Screwtape's "Age of Darwinian Scientism"

The Daley Times-Post ^ | Jan. 27, 2006 | Linda Kimball

[Lindykim]

Yes indeed! And I suspect ole Screwtape will have more to say on this subject. After all, narcissists (and Screwtape is definitely that) love to brag about their conquests.

[Ichneumon]

["A look at Ruben's full paper, in contrast with the creationist's quote from it, shows that Ruben's paper did not primarily concern when the avian-style lungs might have developed (or how), it covered when *endothermy* might have arisen."]

So, clear it up for me. Are you saying that the dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, or not?

Yes, they were.

Or are you saying that the general theory of organic evolution is in such a state of flux that we just can't keep up with it?

No, I'm not saying that, and I don't know how anyone could have presumed that I was saying any such thing.

[betty boop]

It's not like you to be silent, balrog666. What's the difficulty?

Today I get a new tag line, in honor of you. :^)

[DX10]

Just back from the tennis court.

Since you assert that birds ancestors were dinosaurs then I fail to understand how my previous comment could have been described as a straw man. To your second comment, I thought you had suggested that the author of the piece offered was just not keeping up with the current state of science, hence my reply about the theory being in a fast moving state of flux.

I am beginning to get the drift. Both of us have our prejudices founded on our understanding of origins. I subscribe to teological priciples and that causes me to search for a designer. I find the most acceptable authority revealing that designer to be the Bible. In it I read the account of creation, the alienation of mankind from his Creator, and the plan of reconciliation with the Creator. It is a book of books recorded by over fortytwo writers spanning a period of over sixteen hundred years and develops a consistent theme. It has stood the test of time remaining unchanged for the past two thousnd years while so called science has tried unsuccessfully to impune it.

On the other hand you subscribe to the theory of abiogenesis for origins and from that beginning you construct a complete developmental theory ex any first cause. There is no authority for your beliefs except what you can produce inductively. Since it is a naturalistic explanation of organic development, then in this political environment, you own the government schools. (As I remember the Prussian government schools in the thirties turned out little Nazis. Our government schools turn out ignorant little robots that think government is good. Then I have to hire them and teach them how read, write, and add and subtract.)

In my world view you have the opportunity to lay hold on eternal life if you have the courage to do so. What commends your world view? It offers nothing except to appeal to personal pride and six feet of dirt.

So, instead of your continual boasting and back slapping, why don't you and your fellow travelers give the Bible a fair chance instead of looking at it with a view to pick it apart and critize? If you choose to do so, don't pay any attention to the guys with their collar on backward.

I am only interested in your well being. Regards.

[Ichneumon]

Since you assert that birds ancestors were dinosaurs then I fail to understand how my previous comment could have been described as a straw man.

Well, I wasn't the one who called it that, but I don't see any conflict, because your previous comment was different from a statement about the ancestry of birds. You wrote:

I will be waiting for the day the evolutionists produce a bird from an alligator.

This *does* appear to be a straw man fallacy, because it uses one thing (producing a bird in the lab) as a stand-in for another (the course of evolutionary history). You're disingenuously implying that if the former can't be done on command, then you've demolished the latter. That's a classic straw man argument.

Furthermore, crocodiles are not dinosaurs, so your comment wasn't even the same as the point of mine you're trying to use as justification. Finally, if evolutionary biology is correct, it *shouldn't* be possible to exactly "replay" a prior sequence of evolutionary change, in the lab or elsewhere, for exactly the same reason you can't recreate Hurricane Katrina on demand and set it loose through New Orleans again. But just as the inability to recreate Hurricane Katrina doesn't mean that meteorlogy is flawed, the inability to "re-evolve" an extant bird from any reptile doesn't mean that evolutionary biology is flawed.

To your second comment, I thought you had suggested that the author of the piece offered was just not keeping up with the current state of science, hence my reply about the theory being in a fast moving state of flux.

