Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behe Jumps the Shark [response to Michael Behe's NYTimes op-ed, "Design for Living"]
Butterflies and Wheels (reprinted from pharyngula.org) ^ | February 7, 2005 | P. Z. Myers

Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 881-899 next last

Whether you see reality as the greater derived from the lesser or as the lesser derived from the greater depends on your viewpoint, your worldview.

And worldviews cannot be "proven." They are also not impinging on pure science.

So this debate is irreconcilable and pointless.


141 posted on 02/13/2005 12:03:27 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; betty boop; PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for the kudos!

I do understand your frustration arguing the same points time and again, but truly we have been unable to come up with a solution. There are always new posters and new Lurkers and these are the ones being targeted by the re-assertions, repeat counter-arguments, etc.

Also, unhelpful behavior is not limited to one side. I've been on the receiving end of stinkbombs from both sides.

IMHO, it is best to leave such conduct unaddressed because it speaks more about the poster than the intended recipient - (more poison in the handle than the point).

142 posted on 02/13/2005 12:20:35 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Thank you so much for the encouragement, furball4paws! I will try to do better in expressing my points.
143 posted on 02/13/2005 12:22:36 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Here ya go, A-Girl!


144 posted on 02/13/2005 12:39:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; Long Cut
I'll buy these two, although Alamo-Girl sometimes leaves me scratching my head - she's never nasty.

I gave up on those two after they their philosophy statements on massless matter ... Total waste of time trying to follow their rantings.

145 posted on 02/13/2005 12:42:17 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
There are always new posters and new Lurkers and these are the ones being targeted by the re-assertions, repeat counter-arguments, etc.

You forgot to include the lies and false science ...

146 posted on 02/13/2005 12:43:55 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Further thought: the category of "righteous creationists" (which doesn't mean self-righteous creationists) actually includes two groups, those who are genuinely thoughtful, and those who are consistently clueless, but not malicious."

I've thought about it, ansd you're right...a "blacklist" of repeated, proven liars would doubtless cause trouble in mod-land. A list of the honest (if ill-informed) ones seems like a positive step.

I figure that "maliciously clueless" posters are those who DO NOT acknowledge when they are proven wrong, repeat proven lies, and who do not make efforts to correct others. They also toss their stinkbombs (Evolution=communism/Naziism/etc) crap with wild abandon and refer to sources which have many times been debunked. Oh, and they also continue to claim that there's "no evidence at all", or "there's no transitional fossils" or suchlike when they have repeatedly been shown examples of each. Those are the "bad guys".

The "good guys" are those who do not engage in lies or slander, correct errors when shown, refrain from using bogus and debunked sources, and generally conduct themselves on the up-and-up. They are also those who genuinely listen to counterarguments and make efforts to look at and understand the evidence presented.

I'd simply recommend ignoring the "bad guys" completely. Even if one must correct one of their posts, don't even give them the acknowledgement of pinging to them. Post a rebuttal to someone who'll actually read it and get something from it.

147 posted on 02/13/2005 1:00:41 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I figure that "maliciously clueless" posters are those who ...

... who don't belong on the list of righteous creationists. Simple.

148 posted on 02/13/2005 1:05:22 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Hey, I pretty much don't post to people who behave like jackasses (IMHO).If you don't care to engage them, no biggie. And if you DO wish to engage the wingnuts, go for it. My suggestion is to simply ignore the crazies, as mainstream science pretty much does until they do something dangerous.

Those with honest questions and open minds, we should respond with answers and decency. Those we have dealt with too many times should face the sound of crickets.

Yours and my opinion of just what constitutes a jackass might differ, and that's also cool. 'sall up to the individual as to whom they post to.

Wwe tried an "agreement of the willing" (check PH's homepage for a copy) backalong, but it fell apart when the crazies simply ignored it. Honest people on BOTH sides worked on it, including Alamo-Girl. It was done with the best of intentions, but the dishonest people made it a joke, as they are wont to do.

149 posted on 02/13/2005 1:07:12 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Yep. The only question is, what to do about the others?

I agree that posting a list of "righteous creationists" (RC's) is a good idea, but only for a first step. I say just plain ignore the hucksters and wingnuts.

150 posted on 02/13/2005 1:09:50 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: bvw; PatrickHenry; All
You've no room to complain about anyone.
151 posted on 02/13/2005 1:14:08 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal
Ah I just love how 'conservative' atheists magically turn into flaming liberals when confronted with anything that questions their religion.

What gets my goat is how so-called conservatives denie the insights of Adam Smith and give aid and comfort to communists and socialists. ID is isomorphic with socialism. Nothing happens unless it is planned.

152 posted on 02/13/2005 1:30:17 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: js1138
ID is isomorphic with socialism. Nothing happens unless it is planned.

Very good insight. I haven't seen it before.

153 posted on 02/13/2005 1:48:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I agree that posting a list of "righteous creationists" (RC's) is a good idea, but only for a first step. I say just plain ignore the hucksters and wingnuts.

I have problems with actually posting such a list. We generally know who the good guys are. And I question what good it would do to put up a list of the "righteous" with a separate category of "clueless but not malicious" creationists.

