Sunday, February 10, 2013

The Warfare Thesis is Not Going Away

Historians We Need You

Julian Savulescu’s recent comments suggesting that parents have a “moral obligation to select ethically better children” were more than just another move in the on-going eugenics revival. The Oxford professor’s misrepresentation of the science, and castigation of opponents, was another entry in the growing list of uses of evolution’s Warfare Thesis which is at the heart of today’s culture wars.

In the nineteenth century evolutionists such as Darwin confidant Thomas Huxley, chemistry professor John Draper and Cornell University cofounder Andrew White constructed a false history, casting evolutionists as the latest in a long history of heroic truth seekers who faced religious intolerance and opposition at every turn.

History, as they say, is told by the winners. This is nowhere more true than in evolution’s contrived war between religion and science where evolutionists wrap themselves in virtue. Historians have long since recognized the Warfare Thesis as flawed, but that is for the halls of academia. In the real world the Warfare Thesis rhetoric has proven to be far too powerful to reign in.

And that is the problem here. Ever since its foundation was laid in the nineteenth century, the Warfare Thesis has found increasing application. It can be recognized by its two basic components: an attack on science and an attack on scientists.

The science is manipulated and misrepresented and said to make evolution a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. And scientists who do harbor reasonable doubts that the world spontaneously arose are cast as the antagonists. The codeword here is “denier,” as in Holocaust denier. It conjures up images of willful ignorance of the obvious scientific facts to advance an ulterior motive. Ironically this is, in fact, an accurate description of the evolutionists themselves.

The most prominent application of the Warfare Thesis is in the play and movie, Inherit the Wind, which evolutionists use to falsely frame the origins debate. You can read more about this here, here, here, here and here. Ironically the script was originally intended to combat the anti intellectualism of the McCarthy era. It now advances the anti intellectualism of evolutionary thought, complete with blackballing of scientists.

What is even more alarming, however, is the growing use of the Warfare Thesis even outside of evolutionary circles. Savulescu’s new eugenics is not based on solid science (sorry, but there is scant evidence that genetic tinkering can lead to ethically better children). Nonetheless, we should offer genetic selection because “To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.” In other words, if you disagree it is not out of concern for the rather obvious bioethics issues, but out of cowardice and irrationality.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is another theory that has been cast in the Warfare Thesis template. The science is certainly better than evolution’s, but AGW is nowhere near as certain as its proponents declare. And scientists who do not sign on are routinely disparaged. Recently President Obama lent his voice to the Warfare Thesis:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

There, in one rhetorically-charged phrase, is the Warfare Thesis: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science.” It would be difficult to conjure up a more succinct summation of the Warfare Thesis template.

AWG may well be true, it may be false, or it may be somewhere in between. But there is no such “overwhelming judgment of science.” That is an abuse of science.

And so once again, it is not the theory that is the problem, but the Warfare Thesis template into which it is cast. One might hope that, with all the good historical scholarship, we would be moving beyond such sophomoric rhetoric. But even President Obama, who once encouraged us so when he called for more understanding and dialog in our heated public debates, is resorting to the Warfare Thesis. Unfortunately, rather than moving toward more understanding and dialog, the Warfare Thesis seems to be just warming up.

54 comments:

  1. And all the while, ironically, the naturalism which undergirds neo-Darwinists, and even a majority of the most strident Global Warming alarmists, if true, would render science epistemologically absurd:

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not."
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/

    Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

    ReplyDelete
  2. This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's novel, Nightfall. Asimov uses the Warfare Thesis to weave a story about how scientists were right to predict impending doom (based on their scientific theories) but, unfortunately, could not convince the powerful, religious fundamentalist movement. And then disaster struck. I liked the book but it's obvious that the 'us versus them' mentality has been around for quite a while. Humanity woke up one day and was surprised to learn that science was owned by a group of human beings. A new religion was born but few noticed.

    No matter, some dude named Elijah is prophesied to come soon and he will restore all things. He will be nobody's bitch, that's for sure. The evolutionist era will one day be forgotten or remembered vaguely as the era of collective stupidity. And this is exactly the problem with Asimov's story: his fictitious religious fundamentalists did not have a kick-ass-and-take-names prophet like Elijah. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Next post: the dangerous Jews - oops, I mean Evolutionists - should be rounded up and gassed. It's for the safety of the Heimat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a excellent summery of how, truly, the concept of science is used to back up some particular position beyond a interest in true use of scientific methodology to establish conclusions.
    The prestige of science is being used by the present establishment to back up pet conclusions.