I'll agree that it's in flux -- it's getting more and more accurate as new research helps refine the details -- but that's not all you said. You went farther than that, you said that "general theory of organic evolution is in such a state of flux that we just can't keep up with it". This is wrong on two counts. First, it's not the "general theory" that's in "such a state of flux", it's the reconstructions of the myriad details which all together describe the history of life on this planet. Think of theory as the "how" (i.e., how does genetic change occur under various combinations of conditions), and the evolutionary history as the "what" (i.e., the details of how each of the millions of species which have lived on Earth have changed and migrated and interacted across all of the history of the planet). Some pieces of the latter change often, and holes get filled in, as we learn more and find more evidence of what occurred when and where and is connected to what. The former (the theory) doesn't change nearly as often or as dramatically, although it is refined in spots as new kinds of interactions are understood.

I am beginning to get the drift. Both of us have our prejudices founded on our understanding of origins.

My only "prejudice" is that the evidence should be followed wherever it leads, regardless of whatever preconceptions I might have.

I subscribe to teological priciples and that causes me to search for a designer.

It's a mistake to presume one's conclusion.

One can always "find" support for any conclusion when one goes looking for it. What's harder is to let the findings direct the conclusion, and to validate a candidate conclusion by fairly comparing all its predictions against reality.

I find the most acceptable authority revealing that designer to be the Bible.

I find the most "acceptable authority" to be Creation itself -- reality, the Universe. It should be studied to determine what its properties say about its nature and its origins. Reality doesn't lie, doesn't make mistakes. The same can not be said of any human "authority", any "authoritative" book.

In it I read the account of creation, the alienation of mankind from his Creator, and the plan of reconciliation with the Creator.

So do the Muslims in *their* book. The plethora of "holy books" should give one pause.

It is a book of books recorded by over fortytwo writers spanning a period of over sixteen hundred years and develops a consistent theme. It has stood the test of time remaining unchanged for the past two thousnd years while so called science has tried unsuccessfully to impune it.

There are quite a few things in your book which are contradicted by the evidence, but if you're happy with it, I have no interest in dissuading you from your conclusions.

On the other hand you subscribe to the theory of abiogenesis for origins

I do?

and from that beginning you construct a complete developmental theory ex any first cause.

Incorrect.

There is no authority for your beliefs except what you can produce inductively.

Actually, the "authority for my beliefs" is Creation itself, which I'll put up against any book or any priest who attempts to contradict it.

Since it is a naturalistic explanation of organic development, then in this political environment, you own the government schools.

I do?? Why am I not being paid rent?

(As I remember the Prussian government schools in the thirties turned out little Nazis. Our government schools turn out ignorant little robots that think government is good. Then I have to hire them and teach them how read, write, and add and subtract.)

Okay. What does that have to do with anything I've written?

In my world view you have the opportunity to lay hold on eternal life if you have the courage to do so. What commends your world view?

The study of reality, and the desire to understand it as fully as possible, while not falling prey to comfortable fictions.

It offers nothing except to appeal to personal pride and six feet of dirt.

Ah, the old "appeal to consequences" fallacy, eh? I never fell for that one. Truth is not determined by what we'd *prefer* to happen.

So, instead of your continual boasting and back slapping, why don't you and your fellow travelers give the Bible a fair chance

I have.

instead of looking at it with a view to pick it apart and critize?

I don't.

If you choose to do so, don't pay any attention to the guys with their collar on backward.

I do when they make sense, I don't when they don't.

I am only interested in your well being.

Well thank you, that's very kind.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the chuckle!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, dear sister in Christ! If we keep on praying and speaking up then we are doing what we must.

