Posted on 07/18/2008 1:54:34 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.
Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .
Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.
Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.
(Excerpt) Read more at scoop.co.nz ...
It just keeps getting nuttier, doesn't it?
Read Later
And the very scientific ad hominem arguments begin in 5, 4, 3, 2....
“You must not have gone to a REAL school!”
“You probably don’t use electricity!”
“It’s been proven over and over again. Look it up for yourself, if you can read.”
One of these days, I’m going to start a thread that posits that Jefferson Davis was a better president than Abraham Lincoln because he would have euthanized Terri Schiavo in the name of natural selection and watch the fur fly.
Or, how about the celebration of the Birth of Christ?
A lot of the arguments could be used against the religion "industry".
'Fittest' does not mean physical strength in human societies; atleast not always. In the natural world, it may be so, but in the case with humans, the dominance of ideas has taken over all other avenues of displays of strength to attract mates, including physical strength, by a very, very acute degree.
Keep in mind that the “religion” industry doesn’t pay any taxes.
The CRSC calls its strategy the “Wedge,” because it wants to liberate science from “atheistic naturalism.”Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.” Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
Philip E. Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in “mere” creation, aiming — in Dembski’s words — “at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.“As Christians,” writes Dembski, “we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science.” Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.’s in religious studies and biology specifically “to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” Behe sees the relevant question as whether “science can make room for religion.” At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
The ID movement is advancing its strategy but its tactics are no substitute for real science. Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its “Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars” — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a “sense of the Senate” that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science. ----By Barbara Forrest
“No one knows how life began,”
No one knows how life began?
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
It was created by the spoken Word of God. Unlike men, God has never lied.
Seattle’s Discovery Institute scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling
Seattle Times ^ | 26 April 2006 | David Postman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1621709/posts
When a federal judge stopped intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania school district in December, the concept’s chief advocates issued a quick and pointed response. ...
Leading conservative commentators including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and syndicated columnist Cal Thomas say the judge’s decision shows that intelligent design is a failed strategy in the effort to bring religion into the public schools.
“Let’s make no mistake,” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals.” [snip]
“Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner. ..” ~ Ethan Clive Osgoode
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70
Thanks. I didn’t see this! In case you missed the smoking gun proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
In other words, they would be very happy with a theocracy--as long as their chosen brand of religion was in charge of things, eh?
And the very scientific ad hominem arguments begin in 5, 4, 3, 2....
***That’s one reason why I introduced the ecumenical tag system for crevo threads. If this topic interests me, I may open it as an ecumenical one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2044051/posts?page=#20
That’s the first I’ve seen the video. I had read a transcript of her testimony a couple of years ago, however.
12/20/05 Re: Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0251.html
12/20/05 Judge Jones’ decision:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0259.html
12/28/05 Judge Jones did NOT side with Discovery Institute
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0385.html
12/29/05 Judge Jones [decision]
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0392.html
01/19/06 Re: “The Goal of ID is to establish a theocratic state” http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200601/0360.html
More:
Dec. 2005 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/
Jan. 2006 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200601/
Complete archive 2005 to date: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/
Do you know how many IDers Ive shown that video to with No effect whatsoever?
We constantly read that evolution, or “Darwinism” as it is disparagingly called, has been debunked or is falling into disrepute.
That’s not true in the least, and if it’s not completely intellectually dishonest, it certainly is cheerleading for creationism without any evidence. Every time another transistional fossil species is found, it’s met with the response, “sure, but where’s the transistional fossil to and from that one.” Or, “that’s obviously a mutant.”
All the evidence in the world won’t convince someone who has made up their mind and doesn’t want to deal with any evidence to the contrary. OJ became an innocent man the moment the jury was sworn in. They should have just voted then and saved us the time and trouble.
Some would have us simply ignore the geologic column, the radiometric dating, the fossil and genetic record.
“My pastor said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Okay, fine, but that is not a scientific argument. That’s a philosophical choice to ignore science.
Of course, as long as it is based on their narrow theology.
“My pastor said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Okay, fine, but that is not a scientific argument. That’s a philosophical choice to ignore science.
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Serious scientists would do well to get better PR people out there as “the face” of science.
For instance, it makes no difference how right Eugenie Scott is - she is an admitted humanist/atheist and that is a non-starter with most lay Christians and many others who don’t trust the (conscious/unconscious) motives of those who hate God. And that goes double when they use science to promote a materialistic/naturalistic mechanism for the “origin” of the human intellect.
True. PZ Meyers with his desecrate a communion wafer silliness isn’t helping anyone. It is, however, very easy to lose your temper when people talk and won’t listen. I do it. I’m trying not to.
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.