More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[OmahaFields]

I don't know why you refer to me as a creo. I'm not. Of course, you started right out making assumptions about me, which were not correct. I thought you were a rational person.

I don't think I ever referred to you as a creo. You sure make a lot of statements about what I think and assume which are totally incorrect. I think you are slightly irrational.

[OmahaFields]

You don't believe that organisms evolved? That would make you a creo, wouldn't it?

[Coyoteman]

If you have never noted the fact that they are predicated upon evolution as a fact, you haven't read them with any sort of care.

Have you read equivalent textbooks in other fields to see their treatment? It seems the only criticism we see here is of biology texts. I suspect that criticism is based more on religious sensitivity to the results of evolutionary theory than actual approaches in biology texts as opposed to other fields, but it has been a while since I perused them, so...

By the way, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact part is that each generation is slightly different from the one before it. The theory part seeks to explain these differences, and their effects through time.

[Onelifetogive]

I have a problem with people of faith pushing their faith on others...

People who don't "push their faith on others" aren't people of faith...

[OmahaFields]

I have a problem with people of faith pushing their faith on others...

People who don't "push their faith on others" aren't people of faith...

No. They are just pushy people that have so little faith that they think pushing their faith reaffirms to others that they have faith.

[Onelifetogive]

OmahaFields
Since Jun 10, 2006

OmahaFields may be a newby, but he/she argued his/her point honorably and capably...

[OmahaFields]

Thank you. With that I think I will retire zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Onelifetogive]

"An unknown advanced entity did something at some point in the past" does not qualify.

Interestingly, that is the best scientific explanation for many ancient projects. Stonehenge, mounds, giant desert art, Easter Island, etc. Those things are studied by scientists to figure out who did what, when and how. Scientists are not afraid to assume that the figures on Easter Island were "Intelligently Designed" and to study the evidence to see what can be discovered about the process. Every evo I have seen discussing this topic refuses to admit that it is possible to scientifically study something that was "Intelligently Designed".

Clearly, ID and science are not incompatible. ID has not be rigorously studied, not because it is impossible to study, but because those in control of acedemia refuse to allow anyone off the evo plantation.

[AndrewC]

I think Ann did far more damage to her reputation as a researcher than she did to the theory of evolution.

Yeah, right. /sarc

Friday, June 23, 2006 Best Sellers

HARDCOVER NONFICTION

Top 5 at a Glance
1. GODLESS, by Ann Coulter
2. DISPATCHES FROM THE EDGE, by Anderson Cooper
3. WISDOM OF OUR FATHERS, by Tim Russert
4. MARLEY & ME, by John Grogan
5. THE WORLD IS FLAT, by Thomas L. Friedman

[Quick1]

Yes, evolution is a scientific Theory, along with Gravitation, Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc.

But as much as IDers and Creationists like to point out how Evolution is "only a theory", it's interesting to note how they ignore that their own ideas fail to even rise to the level of scientific theory.

[aruanan]

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

This is true, especially the first part. With respect to the second, its only function is to provide ad hoc just so stories to satisfy the religious longings of naturalists who are otherwise left out in the spiritual cold by their worldview.

[RunningWolf]

There is no need to push a competing theory. I am aware of the historical (and current) tactics and dishonesty of the defenders of evolution. There is NO requirement that there be a competing theory.

I question evolution on its own merits first and second because its supporters are fighting so hard to keep it from being questioned.

Wolf

[ahayes]

Actually I do now, but I wasn't even really looking at the name before. Sorry!

[Gumlegs]

Not a big fan of Derbyshire and so don't generally read his column. Interestingly, however, a creationist in one of these threads recently claimed he was as militant atheist, which was apparently totally incorrect.

That's only because you don't speak Creo. It's a dialect. Correctly translated, "Derbyshire is a militant atheist," means "Derbyshire doesn't believe exactly what I believe."

Hope this helps.

[Coyoteman]

I think Ann did far more damage to her reputation as a researcher than she did to the theory of evolution.

Yeah, right. /sarc

I said reputation as a researcher, not ability to sell books. They are not the same thing.

Don't believe me? Go to the evolution sections and start tracing references. Trace them all the way back.

[curiosity]

I said reputation as a researcher, not ability to sell books.

Ann has (or had) a reputation as a researcher? That's news to me.

She's a shock jock, nothing more, nothing less.

