Sunday, February 27, 2011

John Beddington and Intolerance of Pseudo-Science

It is good to see the growing impatience of religiously motivated pseudo-science. Too often science has been, and continues to be, religion’s handmaiden. In fact it is surprising there hasn’t been a stronger backlash. But now it may be coming on too strong—the backlash may be more of whiplash. Witness Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington’s recent remarks:

In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.

Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that … we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.

I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant … We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.

“There are enough difficult and important problems out there without having to … deal with what is politically or morally or religiously motivated nonsense.”

It is refreshing to see strong words against “religiously motivated nonsense,” but I am afraid this may be a sign of dangerous overreactions to come. Yes, evolution is every bit as dangerous as Beddington suggests. In fact it is arguably far more dangerous than racism and homophobia.

But evolutionists are not guilty of hatred as are racists. Yes evolutionists bring us “religiously motivated nonsense” as Beddington puts it. Yes they cherry-pick the facts, misrepresent science and have a pernicious influence. It is difficult not to be a little bit angry with them. But we must not overreact. Rather than speak of intolerance we must speak of forgiveness. We must exchange our anger for love. I do not urge you to be grossly intolerant.

79 comments:

  1. Haven't posted for some time, but the usual observed deflections have been entertain just the same.

    Here's a sort of unrelated, yet troublingly related article about GMO research scientists and their use of "Linguistic Contortionism" to lable anyone opposed to them as "UNSCIENTIFIC". Much of this reporter's article, phrazes, terms and exposure of these cowardly pseudo-science tactics being used are closely related to your's Dr Hunter. Much about science is loaded with power/politics - wealth/ideology and any opposed are labled blasphemers, heretics and anti-science. And all of this coming from the seemingly secular gang.

    Enjoy!!!

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031093_unscientific_GMOs.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hunter:

    I do not urge you to be grossly intolerant.

    How much intolerance are you urging?

    Perhaps it would have been less tendentious for you to have urged your acolytes to take the message of Matthew 7:1-5 to heart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pedant:

    "Perhaps it would have been less tendentious for you to have urged your acolytes to take the message of Matthew 7:1-5 to heart."
    ===

    Continued misapplication of this cited text which first and foremost applies to the Christian congregation still doesn't hide your side's failings nor does it obligate Cornelius or anyone else to accept lying as a justified means to promote a dogma. Lies will always be lies and no amount of fuging will change that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Er Cornelius, I know reporting ideas truthfully is not your thing, but you may want to try the article again.

    Beddington is talking about the anti-science rubbish pushed by astrologers, psychics, the IDiots at the DI, and the YECs like Ken Ham and AIG.

    Remind me who won the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision again. Then maybe you could list all the scientific advances brought forth by ID and/or YEC research. It won't take you long I guarantee.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius,

    Don't you find it sad that IDers can't come up with anything new? Even your own shtick "Evolution = religion" is a number from Henry Morris's repertoire. Here is the original: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Yes, evolution is every bit as dangerous as Beddington suggests. In fact it is arguably far more dangerous than racism and homophobia."

    Let us look at the field of Evolution:

    PZ Myers-outspoken atheist and evolutionary biologist, Professor vs. Francis Collins-outspoken theistic evolutionist, head of NIH.
    I could go on, and list hundreds of people with personally opposed viewpoints, who agree on the science. Heck, there are even scientists that are academy members that disagree, on some level, with the science! Have we run them out?

    Seems like we have little to enforce, except that science class should teach science. Big Scary?

    Who are we telling they can't get married, that they are going to hell for loving their partner? Who has been lynched?

    Your hyperbole is as hateful as the intolerance you claim to reject.

    Out of curiosity, Would your institution hire a atheist, or a Muslim? A gay married couple? What about the DI?

    By the way, I notice after your first post on UD in weeks, O'Leary has run it over with two of her own on the same topic! That's got to feel good.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CH: "Yes, evolution is every bit as dangerous as Beddington suggests. In fact it is arguably far more dangerous than racism and homophobia.

    Unless, of course you are a gay person in Uganda where not only is the government trying to change the law so gays can be subject to the death penalty, but gay activists have already been murdered. I don't think it gets more dangerous than that.

    How exactly is it dangerous CH? Please explain. I haven't heard anybody being physically harmed because of evolution, have you? Actually, the truth is probably the vast majority of people are too busy living their lives to even think about this stuff, let alone consider whether they are a "Darwinist" or not.

    (And, BTW, if you read Beddington's article you will find that he doesn't even mention evolution, so not sure where you get this from, other than you just made it up).

    But maybe it is a little unfair to call ID "pseudo-science". But I think though we can say it is not a very productive science. CH likes to go on about how evolution is "bad" science, but of course has nothing to offer in the way of alternatives. If one measures the output of ID as science what do we have? Some rather academic (and hotly disputed) ideas on design inference, irreducible complexity etc. An extremely number of small journal papers, a few popular books that appeal to a very small audience (most of whom are probably evangelical Christians). Sure, there's the "research" arm of ID - the Biologic institute. Despite being around for a few years now, they have very little to show for themselves.

    CH likes to repeat endlessly that evolution is "bad" science, and of course like any science it certainly has its flaws, but CH has absolutely nothing better to offer as an alternative. Why should we take him seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oleg:

    "Don't you find it sad that IDers can't come up with anything new?"
    ===

    Funny, Cornelius says he's neither an IDer or Creationist. Nor does he advocate that either be mandated as a part of all biological science. The ONLY time he's mentioned anything religious is when your gang here presses him for his personal beliefs on a matter. At that point, you then attack when he does, you all figuratively/illustratively spit, urinate and defecate on what he posts, which is what you actually wanted in the first place since none of you ever deal directly with any of his long line of O.P.s.
    ---

    Oleg:

    "Even your own shtick "Evolution = religion" is a number from Henry Morris's repertoire."
    ===

    Well until you actually start providing facts (for example shticking to the OP) and dump the faith-based statement making and storytelling, then we'd be able to put this to rest and move on. Verstehen Sie mich comrad ??? *wink*
    ---

    Oleg:

    "Here is the original: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science."
    ===

    That site is every equal a religious website as is talkorigns.org, AnswersInGenesis, richarddawkins.net, talkrational.com, etc, etc, etc. So what's the point ??? Cornelius has advocated science be completely neutral of ideology, philosophy, religion, politics, etc, but we both know that isn't going to happen any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ms Thorton:

    "Er Cornelius, I know reporting ideas truthfully is not your thing, but you may want to try the article again."
    ===

    No, you may want to try again reading the article. Actually it's not a problem unique only to evolutionary biology. It's every branch of science that is power and obscene wealth driven. Unfortunately for nature and all of humankind those are the terrible facts and it shows. Did I hear someone say "Nonylphenol" and "Bisphenol A" ???

