I like it. Of course, ID is to full-blown creationism what this masked man is to ...
Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Can you take another question? What is the great distinction between a cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution? I'm sure you'll be highly ethical in your answer. Maybe even scientific!
I like it. Of course, ID is to full-blown creationism what this masked man is to ...
>Sounds RandianThey should be. :-)Are you unaquainted with market economics? Are conservative ideas automatically associated with Ayn Rand?
Actually it's as old as Adam Smith - and Friedrich Hayek did a lot of work on this in the last century. He came up with the notion of the "spontaneous order" that emerges from the free market. The idea is that the overall result is much more complex & vibrant than what the individual participants could ever have designed themselves.
Creationists look at that and say, "well, the particpants are intelligent human beings". But the proper take-away lesson for biology is that the system is much more complex than what the intelligence of the individual actors could let them design.
It says a lot about the plausibility of abiogenesis too: The individual biomolecules have an intelligence of virtually zero. But since they interact according to the laws of chemistry (a few unambiguous rules of behavior), they can combine to create a system that's very complex indeed. 'Course, these unintelligent molecules took tens (or maybe hundreds) of millions of years to produce something interesting & self-sustaining.
"Are you unaquainted with market economics? Are conservative ideas automatically associated with Ayn Rand?"
Hey now, don't bite. jennyp has posted some things quite complimentary to Rand and one of the themes of Atlas Shrugged is what gives the life's blood to the US, exemplified by New York City (that railroad).
No, conservative ideas are not automatically associated with Rand, as you know. She certainly would not agree with many conservatives of today, especially politicians.
Nonetheless, is it in the archives?
It might have been nice if you had added that Behe is a professor at Lehigh University, and not just a Fellow at the Discovery Institute.
I didn't write the rebuttal of Behe, Myers did.
But, for the record, Behe's affiliation with Lehigh University is noted in his original NYTimes op-ed piece, which piece is reproduced in its entirety on this FR thread that I linked to in my post #1 on this thread.
Whether Lehigh University and Behe's colleagues there are especially thrilled about being associated with Behe's defence of ID is an issue I cannot address from first-hand knowledge. But if anybody wants to lay down a betting line on the issue, we can talk...
Actually, I agree with you. For most men will think of anything to get rid of God who instructs them to live above the instincts of animals.
And I notice you had zilch to say about Annie's Box. I'd say that was a decent rejoinder to your post which contained the word 'idiot'. PH is right. You folks never insult t'all.
Dr. Ener arrived at Villanova University in the fall, 1996, from the University of Michigan, where she had begun the research that would be the foundation for her book Managing Egypt’s Poor and the Politics of Benevolence, 1800-1952 (Princeton 2003). Her goal, she once wrote, was nothing less than to “develop an entire sub-field of study” dedicated to “forms of charity (including Islamic and Judaic-Christian traditions) and assistance to the poor within Middle Eastern societies.” Laboring in archives that (with the exception of the Ottoman archives in Istanbul) lack catalogs and indexing systems, she poured through mountains of paper, searching for any mention of the destitute and forgotten. Forging friendships with Egyptian scholars, she turned the lonely work of the researcher into a cooperative effort, as she learned of likely sources in long conversations with them. Her drive and persistence sometimes yielded serendipitous surprises, such as the seemingly innocuous Cairo municipal register that led her to a 20-volume record of relief recipients. Her insatiable curiosity led her beyond her initial inquiry about Egyptian charity to comparative studies, which then spawned a series of wide-ranging articles about charity in Istanbul, multiple colonial contexts, and an overview essay aimed at a broad, non-specialist readership.What is the distinction you would draw between "scientist" and scholarly researcher? The latter which she was, the former she was too, for the term scientist means one who seeks knowledge.
