tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3263421027906029752..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Reverend Jerry Coyne Thus SaithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56430524520418966562010-02-02T14:38:15.618-08:002010-02-02T14:38:15.618-08:00Hitch -
Well thanks for that diverting anecdote....Hitch - <br /><br />Well thanks for that diverting anecdote. o you actually have a point to go along with it?<br /><br />Simply quoting someone and insisting evolution is flawed does not show it to be true.<br /><br />Though one thing that rings out is the truly tiresome allegation that the theory of evolution is based on no evidence. Do you truly believe this?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69009256883206117622010-02-02T11:12:04.652-08:002010-02-02T11:12:04.652-08:00Reading this topic, the following remarks by Sir F...Reading this topic, the following remarks by Sir Fred Hoyle come to mind...again...<br />"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).<br />Its remarkable because Darwinists seem to insist on revealing how much they don't know and can't grasp. <br /><br />Darwinian reasoning creates acute cognitive dissonance as displayed in the above comments by your friendly neighborhood materialist deniers of the obvious.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65894099439599272292010-02-02T04:39:42.790-08:002010-02-02T04:39:42.790-08:00laugh out loud: But ID also predicts that organism...<b>laugh out loud</b>: <i>But ID also predicts that organisms would look like they were designed, and they certainly do. </i><br /><br />'Looks like they were designed' is not a clear empirical prediction. Even then, it's not uniquely entailed. <br /><br /><b>laugh out loud</b>: <i>Y'know, punctuated equilibrium, ...</i><br /><br />Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't contradict Common Descent, but depends upon it. <br /><br /><b>laugh out loud</b>: <i>And it could be argued that the fossil record shows so few transtional species, and even those that we have are questionable, e.g. archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, that the overall pattern of the fossil record is not what we would predict from common descent. </i><br /><br />Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy, and that's what we observe for organisms, extinct and extant. <br /><br />As for the geological succession, Land vertebrates didn't always exist. They were predated by aquatic vertebrates. Mammals didn't always exist. They were predated by reptiles. We can trace the line of descent from primitive chordates to vertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to primates through hominids to modern humans. <br /><br />More important is the nested hierarchy. Even without fossils, which represent only a tiny proportion of extinct organisms, we have exceedingly strong evidence of Common Descent as it applies to most taxa.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75953190357897270602010-02-02T02:22:16.585-08:002010-02-02T02:22:16.585-08:00Zachariel:
But ID also predicts that organisms wo...Zachariel:<br /><br />But ID also predicts that organisms would look like they were designed, and they certainly do. And it could be argued that the fossil record shows so few transtional species, and even those that we have are questionable, e.g. archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, that the overall pattern of the fossil record is not what we would predict from common descent. Y'know, punctuated equilibrium, the incompleteness of the fossil record. All those apologetics for the rareness of transitions.laugh out loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10625004850193376526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47828133446796226972010-02-01T13:11:25.256-08:002010-02-01T13:11:25.256-08:00Darren: ok. the fact that there is a self replicat...<b>Darren</b>: <i>ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH. </i><br /><br />Huh? There are "self replicating organisms floating around" the world today. We have good reason to believe that life has a very ancient history on Earth. During the early part of that history, there were no multicellular organisms.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28824485424676801702010-02-01T13:08:40.826-08:002010-02-01T13:08:40.826-08:00Cornelius Hunter: No, even many evolutionists fina...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>No, even many evolutionists finally admit that the mechanisms of adaptation do not accumulate to the change evolution needs. So now evolutionists are appealing speculatively to all kinds of mechanisms, though not sure how it would work.</i><br /><br />Adaptation is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change. <br /><br />We can show that natural variation and selection can account for complex adaptation, but that doesn't begin to tell the whole story. In order to tell the story, we need to establish the broad outlines of life's history, that is, Common Descent.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38555166703480812062010-02-01T12:17:19.450-08:002010-02-01T12:17:19.450-08:00Darren -