    How pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  11. RobertC:

    "Out of curiosity, Would your institution hire a atheist, or a Muslim? A gay married couple? What about the DI?

    By the way, I notice after your first post on UD in weeks, O'Leary has run it over with two of her own on the same topic! That's got to feel good."
    ===

    Once again, nice deflection. It's refreshing to see an Evolutionist admit this is personal. Now back to the O.P. ???

    ReplyDelete
  12. Janfeld:

    "How exactly is it dangerous CH? Please explain. I haven't heard anybody being physically harmed because of evolution, have you?"
    ===

    Hmmmmmmmm, off hand the historical list is Jews, Aparteid South Africans, Australian Aboriginies, Darwin's encounter with Argentine Savages, Confederate Slaves, opposers of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, shall I go on ???

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ich versteh dich schön, Genosse Eocene. It's not hard, for you don't have anything original to say, either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oleg:

    " It's not hard, for you don't have anything original to say, either. "
    ===

    Sure I do. Dump the stupid politicing, ideological indoctrination and religious conversion and keep science clean & neutral. See how easy that was comrad ???

    You want proof ??? Just read any and all of your guy's blogs. It's not about science, it's about the politics and philosophy!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eocene,

    How about you learn to write in English for starters, before you even attempt to misuse other languages? Is that too much to ask?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Privet tovarish Oleg,

    Don't be too harsh on Eocene's English, seeing as your German isn't entirely up to speed either. It's "Ich verstehe dich schon".

    /pedant

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ecocene: "Hmmmmmmmm, off hand the historical list is Jews, Aparteid South Africans, Australian Aboriginies, Darwin's encounter with Argentine Savages, Confederate Slaves, opposers of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, shall I go on ???"

    This of course is not a new argument. A better explanation of course is that people inspired by greed, power, corruption etc act in heinous ways that results in authoritarianism. There is no causal link between evolution and these acts (for example anti-semitism was already rife in Europe long before Hitler or Darwin - and not helped any by Luther!)

    These kinds of things have of course been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years before evolution was ever known about. And of course we have seen similar corruption and authoritarianism in religious movements, and still do. But that doesn't mean that religion is necessarily the cause of these things either.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ecocene: "Funny, Cornelius says he's neither an IDer or Creationist. Nor does he advocate that either be mandated as a part of all biological science. The ONLY time he's mentioned anything religious is when your gang here presses him for his personal beliefs on a matter."

    Of course the challenge is we don't actually know what CH stands for; we can assume he is at least sympathetic to ID because he is after all a Fellow of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture which at least in part supports ID. The reason we have pressed CH on his religious beliefs is because they ARE relevant. In the same way CH insists that evolution is influenced by metaphysical assumptions, it is similarly reasonable to ask if CH is also subject to metaphysical assumptions. CH has explicitly stated that he believes the Designer to be the Christian God (presumably from an a priori belief system), yet in the same breathe wants to convince us that his scientific views are scientifically "neutral" and that somehow he is one of the few "scientists" who are truly objective. Firstly, I see no evidence that he actually practices sciences anymore, and secondly I find his statements on this matter too incredulous to take seriously.

    For me it's a critical thinking matter - I appreciate there is such a thing as the fallacy of "appeal to authority" but on the other hand when you consider a source, particularly related to science, one has to consider factors such as scientific record, possible biases or other motivations, current position etc.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "By the way, I notice after your first post on UD in weeks, O'Leary has run it over with two of her own on the same topic! That's got to feel good"

    Interestingly, somebody posted a comment on one Ms O'Leary's posts that they wanted to see more posts from other people than just O'Leary. It wasn't rude or anything and didn't say anything detrimental about Ms O'Leary or her posts. But it's already gone. At least CH to his credit has the courage to let both sides speak.

    I have to say though I agree with the sentiment of the comment - Ms O'Leary has turned UncommonDescent virtually into her own blog and has of late been quite prolific. Personally I find I scratch my head at most of her posts - I find her writing rambling and confusing, and often I have no real idea of what point she is trying to make. I think most of the people at UD are too polite to criticize, but unfortunately since she has become one of the de facto spokesperson for ID, I don't think it is helping ID's image.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How typical of those who preach tolerance. Tolerance is such a beautiful thing until you think you're going to lose you political agenda. As evolution crumbles the only alternative is God did it. Therefore we are obliged to obey His commandments. So, to prevent the inevitable, and fight for their sacred cause, just like Stalin did, the secularists are calling to arms, to arms. It would be funny if I was a satirist, but the scenario isn't funny as it plays itself out over and over again like a broken wheel. I am afraid it is more like a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter:

    It would be funny if I was a satirist...

    It's funny, Peter. Thanks for the chuckle.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Peter: "As evolution crumbles the only alternative is God did it.

    What evidence do you have that evolution is crumbling? Unless your measurement for this is a few hyperbolic blog postings here and on UncommonDescent.

    Besides, why is the default "God did it"? And which one did you have in mind and why?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Janfeld,

    "What evidence do you have that evolution is crumbling? Unless your measurement for this is a few hyperbolic blog postings here and on UncommonDescent."

    Two words: protein folding. Protein function is impossible by random chance. It may take a while to sink in, but that's the truth. Some people will not believe the facts, regardless of a mountain of evidence. However, the facts are against evolution.

    "Besides, why is the default "God did it"?

    Secularists understand this effortlessly. I don't know why others don't easily see the connection.

    "And which one did you have in mind and why?"

    The God that created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. He goes by different names and different conceptions. Who could possibly understand him totally? (I forgot the evolutionists claim to know what God would or how He creates). However, history shows that all societies of people with brains, for all time believe in God.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Peter said...

    Janfeld,

    "What evidence do you have that evolution is crumbling? Unless your measurement for this is a few hyperbolic blog postings here and on UncommonDescent."

    Two words: protein folding. Protein function is impossible by random chance.


    Good thing then that no one in the actual scientific community says protein function arose just by random chance. It arose through a long term iterative process involving random changes filtered by selection and used for each subsequent generation.

    Why do IDiots still insist on pushing the stupid 'ToE says everything assembled strictly by chance!!" strawman?

    However, history shows that all societies of people with brains, for all time believe in God.

    That's GodS, plural. At last count there were over a thousand major Gods, and an estimated ten thousand minor ones in all the world's religions.

    Why does your particular flavor of the month deserve any more pull than all the others?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Peter: "The God that created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. He goes by different names and different conceptions. Who could possibly understand him totally?"