I was drawn to mention her case because of her Down's Syndrome baby. I suspect that it was the callous attitude some have towards deformed and retarded babes, Down's, spinal bifuda, etc. -- especially those steeped in secular humanism, atheism, or the "superman" and "survival of the fittest" mindsets that drove the eugenics movements and many of those, imo, who make a religion out of a theory -- the modern institutional evolutionists.
However by that mention of Down's syndrome in this case, my own bias is exposed, for I have encountered in my work medical researchers who were hot to develop and push wide-use of pre-natal tests for Downs and SB where the major prognosis (am I using that word right?) was to raise fear and provoke abortions amoung expectant mothers whose risks summed to a high probability. My work was otherwise unrelated, it was a randomness of venture capitalizations that I fell in with that bunch.
That admitted, let me ask you again, please -- What is the distinction you would draw between "scientist" and scholarly researcher? What is the distinction between a scholarly cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution through classification schemes?
Hardly, You are the one trying to pin all the world's evil on people who don't hold your particular Biblical worldview.You are the one acting like the world was living in perfect harmony in a Christian utopia with no war, murders, power grabs, racism, etc. until Darwin shown up and ruined it all. I'm just pointing out the silliness and hypocrisy of your argument. Sorry but just as there are some scientist who have used science & evolution for evil purposes there are some Christians who use religion & the Bible for evil also.
But yes, If we end up wasting our political capital on this silly issue and the 2006/2008 elections are about evolution instead of important stuff like illegal immigration, tort reform, small government, etc and it cost us the election and Hillary ends up as President, You better believe I will have a big grudge against you.
Why am I a liar, btw? Is it possible that I may have made a mistake? Is every mistake a lie? To a prejudicial grudge-seeker it sure is. Are you one? If you hold to that I am a liar prove then that my mistake was intentional, deliberate! That last is a rhetorical question. You can not so prove, at least by honest proof. Don't accept less.
Come on now, It would have been one thing if you mistakenly said something like she was a music professor instead of a history professor, But on a post where you are trying to make the case scientist are evil, you just happen to mistakenly blame an obvious disturbed women's actions on her being a scientist. Very hard to believe it was just an honest mistake, at the very least it was willful negligence.
If you'd have replaced the "but the proper" assertion -- which is making it a dogma, and used instead "The more useful" -- which is not dogmatic, then you'd be "scientific" and not "religious".
Oh, I doubt it. You love to attack the 'liars'. You love to twist statments by Christians and call them lies.
But you ignore repeated requests which link to scientific studies indicating why your motives for attacking Creationists is good for the GOP. Marrieds voted for Bush overwhelmingly. Folks who never attend church ... why they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Folks who never attend church, why, they overwhelmingly believe in evolution too I would bet.
How, scientifically (links would be great; but you, and your band of brothers, have failed to post a single one thus far), does it help the cause of the GOP to disregard the legitimate concerns Christians have against the amoral foundations taught to kids about their origins?
Let's work with that. Why do you find evolution ex nihilo so easy to believe? Why do you deny that intelligent design -- G-d -- is far more likely?
"What is the distinction between a scholarly cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution through classification schemes?"
One has the moral endorsement of evolutionists, the other isn't bright enough to understand evolution?
Are you making me King then that I should have such control over you, over the entire electorate? If so, I would like better robes. Mine are quite threadbare!
Your point of what is a wasted argument is a good one. Why then do these discussions create such passion? We are all sane and capable, or would not be here to this forum, to this thread, able to post from keyboard, computer and connection. Why do we put so much energy into these mud wrestling matches -- for so they become, so often, and when not so aggravating fade under boredoms glare into forgotten, ignored threads?
You gave up? It would be far more precise to state you all have 'given up'. The vast majority of betty boops and AG's arguments, postings, observations, links, what have you, are essentially ignored. You tolerate both of these folks; you certainly don't engage them. Both of them cogently address ID stuff, scientifically. Both of them are given no scientific credibility whatsoever. They are given credit merely for having good manners; but they are simply misguided who need 'to read more' in the insightful words of one of you.