"ok. the fact that there is a self...Darren - <br /><br />"ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH."<br /><br />It is not. It is not an assumption that we begin with. It is a conclusion! A conclusion we arrive at by extrapolating backwards.<br /><br />Your thinking about evolution is back to front. We do not just assume the first replicating cell and then work forwards chronologically from there. We begin with what we can observe in nature here and now and work backwards.<br /><br />"I understand your position perfectly. Do not turn this into a "We are the intellects, and you are not" , "you dont understand our theory" debate.....because I perfectly do."<br /><br />With all due respect, but if you did not understand it properly then you wouldn't necessarily be aware of that fact, would you?<br /><br />"Perhaps it is that you are blind that your Theory is completely based on FAITH."<br /><br />When a theory is based on facts and evidence, how can we be 'unaware' that it isn't built on facts and evidence at all, but on faith...?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63601070776742071592010-02-01T11:55:45.182-08:002010-02-01T11:55:45.182-08:00Zachriel:
"We can directly observe the mecha...Zachriel:<br /><br />"We can directly observe the mechanisms of evolution"<br /><br />No, even many evolutionists finally admit that the mechanisms of adaptation do not accumulate to the change evolution needs. So now evolutionists are appealing speculatively to all kinds of mechanisms, though not sure how it would work.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77584682186616115062010-02-01T11:41:41.727-08:002010-02-01T11:41:41.727-08:00ok. the fact that there is a self replicating orga...ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH. There is no question about that. I understand your position perfectly. Do not turn this into a "We are the intellects, and you are not" , "you dont understand our theory" debate.....because I perfectly do. Perhaps it is that you are blind that your Theory is completely based on FAITH.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064538128810623156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75086489811357226582010-02-01T11:26:21.833-08:002010-02-01T11:26:21.833-08:00Darren -
Learned Hand hit the nail right on the ...Darren - <br /><br />Learned Hand hit the nail right on the head. You simply do not understand the theory of evolution. The quote you cited from my post is not a statement of faith in the slightest! It is a statement of the perameters of the theory of evolution!Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81372833789113937072010-02-01T10:37:16.927-08:002010-02-01T10:37:16.927-08:00"If that statement is not faith based, I dunn..."If that statement is not faith based, I dunno what is! HA!"<br /><br />You don't know what is. "Evolution" is the study of differential success among replicators. Prior to the emergence of such replicators, by whatever process you credit, there is no evolution. This is not a statement of faith, but a logical tautology: there is no differential success among replicators before there are replicators. The fact that you think this is a "faith based" position demonstrates the fruit of Dr. Hunter's bizarre approach to science: ignorance and confusion.Learned Handhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04827820307226148620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30131911260675773362010-02-01T10:05:45.163-08:002010-02-01T10:05:45.163-08:00"Evolution only kicks in once the first self-..."Evolution only kicks in once the first self-replicating organism is already bobbing around in the primordial soup!"<br /><br />If that statement is not faith based, I dunno what is! HA!Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064538128810623156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31360638348363747542010-02-01T08:55:51.063-08:002010-02-01T08:55:51.063-08:00Darren -
"HMMMMMMM. OK? Using the TOE, plea...Darren - <br /><br />"HMMMMMMM. OK? Using the TOE, please explain using evidence, not a faith based arguement, of how life originated. You cant can you? Thats because the TOE is a faith based theory."<br /><br />Ummmm, no. It is because the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution!<br /><br />The theory you are looking for there is abiogenesis.<br /><br />Evolution only kicks in once the first self-replicating organism is already bobbing around in the primordial soup!<br /><br />Look up abiogenesis if you want a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73705667805699078332010-02-01T08:31:18.766-08:002010-02-01T08:31:18.766-08:00Cornelis: "It is incredible that evolutionist...Cornelis: "It is incredible that evolutionists feel every right to make non scientific claims that make little sense, and when questioned they turn it back on the questioner, as if he's the one who is out of line."<br /><br />I was simply trying to get a better understand of your position. Understanding what you teach in the classroom could be helpful in understanding that. You have yet to make a compelling case for the "religion drives science" argument - furthermore, you seem rather alone in adopting this argument. Perhaps in time it will gain some traction, but judging by the other comments here, I don't think I'm alone in saying that it really makes no sense. Other the already-faithful (probably mostly born-again Christians), I suspect you haven't had much success in changing peoples minds with this approach. Yet I have to admire your tenancity!TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24973810889480220592010-02-01T06:03:50.292-08:002010-02-01T06:03:50.292-08:00Darren,
"please explain using evidence.. how ...Darren,<br />"please explain using evidence.. how life originated" The answer to this would be "we don't know", and almost any scientist would give you the same answer. there are numerous theories that have provided and tested hypotheses on abiogenesis. of these, the RNA world has the most experimental and theoretical evidence in favor of it. but while compelling it is far from complete and the answer to your question remains "we don't know."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62064931905948785012010-02-01T05:39:33.854-08:002010-02-01T05:39:33.854-08:00Ritchie said...
