Sadly, an Honest Creationist

SecularHumanism.org ^ | Richard Dawkins

[Nataku X]

Sorry... I meant organic MOLECULES and to a certain EXTENT... not enough coffee today.

[wooly_mammoth]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was raised a Catholic. Went to church every Sunday without fail for 16 years. But then got exposed to Philosophy and Comparative Religion. I like Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade.

[Ahban]

For me, and I would guess the vast majority of creationists on this board, this whole article is a STRAWMAN in that it goes after the YOUNG EARTH creationist position only. That is only a particular interpretation of scripture, and not one that is forced by the scriptures themselves. On crevo threads where we are defending CREATIONISM (or ID) as a whole and not just this one tiny corner of it (the corner least justifiably IMHO) the Creationists are more than holding our own against the evolutionsists on these threads.

Heck, I have not even jumped in the last few threads because gore3000 was handling about five evos all by himself. Their primary response quickly degenerated into juvenile name calling and mockery.

Radio Astronomer, Regarding your #19, I agree that parts of amino acid formation are not random, BUT, many of the ways they are not random actually mitigate AGAINST life forming from non-living matter. In other words, in many respects if they formed randomly they would actually have a BETTER chance of forming life (though still a vanishngly small one) than they actually do. This means evolution never gets a chance to start without a Creator!

As to your prior post about my side being locked into one story where you guys are free to change with the evidence: Both scientific interpretation of nature and creationist interpretation of scripture are subject to change. Evidence form the natural universe and scriptures are reconciled because we believe both have the same Author. From all I have seen, evos are just as unielding in their basic interpretation of the universe as crevos are to their own interpretation of scripture, and neither side has much room for assertions of moral or logical superiorty on that count!

[VadeRetro]

For me, and I would guess the vast majority of creationists on this board, this whole article is a STRAWMAN in that it goes after the YOUNG EARTH creationist position only.

The article primarily demolishes what Wise was foolish enough to be honest about--his attachment to faith above any and all evidence. But even if it had spent some screen "ink" demolishing YECism--that's an activity worthwhile, easy, and fun.

Heck, I have not even jumped in the last few threads because gore3000 was handling about five evos all by himself.

You have a wry little sense of humor. I haven't seen that individual in many months, and certainly not on the last few threads. Does it depend upon what you mean by "handling?"

Their primary response quickly degenerated into juvenile name calling and mockery.

Sometimes you have to call people on their behavior. Any time the person you name posted tended to be one of those times.

[wooly_mammoth]

Actually, RadioAstronomer is basically right. I haven't read too much about this topic for 15 years. I would guess that it's pretty clear that certain physical constraints (rules (more specifically, physics, chemistry and biology (chemistry of large molecules (something we don't understand well because of the complexity)))) constrain the process. It's not by any means anything close to random. Dice analogies are way off. Unless, of course, you want to harken back to a lot of physical constants being what they are not being random ala Paul Davies. But then, again, what Einstein or Davies mean when saying 'God' is very different from what is meant by modern un-educated fundamentalists. For them God is nothing more than what God was to some camel-herders 2000 years ago (forgetting the 20 translations that the Chronicle in question went through).

[Nebullis]

That Dawkins so handily skewers him ...

Wise is hoisted by his own petard, and quite handily so.

[cartoonistx]

Who wrote that law?

[VadeRetro]

Wise is hoisted by his own petard, and quite handily so.

It's seldom so easy, of course. Duane Gish would never say what Wise did!

[Ahban]

Yes, well there have not been many crevo threads since 9-11. I take this one as an emerging sign of normalcy around here. As our nations triumphs over the enemies of us all, we can let out a little sigh of relief and get back to delicious debate these issues.

[Timmy]

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).’ Dawkins went on to explain, by the way, that what he dislikes particularly about creationists is that they are intolerant.” -- Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial

Richard Dawkins is about the biggest ass one could find. He used the tragedy of 911 to make attack religion in all its forms. If this man and his ilk ever came to absolute power, we who disagree would be put in the camps.

[RadioAstronomer]

I'm of the opinion that both the creationists and the Darwinists have it wrong. I do believe in evolution, and that organisms do change from one form to another. One good example of this is the fact that whales and dolphins have hip bones, left from eons ago when their ancestors walked on land.

However, I have problems with the idea that sheer random chance led to the creation of the original amino acid compounds here on Earth. Any arguments in support of the idea that life may have been "seeded" here fail to address where the sower originated from.

Except it wasnt a sheer random chance. It was driven by external environmental forces and both mutation and genetic drift.

[RadioAstronomer]

In other words, in many respects if they formed randomly they would actually have a BETTER chance of forming life (though still a vanishngly small one) than they actually do

Why?

[RadioAstronomer]

However, the incredible number of mutations it takes to go from bacteria to human being is incredible.

But its not just mutations. Do not forget genetic drift.

[Nebullis]

Yes, well there have not been many crevo threads since 9-11. I take this one as an emerging sign of normalcy around here.

I thought just the opposite. It's taken some time, but we're slowly recovering from shell-shock... a bit, that is... and we can once again engage in these trivial topics.

[RadioAstronomer]

Earning a Ph.D. in any of the sciences does not automatically make a person honest about his or her science. A cop goes to cop school and earns a badgeHis badge does not make him an honest cop. Likewise a Ph.D. diploma does not make an honest scientist.

I agree completely.

However, the scientific community as a whole has in place very rigorous checks and balances for any new idea. This is why you hear “my data was suppressed” from the people who do not get past the "in place filters" so to speak. It is also the responsibility of the scientist to not fit data to a pet theory. Instead the scientist need to address the data and modify the theory as required.

So in conclusion; I accept the rigors imposed by the scientific community which give a level of credence to the scientific theories put forth.

[Nebullis]

But its not just mutations. Do not forget genetic drift.

Huh?

[RadioAstronomer]

I may have not put it very well, so see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

[Nebullis]

Genetic drift = mutations.

[pcl]

So in conclusion; I accept the rigors imposed by the scientific community which give a level of credence to the scientific theories put forth.

Yes. I pays to see where the person of science has published before wasting time on their "science."

[RadioAstronomer]

Agreed! I was thinking of mutation thru nuclear breaking of a gene or some other external force. I am not a Biologist. I just work with satellites and astronomy. :)