” That’s all? No evidence?

Gumlegs: "You’re confusing the fact of gravity with the Theory of Gravity"

No I'm not. You can do classroom experiments which bear directly on Newton's theory, and you can easily describe how Einstein's theory was experimentally verified. There simply are no experiments you can perform for the kids which can directly prove that (e.g.) dinosaurs or trilobites arose by natural selection.

But none of those classroom experiments bear on the Theory of Gravity. They test the effects of the fact of gravity. No one claims that there is an experiment that will prove … well, anything, actually. Theories in science are never proved.

Gumlegs: "And you appear to have the idea that science should be nothing more than stamp collecting. As in, “Here’s this fact, and this fact over here, and that fact over there, and we have no idea how they link up or what they might mean.” How would that help students recognize the vacuity of say Al Gore?"

That's just my point. Since evolution is too complex to be taught or confirmed by experiments in secondary school (let alone middle school), kids get the idea that science is a story which some authority figure narrates while they sit passively in a chair. That sets them up to swallow garbage from other authority figures, like Algore. If they spent their class and lab time doing experiments, seeing how quantitative data are generated, recorded, analyzed, and interpreted, they would be less gullible.

I can see we’re not going to agree on this either.

However, the publication of Darwin's theory sent ripples through Western culture. The intellectual class quickly moved away from traditional religion, as have many of the pro-evo posters on these threads. Many of them made statements not much different from Dawkins'. No such effects followed Germ Theory of Disease, Gravitation, or other theories. You can say Darwin and his TofE are technically innocent, but it's empirical fact that the effects of the TofE on Western culture have been profound. If we're here by a series of accidents (as the theory says), how can we be special? How can human life be sacred?

I can’t distinguish this from the post hoc fallacy. The deeply religious have been fretting about every advance of science since science began advancing. You say that no one moved away from traditional religion because of the Germ Theory, but how do we know that? Ditto heliocentrism. The entire Reformation can be seen as a movement away from traditional (Catholic) religion. (I know the Protestants don’t see it that way; that’s not my point). That happened before Darwin.

While the effects of the TOE on us may be profound, (so maybe it is important after all?), I will not concede that they’re all negative. I’m one of those who thinks leaving the oceans was on balance a bad idea, but if man is in fact different from all other animals, that would imply that man is somehow special … no matter how he got to his lofty estate.

As I keep saying, it can't be unimportant that the left generally feels no problems with evolution. The nihilistic implications of evolution are just fine with them. In fact, they welcome them.

It can’t be unimportant that the left generally feels no problems with the Theory of Relativity. Political takes on scientific theories are outrageously irrelevant to whether there is anything to the theory in question.

I might ask you: Why do YOU think so many pro-evo posters gleefully trash religion, why are some of their posts identical to ones you might find on leftist venues, and why is there this association (not without exceptions, but still generally valid) between traditional religious belief and conservative values? Why did the Founding Fathers explicitly attribute their thinking to Christian influences, and predict that the Republic would founder, as it is doing, if those influences were weakened?

Again, I say the pro-evos are trashing the beliefs of specific posters who want to impose their beliefs on others. Let me ask you one: why do you think the anti-evos seem so gleeful at the prospect of eternal damnation for anyone who has the temerity to accept a scientific theory. (This is from personal experience; I’ve been gloated at myself).

In any case, don’t accept the premise that the Theory of Evolution is somehow anti-Christian.

I contend that dispersing evolution among young people who really do not need it, together with surgical removal of traditional values from the culture, are destroying the foundations of our free nation, and neither should be encouraged by conservatives.

I think we should be doing our damnedest to stay at the cutting edge of all the sciences. Blacking out an area of science and marking it “Thar be monsters here” isn’t going to do anyone any good.

From whence came the regular properties?

From the elements which possessed them, surely. Where else would they come from?

I'm not sure your characterization of science as a unified body moving as one like the Borg, is very accurate.

You are making the right point, DaveLoneRanger. I'm very sure that any characterization of science as a unified body moving as one is pure horsepucky. I hope to high heaven it is a mischaracterization of js1138's views.

Let's allow this point as well: scientific thinking is itself philosophic in that it chooses a point of view from which to observe the world. And that is fine--there is no other way. There is more: it chooses the objects within that world which it will study. Betty boop noted earlier about an epistemic divide. There is something to that, but I'd like to point out the differentiation according to the objects of study, not the standpoint or the way we study it. The objects of study give us a taxonomy of sciences. There is overlap in the way we approach the objects of our study. Mathematicians, biologists, and physicist will share views. But the important principle of differentiation among the sciences is its object of study.

It's one thing to say that there are objects of study which the sciences won't touch. It's another thing to say they don't exist and don't matter. This last denial can be pernicious, especially when it bears on politics.

From the elements which possessed them, surely. Where else would they come from?

Where did the elements come from?

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

That's funny. How come mathematicians study it and write books on it? And they do not even care about biology or write about it in a biological context, biology just uses it. Some of the mathematicians might even be creationists, though such a fact would be entirely incidental. A more likely hypothesis is that you are ignorant of mathematics.

This can be demonstrated any number of ways using probability analysis.

In mathematics, you do not prove the "mathematical impossibility" of something with a "probability analysis". A more likely hypothesis is that you are ignorant of mathematics.

However, the simplest explanation I have heard, years ago, still holds: it's like believing that a tornado can blow through a junkyard of airplane parts and assemble a 747.

Apparently you never got past the trite soundbite to the part where it is regularly pointed out that this analogy is grossly flawed and therefore unrelated to biological evolution. You would be well-served to actually learn some mathematics and science rather than hopping onto the first bandwagon that plays to your personal biases and desires. Bad analogies do not trump either mathematics or science.

I hope to high heaven it is a mischaracterization of js1138's views.

I already said it is.

What I said is that science converges on increasingly detailed and reliable theories and descriptions.

Religion and philosophy start with axioms and revelations and splinter into innumerable factions.