Author Topic: Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian (Read 6020 times)

Suave · « **Reply #300 on:** August 29, 2005, 08:36:13 AM »

If ID theory is truely a scientific endeavor why does it exclude naturalistic and evolutionary principle?

If it's truely an open minded approach, why can't it include evolution?

Maybe because it's just god magic and mythology in a lab coat.

Yeah evolution is just a theory, so is gravity and copernican system.

Sabre · « **Reply #301 on:** August 29, 2005, 02:16:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
If ID theory is truely a scientific endeavor why does it exclude naturalistic and evolutionary principle?

If it's truely an open minded approach, why can't it include evolution?

Maybe because it's just god magic and mythology in a lab coat.

Yeah evolution is just a theory, so is gravity and copernican system.

An excellent question, Sauve. I could ask the same of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (in fact, that is I believe the whole point of this thread). The answer to your question is, it does not exclude them. It only disputes how much of the origins of life and the species is due solely to the effects of undirected modification and natural selection. I'm sure if you look deeper into the published literature, that will become apparent.

You're also right in that gravitational theory is just that, a theory. We can observe its effects, and we can even make some measurements and predictions. But we do not understand exactly what it is and how it came to be. Our understanding is incomplete, with mysteries yet to be solved. We're certainly a long way from controling it (a byproduct of our incomplete understanding of gravity).

Simaril · « **Reply #302 on:** August 29, 2005, 02:29:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Sorry but a Asteroids big enough to destroy earth flying by Us every few hundred years is not a "Perfect Universe".

So your saying we pissed god off so he decided to make it less safe for our civilization? wow

Wondering if you're falling into the logical trap of disproving the thesis by first assuming it to be false....

What passes for human civilization is alive and kicking, so the end of life event you're referring to hasnt occurred as yet. ALso, the asteroid risk you observe is, after all, a part of life "after teh fall", not before it. The presence of potential danger ddoesnt rule out protective influences.

Judeo-Christian teaching doesnt look at the fallen world as a punishment meted out by a pissed off God, but rather as a notural consequence of actions. Introducing imperfections wasnt his idea....

The difference is more than hair splitting. If my kid blows off homework for a term, the natural consequence is a bad grade. It's not punishment, its not cruelty -- it jsut follows from teh choices made.

'Course if my kid were to try that, there WOULD be a ....um.... parental intervention that was distinct from and in addition to the natural consequence.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #303 on:** August 29, 2005, 04:21:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
What passes for human civilization is alive and kicking, so the end of life event you're referring to hasnt occurred as yet.

T-Rex civilization sure took it in the shorts though.

midnight Target · « **Reply #304 on:** August 29, 2005, 05:13:49 PM »

I'd bet that if we were to combine all of the Evolution/Creation threads over the past 4 years they would have enough raw words in them to randomly create life in the form of a letter amoeba.

Simaril · « **Reply #305 on:** August 29, 2005, 06:09:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
T-Rex civilization sure took it in the shorts though.

T-Rex wore shorts?

Probably THAT would explain the extinction thing. WIth those little foreclaws, aint no way T Rex could undo his shorts.....

Sabre · « **Reply #306 on:** August 30, 2005, 07:59:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd bet that if we were to combine all of the Evolution/Creation threads over the past 4 years they would have enough raw words in them to randomly create life in the form of a letter amoeba.

lothar · « **Reply #307 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:08:53 PM »

This is an interesting discussion that hits close to home for me.

Me: Agnostic Naturalist
Wife: Born Again Christian

It gets interesting once in a while....

She once tried to get me to read a book to my kids that showed drowning dinosaurs next to the Ark....

I'm not anti-religion. Just don't mix religion with science or wrap religion in a fancy wrapping and pretend it's science.

I may just freak her out and anounce that I'm "Pastafarian" and worship the The Great Spaghetti Monster

WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM

* Flimsy moral standards.
* Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
* Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.

Check this link
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/atran05/atran05_index.html
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
or
http://www.sciam.com/
and Search for "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

I read this book and this review is accurate of what I thought.

http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Reviews/evolution.html

My two losey cents worth... flame away..

lothar

Noodlism

FalconSix · « **Reply #308 on:** August 30, 2005, 04:12:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Actually, they're not synonyms. Even if they were, it does not follow that Creationism and ID are (which they're not).

Actually, they are synonyms, according to the dictionary. ID is creationism lightly coated in popular science, warping science to comply with a preconceived notion. Very much like what the Nazi scientists (without further similarity) did in the '30s when they were searching for traces of the ancient Aryan master race in the Himalayas. ID is the result of Christians trying to explain God through science because kids nowadays like Star Trek more than going to church.

FalconSix · « **Reply #309 on:** August 30, 2005, 04:35:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Investigation and advancement went on for the thousands of years where acceptance of a "creator" was nearly universal. To say that somehow science will stop asking "how" just because a designer is determined to have played a part is reactionary nonesense. We are hopelessly and insatiably curious creatues.

Because of Christendom we are about half a millennia behind on science. During the Dark Ages of Christian church rule in Europe science was outlawed as heresy and scientists persecuted as witches. The only real progress made during those dark years where done in spite of religion with great difficulty and personal risk.

However, even if hampered by the great ball and chain of Christianity, Europe still managed to progress faster than other cultures in the world that were even more hampered by their oppressive and stagnate religions. The result was centuries of European dominance of this planet. The day mankind finally rids itself of the shackles of religion we might finally achieve our full potential as "curious creatures".

SirLoin · « **Reply #310 on:** August 30, 2005, 07:19:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

Where does the blind faith come in?

Faith imho is irrational and the source of most of the world's attrocities/problems.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #311 on:** August 30, 2005, 10:26:15 PM »

Faith is by definition irrational. Belief without reason.

"Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen." Jesus Christ

Nash · « **Reply #312 on:** August 30, 2005, 10:36:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
Faith imho is irrational and the source of most of the world's attrocities/problems.

Faith is irrational.

But don't confuse people who have faith with people who have faith and are just plain nuts.

Actions speak louder than words.

When someone with "faith" makes any motion however feinting or overt towards something negative, anything negative, using their faith as a justification, then they ultimately do not have faith.

Real faith wouldn't allow it.

moot · « **Reply #313 on:** August 31, 2005, 05:25:26 AM »

What was it Plato said about there being only Good and mistaken Good?

"Real faith" is a misnomer.

Simaril · « **Reply #314 on:** August 31, 2005, 06:28:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
Because of Christendom we are about half a millennia behind on science. During the Dark Ages of Christian church rule in Europe science was outlawed as heresy and scientists persecuted as witches. The only real progress made during those dark years where done in spite of religion with great difficulty and personal risk.

...snip....

Nice recap of popular propaganda there, Falcon.

Course, some scholars might suggest that there were economic (serfdom), political (feudalism and the anarchy of power vacuums), and social (black plague) influences to slow progress down -- but who am I to get in the way of a polemicist on a mission?

Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? Medieval scholasticist who extensively argued that creation was an expression of the character of God, and thus was orderly and comprehensible? That understanding creation would give insight into the nature of the creator? Prior to him, university professors were locked into the Greek tradition, and treated Aristotle as divine writ; if it didnt jive with aristotle it was out of bounds.

Love to see any references you have to actual scientists actually being burned....