    It certainly would be difficult to understand him if he keeps changing his name and conceptions. So I guess if he comes up with a new name and a new identify, you just shrug it of and say "that's God up to his old tricks again? ". I suppose it's convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thornton: "At last count there were over a thousand major Gods, and an estimated ten thousand minor ones in all the world's religions.


    Didn't you hear the news? It's been shown God has CDID. (Cosmic Dissociative Identify Disorder).

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eocene: Funny, Cornelius says he's neither an IDer or Creationist.

    Are you suggesting we shouldn't assume Cornelius' objections and claims have any implications in reality? Are we not supposed to take him seriously?

    Eocene: The ONLY time he's mentioned anything religious is when your gang here presses him for his personal beliefs on a matter.

    Are you suggesting a belief in revelation would be irrelevant to how one defines science or interprets evidence? For example, I've asked Cornelius where revelation fits into the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction, but he has yet to respond.

    Apparently, Cornelius thinks it's not holding an opinion about what God would or would not do that compromises one's ability to objectively evaluate evidence; it's the act of making explicit statements about what God would or would not do in public that somehow renders one incapable of evaluating evidence.

    For example, if gravitational theory explains the phenomena we attribute to gravity though the curvature of space-time, this necessary excludes this phenomena from being a direct cause of God. In other words, gravitational theory suggest that, if God exists, he wouldn't directly go around pushing an pulling on objects based on their mass. Of course, Cornelius likely thinks gravity is a secondary cause of God, which doesn't conflict with the uniform natural force as presented by gravitational theory. Furthermore, if the phenomena we attribute to gravity was a direct cause of God, he'd be directly pushing and pulling people to their deaths.

    Despite these facts, Cornelius has yet to object to gravitational theory on the grounds of metaphysics.

    So, apparently, gravitational theory is not unscientific because no one publicly disagrees that gravity isn't a direct cause of God and that everyone agrees a perfectly good God would go around directly pushing and pulling people to their deaths.

    Again, If we take Cornelius' criteria of metaphysics as explanation for his selective objections of science seriously, in that we assume it is true in reality and that his position on all scientific theories must conform to it, then science as a whole would be rendered unscientific. But he's not making the same claims about other fields. Something does't add up.

    However, we do have a working explanation for Cornelius' selective objection to evolutionary theory, some aspects of cosmology, etc. They correlate with fields of science that could be interpreted to conflict with core fundamental Christian theology. I've even directly asked Cornelius on multiple occasions to list one or more scientific fields he does NOT object to, but could be interpreted to conflict with core fundamental Christian theology.

    Again, I've received no reply. Nor do I expect one for reasons that I'll illustrated. It's as if Cornelius has some kind of don't ask, don't tell policy in regards theodicy and scientific theories.

    ReplyDelete
  29. SCOTT/MAYA(ILLUSION):

    "Are you suggesting a belief in revelation would be irrelevant to how one defines science or interprets evidence?"
    ===

    Curious, from which parallel universe are you dailing in from today and which alter ego multiple personality am I addressing ??? See, I don't really know how to answer unless I know exactly which alien world I'm dealing with.

    *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oleg:

    "Eocene,

    How about you learn to write in English for starters, before you even attempt to misuse other languages? Is that too much to ask?"
    ===

    I love it. When all else fails, turn yourself into a booksmithie ???

    Thanks KomradE - LOL

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eocene: "Hmmmmmmmm, off hand the historical list is Jews, Aparteid South Africans, Australian Aboriginies, Darwin's encounter with Argentine Savages, Confederate Slaves, opposers of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, shall I go on ???"

    Wow, no wonder 3 out of 4 people are leaving the church. Rattling off lists like that was easy before people could spend a couple of minutes googling. Thay are all bad but conferate slaves takes the cake. Slavery was around before Darwin and didn't the Southern Baptists split from the north because they thought that slavery was God's will?
    Ask the Australian aborigines and they will tell you that they have suffered worse under the church than under any scientist. The only other reference (besides creationist sites) to the Australian Aborigines was a Scientitst who asked locals for Aboriginal remains to study. Unbeknown to her the good Christian settlers were shooting natives to supply the remains. As for the Jews, well Hitler actually burnt Darwins book and talked a lot about God. For the life of me I can't see what Pol Pot, Mao and Sadam have to do with evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Madam Thorton:

    "Why do IDiots still insist on pushing the stupid 'ToE says everything assembled strictly by chance!!" strawman?"
    ===

    Off hand I'd say that most all Evolutionary cowards have never satifactorily answered the question of no intelligence allowed in the first place, hence it must be asked over and over. Instead we get "that is not our position". Tough, you want guidence and directedness, then earn that right honestly. You don't get a pass on this one. Lying and making things up as you go along doesn't cut it anymore.

    BTW Madam , aren't you using Sock-Puppets anymore these days when posting???
    Hacked any email accounts lately ???

    *smirk*

    ReplyDelete
  33. Computer-Dude:

    "Wow, no wonder 3 out of 4 people are leaving the church. Rattling off lists like that was easy before people could spend a couple of minutes googling. Thay are all bad but conferate slaves takes the cake. Slavery was around before Darwin and didn't the Southern Baptists split from the north because they thought that slavery was God's will?
    Ask the Australian aborigines and they will tell you that they have suffered worse under the church than under any scientist. The only other reference (besides creationist sites) to the Australian Aborigines was a Scientitst who asked locals for Aboriginal remains to study. Unbeknown to her the good Christian settlers were shooting natives to supply the remains. As for the Jews, well Hitler actually burnt Darwins book and talked a lot about God."
    ===

    I agree here Computer-Dude. No arguement whatsoever. I've often wondered myself why the churches way back in history latched onto Darwinian concepts/principles and committed the atrocities they did, but like evolutionists, I don't get a straight answer from them either.
    ---

    Computer-dude

    "For the life of me I can't see what Pol Pot, Mao and Sadam have to do with evolution."
    ===

    Sure you do. Without Evolutionary Theory such leaders and their regimes wouldn't have existed. It's the purest form of unadulterated atheism at it's best or worst depending on how you view it.
    ---

    And on a cautionary note:
    You used this word "thay" and there appears to be another booksmithie on board today. But since you no doubt will be considered on the right side(or is it left) of this issue , then I believe you'll get a pass. *thumbs up*

    ReplyDelete
  34. Pedant:

    "Perhaps it would have been less tendentious for you to have urged your acolytes to take the message of Matthew 7:1-5 to heart."
    ===

    Oh and just one more point. Though Cornelius is not guilty of your misapplication, he(myself and others included) may well be guilty of verse 6 which you conveniently left out.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:6&version=CEV

    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ecocene: "Sure you do. Without Evolutionary Theory such leaders and their regimes wouldn't have existed. It's the purest form of unadulterated atheism at it's best or worst depending on how you view it."

    You need to check the history regarding your list. For a start the decimation of Australian Aborigines started (around 1790) long before Darwin was even born. And at a time when England very much considered itself a Christian nation. And you still haven't explained how brutal regimes and authoritarianism (including those supported and sponsored by the church) could have existed before Darwin's time if it's all the fault of evolution.

    And if we follow your reasoning, then you must also blame Rutherford for the horrors in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scott: Are you suggesting we shouldn't assume Cornelius' objections and claims have any implications in reality? Are we not supposed to take him seriously?

    Eocene: Curious, from which parallel universe are you dailing in from today and which alter ego multiple personality am I addressing ???

    I'll take that as a "No."

    Eocene: See, I don't really know how to answer unless I know exactly which alien world I'm dealing with.

    Let me guess, how one defines common-sense is irrelevant to how one interprets evidence?

    Apparently, we're not supposed to take you serious either.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ocene: "Hmmmmmmmm, off hand the historical list is Jews, Aparteid South Africans, Australian Aboriginies, Darwin's encounter with Argentine Savages, Confederate Slaves, opposers of Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, shall I go on ???"

    As to South Africa, one of the largest supporters was the conservative (and mostly white of course) Dutch Reform Church with 3 million members. Again, the root cause of these regimes is rarely religion, but other authoritarian motives. And as can be easily shown, it's easy to show both "sides" just as guilty as each other. And of course people use ideological labels (look at the inquisitions) as a front to perform all kinds of heinous acts and to promote their own search for power. People don't need atheism to do bad things, they have been doing bad things under just about any religious and non-religious label you care to think of!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Janfeld:

    "As to South Africa, one of the largest supporters was the conservative (and mostly white of course) Dutch Reform Church with 3 million members. Again, the root cause of these regimes is rarely religion, but other authoritarian motives. And as can be easily shown, it's easy to show both "sides" just as guilty as each other. And of course people use ideological labels (look at the inquisitions) as a front to perform all kinds of heinous acts and to promote their own search for power. People don't need atheism to do bad things, they have been doing bad things under just about any religious and non-religious label you care to think of!"
    ===

    Did you even remotely attempt to read my response on this world historical religious idiocy in this regard ??? I didn't think so.

    See response to Computer-Dude!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scott:

    "Apparently, we're not supposed to take you serious either."
    ===

    We've been down this deadend road ploy before slick. Remember ??? You apparently are incapable of normal discussion for whatever religious or seriously medical reasons!

    Have a nicer day in your future !!! *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  40. Janfeld:


    You need to check the history regarding your list. For a start the decimation of Australian Aborigines started (around 1790) long before Darwin was even born. And at a time when England very much considered itself a Christian nation. And you still haven't explained how brutal regimes and authoritarianism (including those supported and sponsored by the church) could have existed before Darwin's time if it's all the fault of evolution."
    ===

    See response to Computer-Dude and next time READ before you spout off!!!

    ---

    Janfeld:

    And if we follow your reasoning, then you must also blame Rutherford for the horrors in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you?"
    ===

    Okay nothing here about this statement even remotely makes sense other than the usual deflection from Cornelius' O.P. which is par for the course with this GANG. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  41. Back to Cornelius O.P.

    Here's an article from a week ago that beautifully illustrates as a prime example of Cornelius O.P. sited dealing with what Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington was so up set about with science in general. Yet this article a week ago deals with exactly how politically and ideologically driven evolutionary visionaries do as pointed out by Mr Beddington.

    Tiny filaments thought to be ancient fossils are shown to be inorganic.

    Quoting palaeobiologist Martin Brasier, from the University of Oxford, UK:

    " . . people wanted to find life so badly that they ignored the obvious. There is a willful blindness about these structures that sometimes has more to do with local politics than global truth," says Brasier.

    "I remain optimistic as always, but we must remember to adhere to the highest standards," says Brasier.


    I don't think Cornelius Hunter really needs to comment here. All Cornelius need do is sit back and smirk and let all the local excuse inventing philosophers make his case for him.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Eocone: We've been down this deadend road ploy before slick. Remember ??? You apparently are incapable of normal discussion for whatever religious or seriously medical reasons!

    If by "dead end", you mean expose your circular reasoning, then yes. We have been down this road before. And when you say "normal discussion", if you mean not pointing out flaws in your argument, then yes. I'm incapable of having a normal discussion.

    If I recall correctly, you share Cornelius's belief that evolution is silly, anti-reality, etc. because it's counter intuitive and conflicts with your common-sense.

    I ask why you expect reality to actually adhere to your intuitions and common-sense, then note several scientific conclusions which defied common-sense in the past and are counter intuitive today, which you have yet to object to.

    Eventually, you admit you think reality should match your common-sense and intuition because you belief they represent a form of revelation by an omniscient and omnipotent being.

    I then ask where did our historical common-sense conclusion that our solar system was a geocentric, rather than heliocentric, come from? Where does our counterintuitive reaction to quantum mechanics come from?

    In other words, without some sort of criteria to determine which common-sense and inductive conclusions are true because they come from God, using common-sense and intuition fails as a criteria for reality.

    At which point you begin your current line of deflection: I'm incapable of normal discussion, attempt to throw reality under a bus, etc., rather than address any issues I bring up.

    So, again, given your transparent and obvious deflection, apparently were not supposed to take you seriously either.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Scott:

    "........................................


    .........................................


    .........................................


    .........................................



    .........................................


    ..................."
    ===

    Crickets Chirping

    ReplyDelete
  44. Scott: So, again, given your transparent and obvious deflection, apparently were not supposed to take you seriously either.

    Eocene: .........................................

    I'll take that as a "Yes". Consider it already done.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hey Eocene (snicker), figured out what mushroom bodies are yet?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ecocene: "See response to Computer-Dude and next time READ before you spout off!!!"

    Yes I read the response to computer-dude. Now it seems you are blaming the church for adopting evolutionary concepts, sometimes even before evolutionary concepts were invented! OK, if that's your hypothesis, can you back this up with actual evidence and real causal relationships?

    But honestly it just feels you are making this up as you are going, and moving the goal posts to avoid admitting that your "list" really doesn't make much sense. I think a more honorable thing would be to admit that not every item on your list is accurate, but then I'm not sure you are the kind of person that has the courage to admit when you are wrong.

    Again, how can you explain that in 1790 the British started decimating aborigines, long before evolutionary theory was born? Were they somehow prescient?


    Ecocene: (Concerning Rutherford and atomic bombs): Okay nothing here about this statement even remotely makes sense other than the usual deflection from Cornelius' O.P.

    Actually, it is very related to the OP. CH is making the claim that evolution has "dangerous" consequences. If we follow this "logic", then we must also blame Rutherford for splitting the atom - as obviously the consequence was the manufacture of atomic bombs.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Scott said: "For example, if gravitational theory explains the phenomena we attribute to gravity though the curvature of space-time, this necessary excludes this phenomena from being a direct cause of God. In other words, gravitational theory suggest that, if God exists, he wouldn't directly go around pushing an pulling on objects based on their mass. Of course, Cornelius likely thinks gravity is a secondary cause of God, which doesn't conflict with the uniform natural force as presented by gravitational theory. Furthermore, if the phenomena we attribute to gravity was a direct cause of God, he'd be directly pushing and pulling people to their deaths."

    Scott, I hate to derail your meaningful discussion with Eocene, but I must disagree with the above argument. Gravitational theory says nothing about what God wouldn't do. It merely says that there is a force that acts between objects based on their mass and distance.

    There is no evidence disproving a God who constantly acts on things in this manner. The additional (unevidenced) layer of explanation invoking god doesn't change the physical law, however, but it is outside the realm of science.

    ReplyDelete
  48. T. Cook: "There is no evidence disproving a God who constantly acts on things in this manner. The additional (unevidenced) layer of explanation invoking god doesn't change the physical law, however, but it is outside the realm of science."

    I suppose that's true.

    So in the end if God is involved in gravitation, not only can we not detect this (or have any scientific means of doing so), but we are left with the uncomfortable situation that "Gravity with God" to all intents and purposes to our senses and scientific measurements looks exactly identical to "Gravity without God"....

    It reminds me somewhat of a certain Cosmic Teapot that right now is happily brewing a nice cuppa somewhat between here and Mars...

    ReplyDelete
  49. T Cook: Scott, I hate to derail your meaningful discussion with Eocene, but I must disagree with the above argument. Gravitational theory says nothing about what God wouldn't do. It merely says that there is a force that acts between objects based on their mass and distance.

    Scientific theories posit one or more specific underlying explanations for the observed phenomena. We then make predictions based on the assumption this underlying explanation is true, in reality, rather than some other underlying explanation.

    In the case of gravitational theory, the underlying explanation for the phenomena we attribute to gravity (falling apples, orbiting planets, etc.) is the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. This is in contrast to a theory in which the underlying explanation is God is pushing and pulling on objects *as if* space-time curved in the presence of mass.

    Since they have two different underlying explanations, these two theories are mutually exclusive.

    God could be a secondary cause of gravity, in that he created space and time so it would curve in the presence of mass, but the curvature of space-time and God cannot both be the direct cause of gravity.

    Gravitational theory doesn't directly mention God, but it would necessarily exclude God as being a direct cause of the phenomena we attribute to gravity, if he did exist.

    One might develop a theory that God continually augments or mediates some uniform or non-uniform natural force in a way that makes it appear space-time is curved, but adding God to the mix doesn't actually explain what we observe. We still say apples fall and planets orbit *as if* space-time was curved,

    As such, this theory represents a convoluted elaboration of gravitational theory, which we discard.

    TC: There is no evidence disproving a God who constantly acts on things in this manner. The additional (unevidenced) layer of explanation invoking god doesn't change the physical law, however, but it is outside the realm of science.

    Empirical observations cannot positively support any particular theory. Instead, we can say they collaborate a theory's underlying explanation. As such, we cannot use observations to prove God isn't pulling and pushing on objects according to their mass, in reality.

    However, we can still objectively know, as a fact, that the hypothetical theory I presented above is indefensible as an explanation since it fails to actually explain the motion of falling apples or orbiting planets. Again, we still say apples fall and planets orbit *as if* space-time was curved. "That's just what God must have wanted" isn't an explanation.

    This doesn't mean there does not exist some better explanation as to why God would push and pull on objects as if space-time was curved, but none has been presented. Nor can a un-conceived explanation be defended as an explanation of anything in particular as, well, it's un-conceived. You can't explain anything without an explanation.

    So, you're correct in that we cannot rule out any particular state of affairs, in reality. But we can rule convoluted elaborations of existing theories and un-concived explanations indefensible as explanations of phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I wrote: This doesn't mean there does not exist some better explanation as to why God would push and pull on objects as if space-time was curved, but none has been presented.

    Not do I expect such an explanation as providing one would concede that God's nature can be explained by human reasoning and problem solving. This would be very problematic for Cornelis' argument

    Based on their particular theology, theists can move the boundary or appeal to revelation, but they must draw the line at some strategic point as the supernatural ultimately cannot be explained.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Scott Said, "Scientific theories posit one or more specific underlying explanations for the observed phenomena"

    Maybe. I tend to think of Science describing a closed system describing the relationships between the states of energy in the universe. A system of describing cause and effect. But yeah, maybe this is too abstract to be useful. For instance when you say,

    "In the case of gravitational theory, the underlying explanation for the phenomena we attribute to gravity (falling apples, orbiting planets, etc.) is the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass."

    This is the geometric interpretation of special relativity. Its the most intuitive and maybe the right way of looking at Einstein's field equations. At the end of the day if it were instead just His noodly appendage pulling all matter in just the right way as to satisfy those equations we would never know.

    I'm probably just mincing hairs here--and for the most part we are in violent agreement--but I think if CH has taught me anything its to make sure we bound our scientific descriptions of reality to our measurable reality.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Janfeld:
    So in the end if God is involved in gravitation, not only can we not detect this (or have any scientific means of doing so), but we are left with the uncomfortable situation that "Gravity with God" to all intents and purposes to our senses and scientific measurements looks exactly identical to "Gravity without God"....

    Thanks, exactly. The distinction is meaningless, what matters is what happens, not the purpose for which it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Cornelius,

    I know this site censors some types of posts. Would it be possible to screen the many senseless rants by the evolutionists? They contribute nothing to the dialog and waste valuable time. You wouldn't accept such vacuous comments in an assignment. Why should we have to tolerate the constant mis-information.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  54. Peter said...

    Cornelius,

    I know this site censors some types of posts. Would it be possible to screen the many senseless rants by the evolutionists? They contribute nothing to the dialog and waste valuable time. You wouldn't accept such vacuous comments in an assignment. Why should we have to tolerate the constant mis-information.


    Peter to English translation: "Aww man! Those mean old evos made me look foolish again by pointing out the poor reasoning and unsupported bluster in my nonsensical IDC claims! Won't you please censor or ban them like the DI and UncommonDescent do so I can preach my woo without any opposition?"

    (shakes head sadly)

    Peter, would you like someone to call you a waaaambulance?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Peter:

    ===
    I know this site censors some types of posts. Would it be possible to screen the many senseless rants by the evolutionists? They contribute nothing to the dialog and waste valuable time.
    ===

    Evolutionary thought cannot be rationally defended. The comments provide a record of evolutionary thought in action. If I told you about this you would never believe me. This is all a testament to Hans Christian Andersen.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Madam Thorton:

    "Peter, would you like someone to call you a waaaambulance?"
    ===

    As true to historical form you offer nothing of nutritional value or worth to the banquet table of truth and knowledge for the applicational benefit of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Evolutionary thought cannot be rationally defended. The comments provide a record of evolutionary thought in action. If I told you about this you would never believe me. This is all a testament to Hans Christian Andersen."
    ===

    You have yet to have a single one of these local resident commenting geniuses present one fact against your O.P. and yet they have been the ones to turn this around and discuss religion. Their own writings and that of most evolutionary literature wreaks of religiosity with numerous loaded Faith-Based statement making as opposed to any actual admissable evidentiary proofs/facts for their side's position. Not one of them has addressed your O.P. on the prevalent dishonesty that has infected, not just evolutionary science, but other fields as well. Further proof of their religiosity is that they even dogmatically defend these faith-based stories in the spirit of the most conventional modern day jihadist.

    Nice work BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  58. To get things back on track along the O.P. trail. Here is an article from last year dealing with the infectious dishonesty found in medical sciences.

    Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

    Interestingly it was even commented on by one of your Evolutionary nemisis Cornelius. Mr Larry "sandwalk" Moran.

    Larry "Sandwalk" Moran

    Larry >>> "The fallout will be horrendous when the public realizes that doctors are not as scientific as we thought."

    With evolutionary biology being the exception Larry ???

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ecocene: "You have yet to have a single one of these local resident commenting geniuses present one fact against your O.P. and yet they have been the ones to turn this around and discuss religion."

    I believe several of us have engaged with the OP. For example, I have tried to point out that CH's claim that evolution is "dangerous" is not founded. You responded with your famous list of regimes putatively influenced by evolution. I pointed out that your list is logically inconsistent - for example, the British did not invoke evolutionary theory in 1790 when they started to decimate the aborigines.

    But yet have to see any reply from you on this or admission on your part that you may have been wrong. But instead you avoid actually addressing these issues by changing the subject and launching polemics like the one above.

    ReplyDelete
  60. CH: "Evolutionary thought cannot be rationally defended. The comments provide a record of evolutionary thought in action. If I told you about this you would never believe me. This is all a testament to Hans Christian Andersen."

    It's sad to see CH you veer into making the same snide comments such as we can expect from your fan boys here.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Janfeld:

    "It's sad to see CH you veer into making the same snide comments such as we can expect from your fan boys here."
    ===

    Hello - pot calling kettle black ???

    I love this double standard rubbish. This is a primo example of pseudo-righteous indignation at it's lowest. Your gang invented snide coupled with filth, vulgarites and any number of assorted foul insults and I noticed "Cousin It2 has made her reappearance here. Why don't you start cleaning house in your own backyard first. Take Pedant's misapplied scriptural priciple and use it on your own brothers first, then come back and booksmith Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Janfeld:

    "I pointed out that your list is logically inconsistent - for example, the British did not invoke evolutionary theory in 1790 when they started to decimate the aborigines."
    ===

    Big time fail. What you did is excuse the hideous behavioral issues your own dogma has created in all cultures and political ideologies globally. Evolutionary religious thought has been around since ancient Babylon, Egypt and Greece long before your lame 1790'S daddy got that proverbial gleam in it's eye. The churches have NO EXCUSE for their behavior and any number of them deserve what's coming to them for such behavior, but I pointed that out before you went on your pseudo-righteous rant.

    What you've continued to refuse to admit it that your religious side is most often the exact mirror image of the best and worst of any church. What's more, none of this changes the fact that science should be neutral and not influenced by the religiosity of either creationism, evolutionism or IDism. Unfortunately this will never change anytime soon as long as jihadist driven ideologues continue to pimp politics into this mess.
    ---

    Janfeld:

    "But yet have to see any reply from you on this or admission on your part that you may have been wrong. But instead you avoid actually addressing these issues by changing the subject and launching polemics like the one above."
    ===

    I already did address it and you didn't like the answer. Again, your side is as every much the mirror image of anything they(churches) have done and continue to do. Again, this pathetic attempt at diliberate deflection offers no evidence against neutrally run science research programs shielded from the religiosity and bias of creationism, evolutionism or IDism. Clearly you simply don't want to get this.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Econce: "Evolutionary religious thought has been around since ancient Babylon, Egypt and Greece long before your lame 1790'S daddy got that proverbial gleam in it's eye. The churches have NO EXCUSE for their behavior and any number of them deserve what's coming to them for such behavior, but I pointed that out before you went on your pseudo-righteous rant."

    What about pre-historic man? Is evolutionary thought also responsible for when one cave-dweller clubbed another? I think your hypothesis is little more than a simplistic assertion, and does not take into account the complex cultural, social and political factors that explain why authoritarian regimes do the things they do.

    Curiously then one could argue that because of the heinous and racist acts of God in the Old Testament, we must then also assume that God Himself was also practicing evolutionary thought?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ecocene: "Your gang invented snide coupled with filth, vulgarites and any number of assorted foul insults and I noticed "Cousin It2 has made her reappearance here. "

    Please, quit all the insults. I'm trying to be civil and have a well-mannered debate. For a start I don't belong to a "gang" or a "side" - I'm just an ordinary person (affliated with absolutely no institution or organziation) that's just curious about evolution and ID.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Janfeld:

    "Curiously then one could argue that because of the heinous and racist acts of God in the Old Testament, we must then also assume that God Himself was also practicing evolutionary thought?"
    ===

    I love this. Another "Because of , , , , therefore evolution must be true" example. LOL
    ---

    Janfeld:

    "What about pre-historic man? Is evolutionary thought also responsible for when one cave-dweller clubbed another? I think your hypothesis is little more than a simplistic assertion, and does not take into account the complex cultural, social and political factors that explain why authoritarian regimes do the things they do."
    ===

    Pre-historic man ??? You mean like Africans ??? You know I actually work with several African and India students over here in Scandinavia who are involved in various science interests and endeavors such as microbiology, botany, physics, etc. Many of them are well aware of how they are viewed by the secularist white European population here as being considered basically sub-human or a different species of human being and have even commented to me on the typical white human evolutionary charts depicting the African as being a real life example of a living breathing transitional between whites and the Apes. It's all I can do to hold back my anger when i hear crap like this time and again.

    These young people are some of the most decent hospitable respectable human beings anyone would ever want to meet. Yet even in these modern times they come here from Africa and endure some of the most condescending arrogant behavior of some of the most ignorant despicable whites you'd ever not want to meet. Why do they do it and why do they put up with the racism ??? Because they have families back in their native lands who are dirt poor and are depending on their children to get an education and make a difference when they come back to Africa. Such animalistic behavior is made even worse when such supposedly respectable evolutionists like James Watson who just a couple of years ago( a mere five minutes ago in evolutionary deep time standards) reinforced the biggoted opinion of African inferiority to white Europeans with his racist comments. So yes, Cornelius was correct in his estimation that Evolutionary thought is very dangerous to mankind.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Janfeld:

    "Please, quit all the insults."
    ===

    Incredible, more kettle to pot stuff.
    ---

    Janfeld:

    I'm trying to be civil and have a well-mannered debate. For a start I don't belong to a "gang" or a "side" - I'm just an ordinary person (affliated with absolutely no institution or organziation) that's just curious about evolution and ID."
    ===

    Great then let's discuss science becoming neutral and dumping any and ALL attempts at the religious bias of creationism, evolutionism and IDism.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Eocene:

    "Many of them are well aware of how they are viewed by the secularist white European population here as being considered basically sub-human or a different species of human being"

    Hahaha. I already knew you are nuts, but this is priceless. The evil European secularists are racists. In contrast to the diversity-loving christians. Oh yes, I remember all too well how thoroughly I had to prove my atheism when I tried to join the KKK.

    In reality, where I live the anti-immigration parties draw most of their votes from the Christian Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Troy:

    "In reality, where I live the anti-immigration parties draw most of their votes from the Christian Democrats."
    ===

    I love it. Both sides are the mirror image of each other. Very well done Troy.

    You ought to see the anti-immigration parties here across the whole of Europe. After living in the southwest most of my life and hearing all the bickering and criticism of racist American whites (both Republican & Democrat) from people over in goose-stepping Secular Progressive Euro-Zone land, I was actually suprised to find 6 years ago when I first moved here how anti-immigration and racist both conventional religious folk(what's left of them) and the ever populous majority Atheist crowd were.

    The best thing you can do troy is shatter that mirror. You're starting to look like Pat Robertson.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ecocene: "I love this. Another "Because of , , , , therefore evolution must be true" example. LOL"

    The point wasn't to say evolution is true, but to follow your own logic that authoritarian regimes are caused by evolutionary thought. So in the OT we find prime examples of authoritarianism - in fact as brutal and violent as any on the list you provided. So naturally then it must be the result of evolutionary thought right?

    Ecocene: "It's all I can do to hold back my anger when i hear crap like this time and again."

    Yes, you do seem like an extremely angry person! Perhaps in real life you're more mellow. I hope so for the sake of your blood pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Janfield: So in the end if God is involved in gravitation, not only can we not detect this (or have any scientific means of doing so), but we are left with the uncomfortable situation that "Gravity with God" to all intents and purposes to our senses and scientific measurements looks exactly identical to "Gravity without God"....

    Yes, and no.

    Can we use induction and empirical observations alone to determine which is correct? No. However, measurements are insufficient to explain anything in particular on their own. That reality consists of person X, drug Y and a reduction of symptom Z is separate from an explanation that person X taking drug Y caused a reduction of symptom Z. The cast of characters represent a particular state of affairs in reality, but the details of how they interact with each other is the explanation. Furthermore, even these basic observations are themselves theory laden.

    For example, a theory that God is pushing and pulling on objects according to their mass would be very different from gravitational theory.

    The underlying explanation for a theory starts out as conjecture. We then create predictions based the assumption that this specific underlying explanation is true, in reality, then make observations that could collaborate this underlying explanation. However, if God's nature is really beyond human reasoning and problem solving, how could we create a prediction from the underlying explanation that God is pushing and pulling on objects *as if* space was curved?

    Supposedly, we cannot. Supposedly God's means and motives are beyond human reason and problem solving. This is the crux of this issue.

    If this is the case, "God pushing and pulling on objects *as if* space-time was curved" really isn't a theory as it has no predictions. And, without predictions, "Gravity with God" cannot "look" like anything in particular, let alone look identical to predictions based on the curvature of space-time as the underlying explanation for phenomena we attribute to gravity. It's a non-explanation. At best, one might assume God's involvement based on some kind of divine revelation, but this would represent deduction, not a prediction.

    So, from the perspective of human reason and problem solving, which is the underlying process we use in science, these two scenarios "look" very different.

    Most importantly, God pushing and pulling on objects *as if* space was curved is indefensible as an explanation because it fails to explain the phenomena we attribute to gravity. That's just what God wanted is NOT an explanation. Nor can you explain anything with an un-conceived explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  71. TC: but I think if CH has taught me anything its to make sure we bound our scientific descriptions of reality to our measurable reality.

    If CH has "taught" us anything, it that he lacks a coherent and comprehensive criteria for science. This is clear by the selective objections he presents in the case of various fields of science.

    We can distill his argument on metaphysics down to an assertion that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. He presents this under the guise of "bad science." Don't confuse the two.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Janfeld:

    "The point wasn't to say evolution is true, but to follow your own logic that authoritarian regimes are caused by evolutionary thought."
    ===

    No, all regimes are inept at handling human affairs on earth. Evolution simply justified and amplified certain hideous animalistic behavior thru the philosophical Darwinian Princples of things such as "Survival of the Fittest". Evolution destroyed many traditional family and decent respectable societal values(such as respect for one's nieghbour) of most cultures. When these traditional values were eliminated in many authortarian cultures, the door was opened for animalistic amoral behavioral traits to reign unchecked(that is until such ideologies were found wanting as complete utter failures).

    This is why Cornelius' O.P. was so important, because along with moral values, other things such as honesty and ethics went out the window as well when it comes to science in general, but in particular, Evolutionary Biology.
    ===

    Ecocene: "It's all I can do to hold back my anger when I hear crap like this time and again."
    (speaking of the racism against Africans so prevalent as a result of the Theory of Evolution)

    Janfeld:

    "Yes, you do seem like an extremely angry person! Perhaps in real life you're more mellow. I hope so for the sake of your blood pressure."
    ===

    Wonderful, play the victim card and I'm the playground bully. Start calling it both ways here Ref. Half of these localcommenting evolutionists here are in a continual attack mode and with some of the most animalistic conduct and language to match. You never ONCE bat an eye their way, presumably because they are considered by you to be on the right side of this issue ??? It's time to get over it and back to the O.P.