    The good guys need to insist science has no existence, prestige, or persuasion unless the scientific methodology has been used.
    Creationists say it ain't been used in origin subjects and so taergeting the methodology first should be a objective.
    likewise this stuff from globalwarmolics.
    For the guys making a conclusion based on evidence it shouyldn't be hard to prove their conclusions or it shouldn't be hard to disprove they have the evidence.
    Creationists and evolutionists need to settle about whether scientific methodology is going on and this before arguing over points.
    I have never seen any biological scientific evidence for evolution.
    Just unrelated subjects and lines of reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Byers February 11, 2013 at 1:47 AM

      This is a excellent summery of how, truly, the concept of science is used to back up some particular position beyond a interest in true use of scientific methodology to establish conclusions.
      The prestige of science is being used by the present establishment to back up pet conclusions.


      This isn't about science, it's about medical ethics. The guy edits a journal on the subject. He's basically floating an idea to see what sort of reaction its gets. He's not speaking for all scientists and I'm betting you'll hear a lot of them coming out against it soon.

      The good guys need to insist science has no existence, prestige, or persuasion unless the scientific methodology has been used.
      Creationists say it ain't been used in origin subjects and so taergeting the methodology first should be a objective.


      Most Creationists wouldn't know good scientific methodology if it came up and bit them in the ass. If they did, they wouldn't be Creationists.

      Delete
    2. Troy,

      "Next post: the dangerous Jews - oops, I mean Evolutionists - should be rounded up and gassed. It's for the safety of the Heimat."

      Funny you should bring this up as it is the evolutionary crowd which is trying to legislate the silence of its opponents. Perhaps they should take a good long look in the mirror before accusing others of stifling debate.

      Delete
    3. Ian H,

      "Most Creationists wouldn't know good scientific methodology if it came up and bit them in the ass. If they did, they wouldn't be Creationists."

      What a marvelous example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

      It's ironic that this fallacy was constructed by Anthony Flew, a once ardent promoter of atheism and evolution, who came to realize later in life, the evidence was soundly against his position and adopted a theistic view of the world, its origins and its function.

      Delete
    4. Flew
      "the God in whose existence I have belatedly come to believe” as “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam but the God of Aristotle that he would have defined — had Aristotle actually produced a definition of his (and my) God — as the first initiating and sustaining cause of the universe"

      Not really support for ID.

      Delete
    5. velikovskys,

      "Not really support for ID."

      What convinced Flew was the extraordinary complexity which was being uncovered. Yes, it definitely was a case of support for ID, though he did not, as far as I know, come to embrace the Judeo-Christian God.

      Delete
    6. Hey Nic, do you know if by any chance Flew provided an explanation for the rapid formation of 1000' deep incised switchback meanders carved through solid rock? Or maybe the K-Pg boundary layer and extinction event? Or maybe atavisms?

      I can't seem to get any good explanations anywhere. ;)

      Delete
    7. Nic,
      The Aristotlian view of nature and artifice is not ID friendly, and I think is an understatement that he did not embrace " eternally rewarding and eternally torturing " version of God

      Delete
    8. Just to be clear, it is not friendly to a mechanistic view.

      Delete
    9. Thorton,

      "Hey Nic, do you know if by any chance Flew provided an explanation for the rapid formation of 1000' deep incised switchback meanders carved through solid rock? Or maybe the K-Pg boundary layer and extinction event? Or maybe atavisms?"

      Sorry, I'm not responding as often as before, but my life has become quite hectic lately as work is piling up.

      As for Flew and meanders, I don't know if he had an explanation. I did, however, give you one. But, as I expected, it was not one which you would accept. C'est la vie.

      As for atavisms, I really don't buy into that reasoning at all. There is simply no way to justify that explanation for what you see as 'atavistic legs' on whales.

      My Leafs are doing great right now. 5th overall, the last time I looked. You have my sympathy as far as your Sharks are concerned. Not going so great lately. Don't worry though, they'll be there come the playoffs and then the regular season is of no importance.

      Delete
    10. velikovskys,

      "Nic,
      The Aristotlian view of nature and artifice is not ID friendly, and I think is an understatement that he did not embrace " eternally rewarding and eternally torturing " version of God"

      Aristotelian, or not, is really quite moot to the fact Flew turned to a view of intelligence being behind the origin and function of life, rather than an atheistic, purely naturalistic and materialistic view.

      God does not eternally torture people, by the way. Also, that is a theological question, not a scientific one.

      Delete
    11. Nic

      As for Flew and meanders, I don't know if he had an explanation. I did, however, give you one. But, as I expected, it was not one which you would accept. C'est la vie.