I've been ignoring the venomous nut-cases for years. Some guys apparently like to grapple with them. It clutters up the threads, but as you say, it's a personal choice.

154 posted on 02/13/2005 2:00:21 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: bvw
It's the "scientists" that hate science they find less than pythagoreanly pure that I find a problem with. If you would argue that such scientific purists haven't favored abortion and sterlization then you might be unfamiliar with the eugenics movement, with Sanger, with Singer.

1)  Today evolution is believed by the vast majority of scientist,.Yet you don't see many scientist embracing eugenics today.

2) Eugenics has nothing to do with Evolution. While I'm sure many of the early followers thought so, they were wrong.

a) Evolution is natural selection, Eugenics a'int natural

b) There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says in order for one group to "win" another group must "lose". Which includes nothing in the TOE that suggest in order to get you genes into the next generation you must kill/prevent others from doing the same.  

c) According to the TOE (and modern genetics), Variation is a good thing while genetic purity is a bad thing. Trying to create a genetically pure "Master Race" is totally going against evolution and if these Yahoos truly understood evolution they would have realized the fastest way for the Human race to go extinct is to create a so called Master Race. Just look at the natural world, There isn't alot of successful genetically pure organisms out there. For example Cheetahs are nearly genetically pure while leopards have a lot of variation. Which is doing better?

3) Let's not forget Religion also embraced eugenics, It seems you might be unfamiliar with the Reverend Oscar McCulloch, Charles Davenport, The Nazis (who were Christians) or the credited father of eugenics English economist and clergyman Thomas Robert Malthus whose work "The Principle of Population" started it all (and which BTW was written in 1798, 11 years before Charles Darwin was even born!!!). All very religious people.   

4) How is eugenics any different than Christianity's goal through out history of striving for religious purity by killing non-believers, Jews, perceived Witches, and Christians of other denominations? And speaking of which; You want to see eugenics in action just read the Bible, specifically the Book of Numbers and the Book of Joshua. The only difference between Moses and Joshua compared to the Eugenic movement (including the Nazis) in the 1st part of the 20th century is Moses and Joshua were actually quite successful in implementing their eugenic/genocidal campaigns (How many Midianites do you see running around)

Or even that recent case of a Professor of Science at Villanova -- who opted her downs sydrome baby out, and then herself too.

1st, You are lying, She wasn't Professor of Science, She was a history professor

Quote "The Central High School and Macalester College graduate is a history professor specializing in the Middle East at Villanova University outside Philadelphia and director of the school's Center for Arab and Islamic Studies..."

Gee, a Creationist not being truthful, What a shocker!

2) Her beliefs in evolution isn't stated in the article (or is her religion, so for all we know she could have been a very religious person, If she's Islamic that would mean she is actually really opposed to evolution ), nor is there anything to suggest evolution had anything to do with this tragic case. She seemed to be a very depressed mentally ill women.

3) Even if somehow evolution was a factor in this case, it doesn't matter. The actions of one mentally ill women doesn't mean everyone who believes in evolution are prone to do something similar. Does the fact that Andrea Yates killed her 5 children because she wanted them to go to heaven mean that all Christian mothers are prone to do something similar?

155 posted on 02/13/2005 2:05:19 PM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"I agree that posting a list of "righteous creationists" (RC's) is a good idea, but only for a first step. I say just plain ignore the hucksters and wingnuts."

This also interfers with your stated reason for holding up the evo case on these threads: that you want newbies and lurkers to get good information and not be swayed by mush. If you ignore them, you run the risk of someone becoming ill informed.

Nice delimma, huh?


156 posted on 02/13/2005 2:11:25 PM PST by furball4paws ("These are Microbes."... "You have crobes?" BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Actually I have had a difficult time decoding some of your longer posts. It is certainly possible that your intellect far surpasses mine. I also suspect you have a great liking for complexity. I spend most of my time trying to simplify things. It appears we are running down different roads. Still, we ought to cross paths sometimes and when they do, I'll do my best to be nice :^)


157 posted on 02/13/2005 2:16:24 PM PST by furball4paws ("These are Microbes."... "You have crobes?" BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Damn spell checker!


158 posted on 02/13/2005 2:21:08 PM PST by furball4paws ("These are Microbes."... "You have crobes?" BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: bvw

And speaking of Eugenics and the killing of the sick & those deemed unworthly how could I forget this little ditty

Numbers

5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:

5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.

5:4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.


159 posted on 02/13/2005 2:27:49 PM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
This [ignoring the malicious nut-cases] also interferes with your stated reason for holding up the evo case on these threads: that you want newbies and lurkers to get good information and not be swayed by mush. If you ignore them, you run the risk of someone becoming ill informed. Nice dilemma, huh?

When I said I ignore them, I meant only that I don't post to them, and I [usually] ignore their taunts and insults. But I don't ignore their mis-information. We're usually pretty good about correcting creationists' errors, and exposing their bogus quotes. When I expose a bogus quote, I'm usually quite vigorous in denouncing such frauds. But again, I don't post such denunciations directly to the nut-case.

160 posted on 02/13/2005 2:33:26 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 881-899 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson