The article is an initial contribution of resources for the project – whether the Freeper interest is merely to debunk the assertion that creationism is the same thing as intelligent design and that both are conservative, politically -–or whether the Freeper is interested in engaging a liberal correspondent directly on science issues.
Please post whatever resources you have that may be useful to either objective. Your insights are also very much appreciated.
Just a ping hoping that y'all are interested in this project...
Hello Dear, I simplified it years ago; There are those who KNOW and those who don't know.
Natural selection is undirected?!? You are nuts, my dear. Natural selection indeed has a direction and a singular one at that: the suvival of the species.
It is a real shame to see the time and energy that is wasted in chasing "creationist" or "ID" fantasies.
The criticism of identifying ID with conservatives is legitimate. Doing so is the equivalent of identifying radical environmentalists with the Democratic Party.
And on this fundamental mis-understanding, your whole argument disappears. OF COURSE "randomeness" is NOT the prime factor in evolution. The prime factor in evolution is natural selection. It is natural selection that provides the "direction" for evolutionary change. "Randomness" only applies at the cellular molecular level of mutation, providing only that there will be a gaussian distribution of "species characteristics" around some mean value. It is only after the application of some "naturally selective" force (be that changing climate, new disease vectors, or whatever) that "chops off" a part of that gaussian distribution of genetic mutation that evolution acquires its direction, with a new gaussian distribution around the new mean value of species characteristics.
Every culture has a creation story. Creationism seeks to have only one such story taught in schools--the one found in Genesis. Creationism and its recent offspring Intelligent Design want nothing to do with the other thousands or tens of thousands of creation stories. That is why I often post other stories on these threads. Remember, the people who told these stories believed them as much as the Creation/ID folks believe theirs!
When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked/ "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.
Salinan Indian creation story, south-central California
Wow. Great work, Bump. I never new my point of view had a name (omphalos hypothesis)
Except that nobody actually believes this, ID theorists least of all - start asking who the designer might be, and the theological import of ID becomes crystal-clear.
You are an FR research treasure, AG....this is an amazing piece of compilation - thanks.
bump -great job-thanks for your work - many "scientist" here are blind to the bias they carry..true breakthroughs in science require the ability to allow for facts that may be contrary to the accepted dogma is what separates great science from the technocrat drones.
Very interesting AG. I sent home to read this evening.
Just curious--are you familiar with Tom Wolfe's "conscious thrown rock" metaphor, from his book 'I Am Charlotte Simmons'? I believe this was from his experience with neuroscience findings. John Derbyshire at the NR has expressed some thoughts on this subject as well.
It will probably not be more than a theory, and probably won't come up with anything significantly philosophically fresh or different from what is found in Plato's Republic, but it will be of some use as analogy in educating the young.
Read later..
Derailed train of thought place mark
There's ID's first problem. It does not proffer positive evidence for its validity. ID is not in itself a scientific theory, but simply an attack (however valid or invalid) on natural selection. Scientific attacks on theories are good, because they serve to eliminate false theories (as with geocentricity), or reinforce or enhance existing theories that survive the attack (as natual selection has survived, modified).
But it's still not a theory, and shouldn't be taught or referred to as such, however much the neo-Creationist CSC wishes it were true.
For my part, I have done a lot of thinking and study on why otherwise intelligent believers have backed themselves into the corner of insisting that creation occured within the span of six rotations of this planet -- and that it occurred 6,000 years (orbits of this planet about its sun) ago. And, why they have put themselves in the position of having to deny (or deliberately misinterpret) the evidence of their senses and the results of millions of scientists-hours of meticulous observation.
I belive I have a few answers. It will require considerable work to write them up. Do you feel the effort would be worthwhile?
For one hint, take a look at the works of Michelangelo -- and read the second of the ten commendments...) '-)
Don't you just despise a teaser? LOL!
bump