      No Nic, you didn't give a 'catastrope' explanation for INCISED switchback meanders, like the 1000' deep ones carved through solid rock at Goosenecks park. INCISED meanders, meaning they've eroded so deeply into the bedrock they no longer meander, just continue to cut straight down.

      It doesn't surprise me you'd find some excuse to avoid the nasty problems geology creates for young earth Creationism, I was just hoping you'd be a little more creative in your hand-waving.

      As for atavisms, I really don't buy into that reasoning at all. There is simply no way to justify that explanation for what you see as 'atavistic legs' on whales

      I don't care if you buy into the proper scientific explanation or not. You were supposed to give me your alternate ID-Creationism explanation for why we see such features. We do see them Nic - they're there and they need an explanation. You seem to be fresh out.

      Can't wait to hear your excuses for the mass extinction events and the K-Pg boundary layer.

      Sorry, I'm not responding as often as before, but my life has become quite hectic lately as work is piling up.

      No worries, happens to all of us. I'm leaving Thursday for a quick long weekend in LA, will be offline for a while too.

      How do you feel about this proposal to give Toronto a second NHL team?

      Delete
    12. Nic,

      God does not eternally torture people, by the way. Also, that is a theological question, not a scientific one.


      You cited Flew, it was his theistic opinion. If the designer is God then there is no difference between theology and science.Unless you know how to draw a distinction.

      Aristotelian, or not, is really quite moot to the fact Flew turned to a view of intelligence being behind the origin and function of life, rather than an atheistic, purely naturalistic and materialistic view

      True,my point was that doesn't make him an IDist.

      Delete
    13. Nic February 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

      [...]

      It's ironic that this fallacy was constructed by Anthony Flew, a once ardent promoter of atheism and evolution, who came to realize later in life, the evidence was soundly against his position and adopted a theistic view of the world, its origins and its function.


      Flew came to believe in something like the deities of Aristotle or Spinoza or, more recently, Paul Davies. It was certainly not the Christian or any other current god.

      His understanding of what physics can say about the universe was influenced by the Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder He seems to have accepted Schroeder's creationist views somewhat uncritically.

      Delete
    14. Thorton,

      "No Nic, you didn't give a 'catastrope' explanation for INCISED switchback meanders, like the 1000' deep ones carved through solid rock at Goosenecks park."

      Au contraire. How else would meanders, etc., on the scale of the Grand Canyon and Goosenecks come to be except catastrophically? The nature of the catastrophe I'll leave for you to consider.

      "INCISED meanders, meaning they've eroded so deeply into the bedrock they no longer meander, just continue to cut straight down."

      No, the rivers did not cut down into the rock, they flowed into the crevices after they were created.

      I live by a river larger than both these rivers. It runs through much softer strata than both these rivers yet its valley is only a few hundred feet deep. If, as you claim, rivers cut the Grand Canyon and Goosenecks to the depth they are by simply flowing along, rivers flowing through much softer strata should cut valleys significantly deeper.

      Sorry, the Colorado River did not cut the Grand Canyon, it simply flows through it.

      "I don't care if you buy into the proper scientific explanation or not."

      Good, I was worried about that very fact.

      It would be nice if you would demonstrate scientifically how atavisms are indicators of evolutionary ancestory.

      "You were supposed to give me your alternate ID-Creationism explanation for why we see such features."

      The same reason Anne Boleyn had six fingers.

      "I'm leaving Thursday for a quick long weekend in LA, will be offline for a while too."

      Have a good trip and try to stay out of trouble. Are the Kings going to be playing while you're there?

      "How do you feel about this proposal to give Toronto a second NHL team?"

      Should have happened long ago. Would have been better than putting teams in Phoenix, Atlanta and a few other places.

      Delete
    15. Thorton,

      "If the designer is God then there is no difference between theology and science.Unless you know how to draw a distinction."

      I guess I would see 'science' as a question of source, and 'theology' as a question of process.

      "True,my point was that doesn't make him an IDist."

      That depends on how you would define 'IDist'. Did Flew come to believe life had an intelligent source behind it? Yes, of that there is no doubt. Whether he would qualify as an IDist to you would naturally depend on your definition of that term.

      Delete
    16. Ian H,

      "Flew came to believe in something like the deities of Aristotle or Spinoza or, more recently, Paul Davies. It was certainly not the Christian or any other current god."

      Never said it was. In relation to the question at hand, 'did life have an intelligent source?', the nature of this intelligence is irrelevant. The fact you're arguing against Flew's acceptance of the Judeo-Chrsitian God speaks volumes.

      Delete
    17. Nic

      Au contraire. How else would meanders, etc., on the scale of the Grand Canyon and Goosenecks come to be except catastrophically?