[metmom]

Screwtape is from the book by C.S.Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters". It is a fictional series of letters written from a senior demon to a junior demon named Wormwood who is on his first assignment; that of keeping a human from converting to Christianity. It is his advice on how to destroy the human and human race. It's been years since I read it but some of what Lewis wrote those many years ago, still applies today. Much of what he sort of *predicted* has come about. He really seemed to have a sense of where liberal thinking was going. I haven't read the book in years, as I lost my copy and haven't got around to buying a new one yet, but that is what I remember. I actually liked it best of his writings, apart from Chronicles of Narnia. I generally don't care for the rest of what he wrote. Looking at your question about creating a moral society, leads me to think that you might enjoy the book. He addresses stuff like that.

[Skywalk]

Rationalize it how you may, it still boils down to this: "...we (evos) prefer to be soulless pointy-eared anthropoids---sans free will and conscience." A choice 'freely made' which of course starkly contradicts your 'creation story."

---

So I imagine that outright deception, personal attacks and misrepresenting your opponents' positions is an integral part of your religious instruction?

It seems the case on these threads. The dishonor, the deception, the distortions and attacks remind me far more of a DU thread than something I'd expect on Free Republic.

BTW, it was those terrible pagans that developed such barbarities as "democracy," "republic," "lex(law" and advanced medical and scientific understanding that would not be resumed for a thousand years.

[Lindykim]

Ich..I find the most "acceptable authority" to be Creation itself -- reality, the Universe. It should be studied to determine what its properties say about its nature and its origins. Reality doesn't lie, doesn't make mistakes. The same can not be said of any human "authority", any "authoritative" book.


You've just restated the ancient pagan view of creation wherein "matter is divine and since matter is within all creation, therefore everything of and in and upon creation is divine," or in today's vernacular, "the force is with us and we are One." Instead of worshipping the Creator, you've 'diffused" His animating power/authority throughout "creation" and you worship it through the 'authoritative' preachings of Darwinian 'scientists.' And if these neo-priests tell you that you have no soul, free will nor conscience, and that in fact you share a common heritage with earthworms, dung beetles, and blowflies you beleve it because they are modernities neo-pagan-priests (shaman) who "read & divine the signs" of "nature" and thus serve as your 'final authority" This too, is exactly as it was in ancient pagan civilizations.


Lenin, Hegel, Gore, Democritus, etc----all wound up worshipping creation.

[bobdsmith]

This too, is exactly as it was in ancient pagan civilizations.

Key difference: ancient pagan priests and shamans never discovered DNA or understood how an embryo develops. They never invented cloning or gene therapy. So I believe these so called "neo-pagans" are in fact a very unique case and are actually producing results. So perhaps you are not at all correct when you try to imply they are no different who "read & divine the signs" of "nature" and thus serve as your 'final authority" This too, is exactly as it was in ancient pagan civilizations.

[Skywalk]

How can it be discussed with this person. Her response to critics on this thread was personal and emotional.

She completely misread the Prometheus myth and apparently missed out on all those terrible pagans did pretty much FOUND our civilization (and the civilizations the world over.) Oh and that brain surgery thing and the fact that Roman battlefield medicine wasn't surpassed until after the Civil War.

[DX10]

"inability to "re-evolve" an extant bird from any reptile doesn't mean that evolutionary biology is flawed."

Is there anything that would convince you of a flaw in evolutionary biology?

"It's a mistake to presume one's conclusion."

No presumption; it is a principle to which I adhere along with Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and others.

"One can always "find" support for any conclusion when one goes looking for it."

It seems that in your view anyone investigating the Bible is just looking for support. A hasty generalization.

"Reality doesn't lie, doesn't make mistakes. The same can not be said of any human "authority", any "authoritative" book."

I agree. For science, reality undergoes continual change. The question remains as to how reality originated.

"So do the Muslims in *their* book. The plethora of "holy books" should give one pause."

Pause or stop? The Bible can withstand the comparisons.

"There are quite a few things in your book which are contradicted by the evidence, but if you're happy with it, I have no interest in dissuading you from your conclusions."

It is not my book. Dissuade me.

"I do?"

Then what is your theory of orgins?

"Incorrect."

Terse.

"Actually, the "authority for my beliefs" is Creation itself, which I'll put up against any book or any priest who attempts to contradict it."

In public debate?

"I do?? Why am I not being paid rent?"

You, generic.

"Okay. What does that have to do with anything I've written?"

Parenthetical.

"Ah, the old "appeal to consequences" fallacy, eh? I never fell for that one. Truth is not determined by what we'd *prefer* to happen."

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with preference. I suppose you prefer no hope. The argument is not bogus just because you have considered it and rejected it.

"I have."

You have? Tell me, what saved Noah? Shoud be easy enough.

"I don't."

I can't know your heart, but you sure come across that way.

[RightWingAtheist]

As usual, I am in complete agreement with you, but I do find it ironic that that cartoon was taken from PZ Myers' scientifically-sound but politically-boneheaded Pharyngula blog. If you do a search on that site for "economics", "evolutionary psychology" or "academic bias", it's painfully obvious that Myers is just as guilty of cherry-picking and distorting facts in the service of a preconceived conclusion as the creationists are.

[YHAOS]

”they seem to be oblivious to the entirety of implications contained within their "feely-[sic] chosen" position.” (“They” being those Masters of the Universe sometimes identified as Scientists, or, more commonly, Evolutionists - ‘evos’)

Perhaps it is pride which motivates evos. But, for example, in the chicken/egg issue over Darwin/Marx - which came first, pride seems hardly adequate to explain why evos refuse to acknowledge that the Marxist era stands astride the Darwin era (that is, the time when each produced their major works). While quick to point out (vehemently) that Marx’s Manifesto was published well before Darwin’s Origins, Evolutionists are entirely silent on the subject of Das Kapital, Marx’s most signal work, which was published some several years after Origins. This attitude is particularly hard to fathom since the proposed intellectual association of Darwin/Marx seems to have emanated entirely from the Marxist side. Darwin’s reaction to Marxist overtures appears to have been somewhat similar to what it would have been had he encountered a skunk under his front porch; respectful, but keeping a very considerable distance.

Obliviousness seems to offer no better prospects as an explanation than does pride.

Still, I choose not to regard evos as ‘pointy-eared anthropoids’ without free will or conscience. But maybe that’s just a personal disposition.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for putting the events in context!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"While quick to point out (vehemently) that Marx’s Manifesto was published well before Darwin’s Origins, Evolutionists are entirely silent on the subject of Das Kapital, Marx’s most signal work, which was published some several years after Origins."

There is nothing in Kapital that is even remotely Darwinian. We are not *silent* on this, as you suggest. We just correctly pint out that there is no connection between what Marx and Engel's wrote in their books and what Darwin wrote in his. No creationist has been able to show how Marx is alleged to have adopted the ideas of natural selection or descent with modification into his political ideology. Vague talk about shared *materialism* won't cut it. Darwin's ideas are much more compatible with those of capitalists, not communists. That's why Stalin had those who taught natural selection killed.

[PatrickHenry]

Challenge to all anti-evolution people

Das Kapital is the only work of Marx to appear after Darwin published Origin of Species, and thus it's the only work of Marx that could show his intellectual borrowings from Darwin. All of Marx's earlier writings on communism were done before the world had heard of Darwin and his theory of evolution. Clear on that?

Now then, this well-known chronological fact has been mentioned several times in this pathetic thread, yet no creationist has been honest enough to abandon the idiotic notion of a Marx-Darwin connection, nor has any creationist been able to show anything in Marx's work that reveals his reliance on Darwin.

It's time to put up or shut up. Here's an online version of Das Kapital. Search it. Show us where Marx used Darwin's ideas.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I know, a lot of people hold internally inconsistent beliefs.

How is it internally inconsistent to believe that (1) life on earth reached its present state of diversity as a result of the operation of the laws of nature, and (2) that the laws of nature were written by God in order to fulfill His purposes?

[Lurking Libertarian]

200.