    If Evolution is true and there was never any kind of intelligence involved EVER behind the scenes directing things in an orderly way, we can assume that ultimately there are also no set of respected universal princples and standards since the world the Evolution spawned is basically amoral as Scott envisions. If this is true, is the lying, fudging of truth, the exaggerating, falsifying of research data, the omission of contrary data along with story, myth and fable fabrication justified as a result for no other reason that it's for society's ultimate good ??? This is not just against evolutionism, but most all the sciences with respect to honesty. Is it unfair to judge such lying as dishonest and WRONG ???
    Just curious as to where your head and heart are on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Eocene: No, all regimes are inept at handling human affairs on earth.

    First, Huh? Is this in contrast to being inept at handling human affairs on, say, Mars?

    Second, let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. Why might that be?

    Perhaps the better question is why is a supernatural designer not inept at handling human affairs? Is it because he's all knowing and all powerful?

    Eocene: Evolution destroyed many traditional family and decent respectable societal values(such as respect for one's nieghbour) of most cultures. When these traditional values were eliminated in many authortarian cultures, the door was opened for animalistic amoral behavioral traits to reign unchecked(that is until such ideologies were found wanting as complete utter failures).

    Just so I have this straight…

    The supernatural eventually gains a moral component founded on the fragile and dogmatic view that human beings are special because they were created in final form by an all knowing and all powerful designer. People accept this dogma, because they "prefer it" to alternatives and we simply didn't know any better at the time. Then science discoveries evidence that human beings might not have been designed in final form after all.

    And it's evolution that's the complete and utter failure? As they say, when you build your house on sand…

    Eocone: This is why Cornelius' O.P. was so important, because along with moral values, other things such as honesty and ethics went out the window as well when it comes to science in general, but in particular, Evolutionary Biology.

    Again, just so I have this straight, you're the one taking the high road? Really?

    Eocene: If Evolution is true and there was never any kind of intelligence involved EVER behind the scenes directing things in an orderly way….

    Let's stop right there. Attempting to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, physics, etc, indicates you're trying to solve a rather different problem which is merely tangental to evolutionary theory.

    Eocene: …we can assume that ultimately there are also no set of respected universal princples and standards since the world the Evolution spawned is basically amoral as Scott envisions.

    Bingo. The tangental problem: a lack of respected universal principles and standards. And you think rejecting evolution will solve this problem?

    I too am curious as to where your head and heart are on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ecocene: "Evolution destroyed many traditional family and decent respectable societal values(such as respect for one's nieghbour) of most cultures. When these traditional values were eliminated in many authortarian cultures, the door was opened for animalistic amoral behavioral traits to reign unchecked(that is until such ideologies were found wanting as complete utter failures)."

    Well, it's an intersting hypothesis. I think though you will have a hard time proving unequivocally that "evolutionary thought" is responsible for the erosion of traditional values - particularly if you are applying this to just about all of human history. Although I suppose if you interpret "evolutionary thought" as meaning any kind of detrimental or destructive behavior, then you can make "evolutionary thought" responsible for anything you like. What you need to do then is evidence - find and link clear explicit cases where specific "evolutionary thought" has resuletd in some bad behavior. Oh sure, I know people have tried to do that with Hitler, but the history really doesn't support it (and really the only proponents are members of the Discovery Institute). And of course trying to do it retrospectively for every bad regime in history (e.g., the British and the aborigines) is not only a stretch, but really in the just becomes an exercise in confirmation bias - or a desperate look to try and link a cause with an effect that really isn't there.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Scott:

    ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . . . .

    I too am curious as to where your head and heart are on this matter."
    ===

    Your posting history continues to prove you are NOT geniuely interested in anything remotely normal or intelligent that doesn't involve some sort of mysticism and I'm clearly not interested in any spiritistic animist type lectures from an otherwise confused dsigruntled ideologue who chooses to blame others for his getting the shaft in life. As for the other content of your distribe, here is the usual default reponse button reply.

    WHATEVER

    ReplyDelete
  76. Janfeld:

    "Well, it's an intersting hypothesis. . . . . and so forth"
    ===

    Yes, but that is the least of importance from the standpoint of the O.P. and your answering the question about all the loaded fraud, lies and deceet infecting really all the sciences and if such things are okay if it's for what you consider the just and righteous cause according to your dogma ???

    ReplyDelete
  77. Eocene: Your posting history continues to prove you are NOT geniuely interested in anything remotely normal or intelligent that doesn't involve some sort of mysticism [...]

    To quote Einstein, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

    Of course, it's unclear if you really consider this a problem at all, as you've already determined this line of thinking is part of God's plan.

    Evolution doesn't just merely represent a "mistake" on the part of scientists, it's collateral damage from a battle between cosmic forces of good and evil which rages in this current age. Things are going to get worse before they can get better when the new age arrives. There is no neutral ground and, In your eyes, evolution is on the side of evil.

    If God is all knowing and all powerful, in reality, then he must have known that the foundation of this particular theological view of human specialty would appear to be undermined by scientific discoveries in the future. As such, this isn't a problem to be solved, but part of God's mysterious plan that must be played out. Right?

    Eocene: […] I'm clearly not interested in any spiritistic animist type lectures from an otherwise confused dsigruntled ideologue who chooses to blame others for his getting the shaft in life.

    First, please point out where I've blamed anyone for getting my getting the "shaft" in life.

    Second, you're not choosing to blame others for the "problems" that evolution has supposedly caused?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ecocene: "Yes, but that is the least of importance from the standpoint of the O.P. and your answering the question about all the loaded fraud, lies and deceet infecting really all the sciences and if such things are okay if it's for what you consider the just and righteous cause according to your dogma ???"

    Sorry Ecocene, but I really can't make much sense of the paragraphy you wrote. I was trying to take your ideas and explore them a bit, but there's way too much "drama" in conversing with you so I think I'll pass going forward.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Janfeld:

    "Sorry Ecocene, but I really can't make much sense of the paragraphy you wrote."
    ===

    The O.P. is not that tough of a subject unless it is clear to you that the evidence is damning for your position. Appaernetly lying and fudging and manipulating the truth in research are perfectly acceptable for those who feel they are on the right side of the debate. But then it is a reflection of the degraded twisted thinking of our times.
    ---

    Janfeld:

    "I was trying to take your ideas and explore them a bit, but there's way too much "drama" in conversing with you so I think I'll pass going forward."
    ===

    No you weren't. You need to settle down and stop spinning everything in order to deflect attention from the O.P. This is understandable however since any admission of the truth makes your possition look foolish.

    ReplyDelete