      LOL! I already gave you the accepted geology explanation. As the Colorado plateau lifted from plate tectonic action the river eroded into the bedrock over the last 10MY or so.

      No, the rivers did not cut down into the rock, they flowed into the crevices after they were created.

      Nic, the San Juan river is empirically seen to be 1000' deep into bedrock. You have any evidence the 1000' deep meandering canyons were in place before the river flowed? Every geologist on the planet would love to see it.

      That's the kind of over-the-top ridiculous hand wave I was looking for!

      I live by a river larger than both these rivers. It runs through much softer strata than both these rivers yet its valley is only a few hundred feet deep.

      Which river is that? I'll look up the geologic record for you. And how long has that river been flowing? I'll wager only since the last ice age.

      Sorry, the Colorado River did not cut the Grand Canyon, it simply flows through it.

      why do you keep bringing up the Grand Canyon? is that the only mention of geology on Creationist web sites you can find? Should I move on to another geologic formation you won't be able to explain with a one time catastrophe?

      It would be nice if you would demonstrate scientifically how atavisms are indicators of evolutionary ancestory.

      it's part of the big picture Nic. We have lots of fossil and genetic evidence that cetaceans evolved from ancestors with legs. We know that cetaceans still retain the unexpressed Tbx5 genes for creating hind limbs. I already showed you a research paper on them. Occasionally we see a mutation reactivate these genes and we get cetaceans with hind limbs. What is your explanation?

      The same reason Anne Boleyn had six fingers.

      No Nic. Polydactyly and atavism are caused by two completely different genetic mechanisms. Science understands both mechanisms quite well even if you don't. Want to try again?

      Have a good trip and try to stay out of trouble. Are the Kings going to be playing while you're there?

      Thanks. Won't have time, Mrs. T is in a skating competition. I'll be the spectator this go-round.

      Should have happened long ago.

      The million dollar question - will you switch allegiances if it happens?

      Delete
    18. Nic

      Thorton, "If the designer is God then there is no difference between theology and science.Unless you know how to draw a distinction."

      I guess I would see 'science' as a question of source, and 'theology' as a question of process


      (facepalm)

      Nic, you did it again. I'm not velikovskys. :)

      Delete
    19. Thorton,

      "Nic, you did it again. I'm not velikovskys. :)"

      I'm just working on keeping up my 'mook' reputation. It takes a lot of practice in case you didn't know.

      Delete
    20. Thorton,

      "LOL! I already gave you the accepted geology explanation. As the Colorado plateau lifted from plate tectonic action the river eroded into the bedrock over the last 10MY or so."

      Think about that explanation.

      "Nic, the San Juan river is empirically seen to be 1000' deep into bedrock. You have any evidence the 1000' deep meandering canyons were in place before the river flowed? Every geologist on the planet would love to see it."

      Do you have any evidence they were not? Other than the presumption the rivers cut the canyons, that is?

      "I'll wager only since the last ice age."

      Even in that time span, it should be vastly deeper than it is.

      "why do you keep bringing up the Grand Canyon? is that the only mention of geology on Creationist web sites you can find?"

      It simply is the most famous. There are other similar formations that were formed in the same manner.

      "Should I move on to another geologic formation you won't be able to explain with a one time catastrophe?"

      If you so wish.

      "it's part of the big picture Nic. We have lots of fossil and genetic evidence that cetaceans evolved from ancestors with legs."

      So you keep saying.

      "Thanks. Won't have time, Mrs. T is in a skating competition. I'll be the spectator this go-round."

      Wish her well for me. And you had better take her out for a nice dinner or two.

      "The million dollar question - will you switch allegiances if it happens?"

      No, never!

      Delete
    21. Nic

      Think about that explanation.


      I have. So have thousands of professional geologists over the decades. It's the one best supported by all the evidence by far.

      Do you have any evidence they were not? Other than the presumption the rivers cut the canyons, that is?

      LOL! That's not the way this works Nic. It's not up to me to disprove your silly claims. It's up to you to provide your own positive evidence. And as always, you can't do it.

      Even in that time span, it should be vastly deeper than it is.

      Why?

      There are other similar formations that were formed in the same manner.

      What manner was that Nic?

      If you so wish.

      You going to throw in the towel on an explanation for the K-Pg boundary layer and the mass extinctions too?

      So you keep saying.

      So I keep providing scientific evidence for, and so you keep avoiding your explanations for the empirical data.

      And you had better take her out for a nice dinner or two.

      Always. My mom didn't raise any dummies. :)

      No, never!

      Anyone float suggestions for a new team name of logo?

      Delete
    22. Hey Nic, this is pretty interesting!

      Toronto's Geology

      Looks like the entire Toronto area was under 1km. of ice during the last ice age 20,000 years ago. The two major river systems in the area (Humber, Don) both flow through valleys carved out by the retreating ice.

      The entire geological history of the area can be traced back some 3 billion years, to the formation of the "Canadian Shield" bedrock. Looks like you've got a good sampling of late Cambrian era fossils (450 MYA) locally too.

      I don't expect you to have an explanation for any of this stuff, I just find it fascinating.

      Delete
    23. Thorton,

      "I have. So have thousands of professional geologists over the decades. It's the one best supported by all the evidence by far."

      So your explanation, and the explanation of thousands of professional geologists, is that the tectonic upheaval and the river's erosion matched each other perfectly, is that the case? It has to be, otherwise you're faced with the reality of a river flowing uphill.

      "LOL! That's not the way this works Nic. It's not up to me to disprove your silly claims."

      First, you must demonstrate it is a silly claim. Your explanation creates a lot more problems than does mine. So it's debatable as to whose claim is silly.

      Nic:"Even in that time span, it should be vastly deeper than it is."

      Thorton: "Why?"

      The strata is not at all as hard as the rock you claim the Colorado carved through.

      Nic: "There are other similar formations that were formed in the same manner."

      Thorton: "What manner was that Nic?"

      "Massive amounts of sediment laid down quickly by large volumes of water, which crack during drying as the water recedes. Remaining water then flows into cracks caused by drying. You see this on a smaller scale all the time. The volumes are larger, the physics are the same.

      "You going to throw in the towel on an explanation for the K-Pg boundary layer and the mass extinctions too?"

      Nope, just doing more reading.

      "So I keep providing scientific evidence for, and so you keep avoiding your explanations for the empirical data."

      You keep providing what you believe are scientific explanations. Do you know for an absolute fact that Tbx5 genes do nothing other than create hind limbs?

      "Always. My mom didn't raise any dummies. :)"

      Good to hear. It seems to me you once said you were raised in a religious household, how come that part of your upbringing didn't stick?

      "Anyone float suggestions for a new team name of logo?"

      I've not heard anything. They are just starting the construction of a new arena in Markham, I believe. So it will be at least 3-4 years. I just hope no one tries to revive the Toronto Toros name from the WHA days.

      Delete
    24. Nic

      So your explanation, and the explanation of thousands of professional geologists, is that the tectonic upheaval and the river's erosion matched each other perfectly, is that the case? It has to be, otherwise you're faced with the reality of a river flowing uphill.


      That doesn't even begin to make sense.

      First, you must demonstrate it is a silly claim.

      No Nic. it's your claim, you supply the supporting evidence. Same rule that all science uses.

      The strata is not at all as hard as the rock you claim the Colorado carved through

      Rivers in the Toronto area have been flowing for 20,000 years at most. The San Juan river (not the Colorado) has been flowing for roughly 25 million years.

      Utah Geology

      You see this on a smaller scale all the time.

      Then it should be easy for you to provide some examples. I've never heard of drying sediment creating a long series of 180 deg. switchback deep 'cracks' that just happen to look exactly like they were eroded by flowing water.

      Do you know for an absolute fact that Tbx5 genes do nothing other than create hind limbs?

      You know something else that science doesn't know about them? Let's hear it.

      It seems to me you once said you were raised in a religious household, how come that part of your upbringing didn't stick?

      The good parts did. Just not the silly literal Genesis beliefs. :)

      Delete
    25. Thorton,

      "That doesn't even begin to make sense."

      Think it through, it will.

      "Rivers in the Toronto area have been flowing for 20,000 years at most. The San Juan river (not the Colorado) has been flowing for roughly 25 million years."

      You see, you're doing that old evolutionary assumption thing again.

      "You know something else that science doesn't know about them? Let's hear it."

      My point is science doesn't know.

      "The good parts did. Just not the silly literal Genesis beliefs. :)"

      So what are the good parts?

      Delete
    26. Nic

      Think it through, it will.


      i did think it through. Go ahead and tell me why every geologist on the planet is wrong.

      You see, you're doing that old evolutionary assumption thing again.

      LOL! So Toronto wasn't under ice in the last ice age, all that Ontario geologic history I showed you is wrong, there aren't any late Cambrian fossils in your area, and everything science knows about physics and radiometric dating is wrong.

      If you waved your hands any harder you'd get airborne. :)

      Where are all those examples of the deep incised 180 degree switchback 'cracks' that you say occur all the time?

      I have to ask - did you make that one up yourself? I've heard lots of dumb Creationist excuses for geologic formations over the years but that's a new one.

      My point is science doesn't know.

      Science knows for a fact Tbx5 genes control hind limb growth. Science knows for a fact extant cetaceans have the unexpressed Tbx5 gene present. Science knows for a fact that occasionally we get mutations that reactivate the Tbx5 which creates atavistic hind limbs.

      You're the one hypothesizing some unknown additional function for Tbx5. You need some of that evidence stuff you're always fresh out of.

      So what are the good parts?

      Pretty much everything you need to know is the Golden Rule, or as Rufus said: "be excellent to each other!" The rest is just fluff.

      Delete
    27. Thorton,

      "i did think it through. Go ahead and tell me why every geologist on the planet is wrong."

      If, as you argue, the Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River over millions of years as the plateau rose, the rate at which it rose could not exceed the rate of the river's erosion. If it did the river would be required to flow up hill. That's not really hard to figure out.

      And not every geologist on the planet thinks the Grand Canyon came about about by slow erosion over millions of years.

      "LOL! So Toronto wasn't under ice in the last ice age, all that Ontario geologic history I showed you is wrong, there aren't any late Cambrian fossils in your area, and everything science knows about physics and radiometric dating is wrong."

      Oh yes, Toronto was under ice during the ice age. No doubt about that. Your problem is you're assuming I live in Toronto.

      "Where are all those examples of the deep incised 180 degree switchback 'cracks' that you say occur all the time?"

      They occur on a very small scale by riverbeds and on flood plains regularly.

      However, that is simply one explanation for their formation. The other is quite similar to the standard view, but still the result of catastrophic activity.

      I agree with the view that the Grand Canyon was formed by the rising plateau. It was this upward lift which split the surface into which the water, which is now the Colorado River, flowed. The river did not cut the canyon, it flowed into it.

      "I have to ask - did you make that one up yourself? I've heard lots of dumb Creationist excuses for geologic formations over the years but that's a new one."

      Nope.

      "Science knows for a fact Tbx5 genes control hind limb growth."

      Fine, I accept that. Does it know for a fact it does nothing else? That it might not act in conjunction with other genes in different circumstances?

      "You're the one hypothesizing some unknown additional function for Tbx5. You need some of that evidence stuff you're always fresh out of."

      It's an old adage, but very true nonetheless, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Remember the question of junk DNA. Just because some function is unknown, that cannot be seen as proof there is no function.

      "Pretty much everything you need to know is the Golden Rule, or as Rufus said: "be excellent to each other!" The rest is just fluff."

      So you don't believe there is any historic significance to the contents of the BIble?

      Oh crap, my Leafs lost to Carolina. They just can't seem to beat those clowns.

      Delete
    28. Nic

      If, as you argue, the Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River over millions of years as the plateau rose, the rate at which it rose could not exceed the rate of the river's erosion.


      We're not talking about the damned Grand Canyon! We're talking about the 1000' deep incised meanders on the San Juan river in Utah. Will you please stop changing the subject!

      Oh yes, Toronto was under ice during the ice age. No doubt about that. Your problem is you're assuming I live in Toronto.

      So all that other geophysical evidence is wrong because you don't live in Toronto?

      They occur on a very small scale by riverbeds and on flood plains regularly.

      Bullcrap. Link to some pictures. Find me a geologist anywhere who agrees with that nonsense - that just drying out of mud with no water flow will create deep incised switchback meanders like this

      Goosenecks park satellite view

      Nope.

      Then where did you 'learn' it then? Reference please.

      It's an old adage, but very true nonetheless, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

      It's an even older adage in science - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your assertion of another use for Tbx5 Nic, no matter how much you squirm.

      So you don't believe there is any historic significance to the contents of the BIble?

      Some parts are historically accurate, some aren't. I don't see it as being a science text or a history text. I see it as a guide as to how to treat your fellow man.

      Oh crap, my Leafs lost to Carolina. They just can't seem to beat those clowns.

      Every club has at least one team they don't match up well against. Just hope you don't see them in the playoffs.

      Delete
    29. Thorton,

      "We're not talking about the damned Grand Canyon! We're talking about the 1000' deep incised meanders on the San Juan river in Utah. Will you please stop changing the subject!"

      Same thing. Both canyons came about the same way. Just change Grand Canyon to Goosenecks.

      "So all that other geophysical evidence is wrong because you don't live in Toronto?"

      No, I just mean you're assuming I live in Toronto, I don't.

      "Bullcrap. Link to some pictures. Find me a geologist anywhere who agrees with that nonsense - that just drying out of mud with no water flow will create deep incised switchback meanders like this"

      No one said there would be no water flow, just that the water flow was not enough to cause the meanders. They was plenty of water when the sediment was laid down.