[mjolnir]

Not a big fan of Derbyshire and so don't generally read his column. Interestingly, however, a creationist in one of these threads recently claimed he was as militant atheist, which was apparently totally incorrect. Too unremarkable from the creos to remember just who it was. (Lack of ping therefore not intentional)

In defense of said FReeper, whoever he may be, Derbyshire almost always takes a militant tone and generally takes the positivist, secularist, pro-scientism position against his National Review peers in the Corner. Like David Hume, he believes that religion and morality memes are the result of evolved instinct and ingrained habit and are therefore sturdy enough to survive any attack on their foundations, i.e. attacks upon metaphysical arguments for God's existence and upon epistemological arguments why belief in God is warranted, and upon the foundations of morality in meta-ethics, i.e. natural law, etc. He claims, on the other hand, that science is a fragile, contingent enterprise that we may expect to shatter at any moment, and therefore it needs constant defending in the strongest terms.

That's not where it ends, though. Derbyshire generally takes the position that religion is useful in responding to the hardwired felt needs of individuals, but has little to no place within conservatism or the public square aside from performing a purely symbolic or ornamental function. This is why he refers to himself and the likes of Andrew Sullivan as "conservatives of doubt" and Ramesh Ponnuru and most of his other colleagues as "conservatives of faith".

According to Derbyshire, "we are, for better or worse, long, long past the point where a metaphysics can be grounded in the tenets of Christianity even taken in their most general interpretation." So, I wouldn't be too hard on someone who calls Derbyshire a "militant atheist". Quite frankly, that's a reasonable interpretation of of him as judged from his collective written output, although hardly the only one that's reasonable.

It's an interesting subject to me because Derbyshire's point of view is a very British one, and in reading him I feel like I get a bit better insight into the differences between Britain and America with respect to religion, conservatism, etc.

[mjolnir]

Well said!

[OmahaFields]

According to Derbyshire, "we are, for better or worse, long, long past the point where a metaphysics can be grounded in the tenets of Christianity even taken in their most general interpretation." So, I wouldn't be too hard on someone who calls Derbyshire a "militant atheist".

I don't follow Derbyshire but I was trying to follow this thread. I don't see how the statement you quoted leads to him being a militant atheist.

[mjolnir]

I don't follow Derbyshire but I was trying to follow this thread. I don't see how the statement you quoted leads to him being a militant atheist.

Okay, I can see how someone might not. In point of fact, I wasn't calling Derbyshire a militant atheist--- I was just saying that if someone were to interpret his comments as being from a militant atheist, that person would not be making an unreasonable interpretation.

The key to the above quote is that Derbyshire says that he believes that Christianity is either false, metaphysically speaking, or that the metaphysical concepts concepts it talks about are irrelevant to modernity--- that is, to us. The key is when he says "even taken in their most general interpretation." That last is a very absolute statement, the sort which is consistent with a strong position such as atheism.

As for the the "militant" part, that was supported not by that quote, but by by what I described as Derbyshire's tendency to attack the metaphysical, epistemological and meta-ethical foundations of religion and morality (which has of course been traditionally linked with religion). He does so because he thinks religion and morality are essentially arational-- that is, not being being products of rational thought, they cannot be negated or undermined by rational thought.

This means that Derbyshire ends up usually making the same sorts of arguments one reads at infidels.org and other atheist web sites. But what really makes Derbyshire come off as "militant atheist" like are his arguments about the place of religion and religious morality in the public square. He's against them. Not Christmas displays and other forms of religious symbolism, but the sort of stuff that goes beyond mere symbolism.

For instance, Derbyshire characterizes right to lifers as religious fanatics; the best he can muster about them is that "Even cults have a right to be heard. I would not like to see RTL views prevail; but I would rather see them prevail than see them stifled." He also believes that "our Constitution does not permit the framing of laws based on the peculiar tenets of any religion." Well, it hardly needs saying that the Constitution does no such thing--- there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits laws that make liquor stores be closed on Sunday, for example, even though blue laws are rather obviously religiously inspired. Derbyshire's interpretation of the Constitution, however, does happen to be the same as that of Michael Newdow-- who virtually defines the term "militant atheist"-- in this instance.

Now, as it happens, I believe Derbyshire not to be an atheist, because he's written that he's not, and for me that trumps the above, but I wasn't trying to be insulting through insinuation or anything like that. My point was simply that for someone to interposer him to be a militant atheist based on the fact that he thinks the pro-life movement is freakishly cult-like and believes in the naked public square in which religiously motivated arguments are prohibited, is not a case of that person making an unreasonable interpretation. The same sort of different interpretations are reasonably made of Hume, who he admires and in many respects emulates. I hope that helps but I'd suggest you read Derbyshire to get a sense of what I'm talking about if it doesn't. From looking at your posts (you're right, Cher sucks!), I get the impression you might enjoy his writing, although I have no doubt you would take issue with a great deal of what he says; Derbyshire takes pride in being a contrarian and generally ensures there's never too many people too happy with him (including me-- but that's not to say I don't learn things from him).