Not ONE person on your side has stated for the record that AG and/or BB has persuaded them that indeed, there is more to it than what Darwinists have provided.
Watching how they are treated by all of you has convinced me of just one thing: you don't really care what either think.
Let's face it: these evo threads are a religious debate in disguise between legalists and grace activists. Darwinism presents a rational way, based on 'laws' in his words, to morally justify living by any code that man decides to invent and codify; whoever is strong enough to impose it wins. There are no morals, just 'logic thru strength'.
Grace activists, otoh, reject out of hand that ANY code is more important than the obedience to Jesus Christ's commands. The biggest crime any creationist could be guilty of here is not lying ... it is telling the truth. It is a very inconvenient truth that the Darwin family inspired the most famous monster story of all time. It is a very inconvenient truth that Annie Darwin's death at a young age affected how Charles delievered 'Origins', and how he felt about God during the time he grieved for his daughter. Folks here don't like talking about inconvenient truths.
I would feel very, very differently about this, if in Public School, I was given the whole picture, and given the option of figuring this out myself. But no. The agenda was king, and inconvenient pieces of information were omitted. PH's link list .... the discussion of Annie Darwin is .... missing.
It is inconvenient to the argument.
btw, I am Jewish. Just for the record.
Sounds Randian, jennyp should like it. Is it in the archives?
It was a reply posted to a thread about 5 days ago; I can't recall which one, but I do recall conversing via FReepmail with the author (whose identity I can't recall either.)
It is essentially a variant of Milton Friedman's essay on how pencils get made, except the pencil is replaced by the food that goes into the mouths of New Yorkers. It was very good.
As you say, they obviously find agreeable the good postings of AG and BB, but by that very agreement they seem to find no reason to engage on any point they make excepting the agreable tone.
I know that's what all the creationists keep saying, but they "forget" to mention that they're wrong. From a previous post of mine covering a creationist "paper" which made the same claim:
Finally, phylogenetic analyses of the gene sequences [20] suggest that flagellar motor proteins arose first and those of the pump came later. In other words, if anything, the pump evolved from the motor, not the motor from the pump.
Wow, a citation finally! But if they ever attempt to publish this "paper", they're going to have to correct their error in the title of their citation...
In any case, Minnich et al "forgot" to mention that newer research has superceded their citation. That's a *BIG* no-no in *real* peer-reviewed scientific papers (seriously -- as in evidence of incompetence and/or dishonesty), but I see that it's no impediment to the sort of unreviewed "conference papers" that IDers put out in order to try to keep the dream alive.
See for example:
Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events, U. Gophna et al. / Gene 312 (2003) 151–163This was published in APRIL *2003* -- what excuse to Minnich et al have for not being aware of it while preparing a paper in LATE 2004? A publication keyword search for either "Type III secretion systems" or "Flagella" (and even more importantly, *both*) would have turned up this paper without a problem. Hell, *I* found it in three minutes with Google *without* using a keyword search, just by Googling for the (correct) title of citation#20 -- it turned up this paper, which cites the Nguyen paper, something that Minnich et all should have done at a *MINIMUM* as due dilegence to find subsequent related research (pro *or* con)... Did Minnich et al not *bother* to research anyone else's findings before they sat down to put together their "paper"?Abstract: Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems.(Also note the passage about "lateral transfer" -- this is YET ANOTHER evolutionary mechanism which Behe's cartoon scenarios of evolution COMPLETELY OVERLOOK.)
This is, unfortunately, all too typical of "papers" by IDers/creationists. Unlike real *scientists*, they're not interested in gathering the best available findings and then seeing the best "big picture" the evidence suggests. Instead they're *starting* with their desired conclusion, and then searching out and presenting *only* the "findings" which would *seem* to support their position when considered IN ISOLATION.
And then you wonder why we claim that ID/creationism isn't real science (at least the way it is invariably performed)?
200?
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.