      Goosenecks park satellite view

      "It's an even older adage in science - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your assertion of another use for Tbx5 Nic, no matter how much you squirm."

      No body is squirming,and it is hardly an extraordinary claim to question if Tbx5 may function differently in conjunction with different genes. In fact, I see that as a very logical question given the fact we know very little of what the genetic code encompasses.

      "Some parts are historically accurate, some aren't."

      Which ones are not accurate?

      "I don't see it as being a science text or a history text."

      Neither do I, nor was it intended to be.

      "I see it as a guide as to how to treat your fellow man."

      If you see the Bible as a guide to how best treat your fellow man you must respect the intelligence of those who composed it. That being the case, what basis do you have for rejecting what you simply don't like?

      "Every club has at least one team they don't match up well against. Just hope you don't see them in the playoffs."

      That's very true, but right now Toronto seems to have that problem with Carolina, Boston and Buffalo, all teams in the East, thus increasing the odds they will meet in the playoffs. They have fared better against Buffalo this year. It was nice to see them hammer Montreal.

      Delete
    30. Nic

      Same thing. Both canyons came about the same way. Just change Grand Canyon to Goosenecks.


      NO NIC. They are not the same. I'll assume by your continued evasions you admit you can't deal with the incised meanders part.

      No one said there would be no water flow, just that the water flow was not enough to cause the meanders.

      So you have no pictures of these switchback "cracks" you claimed are common, not a single geologist who agrees with you. I guess we can put that BS claim to bed too.

      No body is squirming,and it is hardly an extraordinary claim to question if Tbx5 may function differently in conjunction with different genes.

      You're just not questioning Nic. You're claiming an actual reason to reject all the other empirical evidence. More unsubstantiated BS from you.

      Which ones are not accurate?

      A Genesis literal Creation for one. Tower of Babel. Noah's Flood. Noah's Ark with 2 or 7 pairs of 'kinds'.

      If you see the Bible as a guide to how best treat your fellow man you must respect the intelligence of those who composed it.

      I respect their intelligence but I also know it was written some 2000 years ago without the benefit of all our current scientific understanding. Sorry Nic but the world is a lot older than 6000 years and animals weren't created as 'kinds'.

      That being the case, what basis do you have for rejecting what you simply don't like?

      I reject as literal the parts that are directly contradicted by mountains of physical evidence. I'm smart enough to know that many early stories were parables, not accurate historical documents. What's your excuse?

      I'd still like to see the NHL realign and create an 'Original Six' division, but it won't happen.

      Delete
    31. Here Nic, because you're such a good natured mook I'll throw you a bone. Our next lesson in geology will be about angular unconformities

      You'll have 4-5 days to do your homework. You won't find any Creationist "catastrophe" explanations because there aren't any.

      I've got lots of cool pictures and examples. You won't be able to explain any of them. A little history - it was the famous angular unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland that way back in 1788 convinced the famous "father of modern Geology" James Hutton that the Earth was very old.

      Ciao!

      Delete
    32. Thorton,

      "NO NIC. They are not the same. I'll assume by your continued evasions you admit you can't deal with the incised meanders part."

      I have dealt with it, you just don't like the answers. C'est la vie, let's move on.

      "So you have no pictures of these switchback "cracks" you claimed are common, not a single geologist who agrees with you. I guess we can put that BS claim to bed too."

      OK, if you wish.

      "You're just not questioning Nic. You're claiming an actual reason to reject all the other empirical evidence."

      I'm not claiming anything, I'm only saying it's a possibility which cannot be rejected out of hand. So little is actually known at this time regards the genetic make up and workings of organisms that to assume anything as fully understood is nonsense.

      "Sorry Nic but the world is a lot older than 6000 years and animals weren't created as 'kinds'."

      Where does the Bible say the world is 6,000 years old?

      "I'm smart enough to know that many early stories were parables, not accurate historical documents."

      Which stories in particular?

      "I'd still like to see the NHL realign and create an 'Original Six' division, but it won't happen."

      Yeah, that would be nice. One thing I don't like is that we may never again see Toronto and Montreal playing in the Cup final. That came so close to happening in 1993.

      Who knows, if Gretzky had been given the 5 minute major and game misconduct he deserved for high sticking Gilmour, Toronto may have won that series against LA and played Montreal in the final. But, it was Gretzky, so.....

      Delete
    33. Thorton,

      "Here Nic, because you're such a good natured mook I'll throw you a bone. Our next lesson in geology will be about angular unconformities

      You'll have 4-5 days to do your homework. You won't find any Creationist "catastrophe" explanations because there aren't any."

      Even a cursory look at angular unconformities show they are better explained in a catastrophic paradigm than by gradual processes. Your claim there is no way to explain these features catastrophically is more than puzzling.

      Delete
    34. Nic, I moved our conversation about angular unconformities here.

      Delete
  5. As to the warfare thesis,,, this 'war' has been going on far longer than we are aware,,,

    Kingdom Of God Vs. Kingdom Of Darkness
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060606

    Ephesians 6:10-17
    Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

    Flyleaf - Chasm (Living Water)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-BvOuE7wfw

    Creed - Bullet
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtCHFLMRX78

    Red - Feed The Machine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2uZO7xnus

    Skillet - Awake and Alive
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aJUnltwsqs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the lunatic phil cunningham (ba77) shows yet again that ID isn't religion in a poorly masked, dishonest disguise. Nosiree, it's all science so far!

      Delete
    2. bornagain77 February 11, 2013 at 2:52 AM
      As to the warfare thesis,,, this 'war' has been going on far longer than we are aware,,,

      Kingdom Of God Vs. Kingdom Of Darkness
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060606


      Since God, like the Death Star, is supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe, you have to wonder why He doesn't just blow away the Forces of Darkness as easily as the planet Alderaan. Maybe He just likes playing video games on a vast scale to help while away eternity.

      Delete
    3. Ian H,

      "Since God, like the Death Star, is supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe,..."

      Well Ian, it was demonstrated by one well placed torpedo that, in fact, the Death Star was no where near the ultimate power in the universe. So, if you think you can take out God with a torpedo, go for it.

      But of course God doesn't exist, so there is no need, right?

      "you have to wonder why He doesn't just blow away the Forces of Darkness as easily as the planet Alderaan."

      Have you even seen Star Wars, Ian? The Death Star was a tool of the Forces of Darkness. The Forces of Darkness are the guys who do all the bad stuff, like blowing up Alderaan. You might want to rethink this analogy.

      Delete
    4. Nic February 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      [...]

      Well Ian, it was demonstrated by one well placed torpedo that, in fact, the Death Star was no where near the ultimate power in the universe. So, if you think you can take out God with a torpedo, go for it.


      Alas, The Force is not strong in this one. I'd have to rely on my targeting computer and we know they aren't good enough.

      But of course God doesn't exist, so there is no need, right?

      By George, he's got it!

      Have you even seen Star Wars, Ian? The Death Star was a tool of the Forces of Darkness. The Forces of Darkness are the guys who do all the bad stuff, like blowing up Alderaan. You might want to rethink this analog

      Have you read the Old Testament? The way Governor Tarkin dealt with Alderaan has some pretty interesting parallels with how God v1.0 dealt with recalcitrant cities Before The Upgrade.

      Delete
    5. Ian H,

      Nic;"But of course God doesn't exist, so there is no need, right?"

      Ian:"By George, he's got it!"

      By George, it would seem Ian can't detect sarcasm!

      "Have you read the Old Testament? The way Governor Tarkin dealt with Alderaan has some pretty interesting parallels with how God v1.0 dealt with recalcitrant cities Before The Upgrade."

      Tell me Ian, what's the difference between the cities punished by God and Alderaan?

      And again, if God doesn't exist, how did he do any harm to these cities?

      Delete
  6. Hi Cornelius. Have you ever considered moving (or mirroring) to a Facebook page. You can have tight controls e.g. prevent all comments, ban specific trolls, etc. People can also share posts they like with friends who can then share on further and so the reach is larger than if you keep it to one blog. Just a suggestion! I would have "liked" this post (which is Facebook's way of giving a +1 vote) and "shared" it (how it is forwarded around). :-D

    ReplyDelete
  7. I noticed that in the opinion poll at the end of the Telegraph article just over 71% are against Savulescu's proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Julian Savulescu

    No wonder he has the attitude, look at the guy's name Sav-u-less, c-u

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Almost as revealing as the name Louis Cipher

      Delete
  9. I don't mind if people choose to believe anything under the sun. I get frustrated when my hard earned tax dollars are used against me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E, Marcus, who sa bugging you? Send em to me, I takere of dem.

      Delete
  10. "C.S. Lewis and Evolution," the second of three documentaries inspired by the recent book The Magician's Twin - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNNUPN3-WeM

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the reality of today's world, people are crazy for money and prom dresses 2013 status seems rather drown love. Choose between the poor and the rich rich, to choose between love and not love does not love. Few people would like simple love for the human dignity of the individual abandoned, and no

    ReplyDelete