Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[Dimensio]

There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation (as stated by some of the top defenders of Darwin in his own day such as Spencer and Huxley)

What do you mean by "special creation"?

[js1138]

Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation of of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being." (emphasis added)--Karl Vogt.

When you add emphasis you should be careful not to add typos and spelling errors. It dimishes you argument, assuming you have one.

[PatrickHenry]

There are a lot of people who believe in naturalism because it's the only alternative to special creation ...

I disagree. If I wanted to be an atheist, then I would reject all religion. There would be no necessity of simultaneously embracing evolution (or what you call "materialism"). There were atheists long before Darwin, and if the Inquisition didn't burn them, I suppose they managed just fine. Darwin's science is accepted by Christians, Jews, and loads of Asians of other sects. And atheists too. It stands (or falls) on its own merits as science.

[js1138]

Fortunately I didn't add emphasis. I am curious what is wrong with the quote, other than hyperbole. Prior to Darwin, evolution was accepted by Christians, with the assumption that the various stages were the result of special creation. Darwin indeed argued against special creation. That is precisely the point of natural selection.

[tortoise]

This does not mean that the errors are ignored or that one fails to estimate them. It means that they are accounted for as best one can. It's is important to keep an explicit account of the fact that there is an error and some estimate of its magnitude.

Well yes, if you don't keep track of the errors in assumption, you don't know whether they are small enough to bury within allowable engineering error. What experience buys you is that you learn when you need to keep track of such things and when you don't. Kind of like knowing when Newtonian physics gives good enough answers and when it doesn't.

I guess the important thing is to know that there is an error out there that may need to be accounted for. Some things are more sensitive to errors than others. Typical allowable error way back when I was doing ChemE was 10% for the system. Sometimes more, sometimes less. If you had error to burn you could often take substantial shortcuts in the system model, saving time and the possible introduction of errors while doing things the long way. These days it is less of a factor due to the extensive automation of engineering computation.

[tortoise]

hypothetically speaking, we cant achieve Absolute 0 either, yet we're getting so close, it's frightening. (somewhere in the 1/12% range if i recall correctly) just because we haven't reached it doesnt mean it does not/cannot exist.

Your word of the week is "asymptotic". Very important when dealing with discrete systems.

The theoretical reasons some things are impossible are much deeper than the level you are looking at them. Things like thermodynamics are said to be what they are not because it is a strong scientific hypothesis (e.g. the Big Bang), but as a necessary mathematical consequence of fundamental properties. You are allowed to get "close" to absolute zero as you want to, so getting "close" is not a sign that the laws of thermodynamics are about to be broken. Saying so is similar to saying that we are getting close to breaking the speed of light, and we just need to build faster rockets to do it.

We have a concept of the abstract, yet we have nothing around us that we would have learned "abstract" from. where, precisely, did our understanding of "non-existance" come from? how do we dissociate this from "un-existance"?

This isn't intended as a flame or anything like that, but you aren't really ready to go there. We're still working on the fundamentals here.

[whattajoke]

Spencer "cheerfully acknowledged" that the hypothesis of evolution had "serious difficulties." 1896.

1896! Hardly damning... we've come a long way baby. Yeah, I know your post was meant to show us that evolution exists solely as something for evil atheists to point to and say, "There ain't no God, dag nabbit," but still, 108 years of biology is an eternity.

Your second quote, the Huxley one, (from 1903) contains the creationist's favorite grammatical function, the ellipse, which usually elicits an eye-roll and a groan from me. But in this case, I have to ask, WRT that quote, so what?

Your 3rd quote, from some hack philosopher (purely a guess on my part), from some philosophy section of some history book, (from 1904) is again, not pertinent, damning, damaging, important, or cogent to the discussion.

But thanks anway.

[Dimensio]

This reply confuses me.

[Mamzelle]

Pat Hen! I've been trying to reach you about that guy who "created" a new species of fruit fly. You remember--you posted the original thread. I've searched and searched, it's been over sixth months, and I don't believe new flies are to be found.

Yet, a scientist claimed to have "created" them.

Any news? I'll be back with a link to your "new species of fruit fly" thread as soon as I've found it.

[Mamzelle]

It's all about the grants. Who cares about the truth? Here's a link to claims by one Very Famous scientist that he created a new species of fruit fly.

[js1138]

What part of it confuses you? I oversimplified, but evolution was widely discused prior to Darwin:

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html

There were lots of theories, but when it became evident that extinction had occurred, modern creatures seemed more complex that extinct forms, the usual explanation was that God had worked his way up to the present forms, and each level was an individual creation.

[Dimensio]

Right, but it looked like you were replying to yourself. The context was what confused me.

[freedumb2003]

I found interesting and disingenuous an admitted child's statement that because he doesn't know someone that somehow makes the person under discussion not famous.

And I wasn't talking to you. Are you also a professional student?

[js1138]

Sorry. In one of my frequent brain spasms, I made fun of someone els's typo, and in doing so, included one of my own. I replied to myself and then added some more stuff.

I need a break, and some coffee. I've spent the last week restoring a server. Absolutely none of the backup software worked as advertised.

[VadeRetro]

Ok. We have established you also recognize it as gibberish.

No. An ambiguous sentence is not gibberish.

Any casual reader of this thread can see that either you do not know what the words you are using mean or do not wish to acknowledge that your statements have been false. As one familiar with your performances over the years, I'm reasonably sure which but could care less in any event.

[VadeRetro]

1896! Hardly damning... we've come a long way baby. Yeah, I know your post was meant to show us that evolution exists solely as something for evil atheists to point to and say, "There ain't no God, dag nabbit," but still, 108 years of biology is an eternity.

Galileo, that great scientist, is so confused by Saturn that he refuses to look at it anymore. The quotes have lately come to my attention and they're real. Science is confused by Saturn! Can angels really be pushing the planets around after all? My faith in Godless materialist athiestic Satanist science wavers.

[PatrickHenry]

Stagnant thread placemarker.

[balrog666]

Wow, two more deleted posts from uncouth people! Did I show during up an alcohol induced blackout and not remember it?