Music -
"The 'theory&#...Ritchie said... <br />Music - <br /><br />"The 'theory' of evolution is a FAITH-based ideology."<br /><br />It is not. No matter how much you would like to believe it is.<br /><br />The theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence. Experiments and observations. It must meet at least a minimal standard of evidence to earn the title 'theory', which is does.<br /><br />Moreover, it makes no metaphysical or supernatural claims.<br /><br /><br /><br />Neither of which, by the way, can be said for ID.<br /><br />So no, the theory of evolution is NOT a faith-based ideology. It is a well-evidenced scientific theory.<br /><br /><br /><br />HMMMMMMM. OK? Using the TOE, please explain using evidence, not a faith based arguement, of how life originated. You cant can you? Thats because the TOE is a faith based theory.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064538128810623156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22332697398305439842010-02-01T04:37:47.702-08:002010-02-01T04:37:47.702-08:00Cornelius Hunter: A "robust theory that provi...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact. Here's a hint: the claim that evolution is a fact doesn't come from science. </i><br /><br />If you define "fact" as something beyond reasonable dispute, then evolution is a scientific fact, and should be accepted, like all scientific findings, provisionally. We can directly observe the mechanisms of evolution, and the evidence for historical transitions and divergences is overwhelming. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>Thus saith the Reverend Coyne. Here the Most High preaches on how the creator distributes his creations geographically across the face of the world.</i><br /><br />He said "if." That's is precisely how we examine a proposition in science. We assume the truth of a proposition in order to tease out its empirical implications. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>The theory of special creation, which goes back centuries, says that God created the different species individually. Rev. Coyne is claiming that if God were to do that, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike.</i><br /><br />Coyne is saying it's an arbitrary explanation. God could have made Centaurs, too, but He so loved the nested hierarchy decided to make the biological world look just like descent with modification. Just as He made the movement of planets look like the inverse square law and hid the <a href="http://www.zachriel.com/images/angelscranking.gif" rel="nofollow">angels</a>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27452386915523183562010-02-01T04:37:35.162-08:002010-02-01T04:37:35.162-08:00Cornelius,
""A robust theory that provid...Cornelius,<br />""A robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact.. here's a hint: ..you need to read the evolution literature" here's hint: popular press books by Dawkins and COyne and are not "the evolution literature." and most working scientists understand that theories connect facts, but are not facts themselves. can you provide an example from the primary literat ure of someone saying that the theory of evolution (and not the various facts within the theory, like natural selection, common descent, etc) is a fact?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21785461537455197812010-02-01T04:24:19.782-08:002010-02-01T04:24:19.782-08:00laugh out loud: I was talking about biogeography, ...<b>laugh out loud</b>: <i>I was talking about biogeography, the disribution of organisms around the Earth. I do believe your response is a different issue, that of hierarchies. </i><br /><br />Biogeography forms a nested hierarchy in time. Organisms diverge in sync with geological changes, such as the movements of continents. <br /><br /><b>laugh out loud</b>: <i>But that is also a religious arguement. Why would God create life as nested hierarchies when he didn't have to?</i><br /><br />Common Descent makes specific predictions. For instance, whales with hind limbs. Or hominids with brains smaller than modern humans. Or the phylogeny of genomes before genomes were sequenced.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80205089275722992062010-02-01T03:39:18.393-08:002010-02-01T03:39:18.393-08:00Music -
"The 'theory' of evolution ...Music - <br /><br />"The 'theory' of evolution is a FAITH-based ideology."<br /><br />It is not. No matter how much you would like to believe it is.<br /><br />The theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence. Experiments and observations. It must meet at least a minimal standard of evidence to earn the title 'theory', which is does.<br /><br />Moreover, it makes no metaphysical or supernatural claims.<br /><br />Neither of which, by the way, can be said for ID.<br /><br />So no, the theory of evolution is NOT a faith-based ideology. It is a well-evidenced scientific theory.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12450663621433016752010-02-01T03:03:45.990-08:002010-02-01T03:03:45.990-08:00The 'theory' of evolution is a FAITH-based...The 'theory' of evolution is a FAITH-based ideology. It's the height of hypocrisy to have evolutionists claim they don't want 'religion' taught in science classes, yet that's exactly what their teaching - THEIR religion.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1763468240223299222010-02-01T00:30:42.565-08:002010-02-01T00:30:42.565-08:00Cornelius -
"A "robust theory that pro...Cornelius - <br /><br />"A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact."<br /><br />But evolution is the only 'robust theory that provides testable hypotheses' on the table in biology. Just taken on that fact alone, it is not religious bias to examine biology in light of it. <br /><br />What other possible theory would you like biologists to test and examine the evidence against?<br /><br />Again, it feels like you are hinting at ID (or design theory/inference as I have heard it referred to on here). But ID fails as a scientific theory. It makes no predictaions and therefore we cannot examine any evidence in light of it.<br /><br />So what scientific theory does that leave us? What other theory accounts for the diversity of life we see in nature? It would be strange of you to criticise biologists of 'religiously' favouring the theory of evolution if there was no other competing theory which they were, by extension, neglecting...<br /><br />And your reply to CWest was particularly ironic. He (/she?) was asking you to plainly state what position you ARE advocating, since you seem to keep avoiding that question. And yet you avoid the question yet again in your reply to him! You just did exactly what he was criticising you for.<br /><br />Instead of just having a go a evolution all the time, why not just clear up your own position and clarify what you positively DO advocate, and what you teach. Because to be honest I also seem to find you spending an awful lot more time telling us what you are NOT saying rather than what you ARE.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43417917363539722202010-01-31T21:48:42.658-08:002010-01-31T21:48:42.658-08:00CWest:
"I assume you don't just get up i...CWest:<br /><br />"I assume you don't just get up in front of a class and bash evolution all day. But perhaps you do. Seems to be the only thing you want to talk about."<br /><br />It is incredible that evolutionists feel every right to make non scientific claims that make little sense, and when questioned they turn it back on the questioner, as if he's the one who is out of line. How is it that intelligent people like you can defend these silly claims? Rev. Coyne's book, and the evolution literature, have a plethora of religious claims such as this one. They go back to the 17th c., and have always been used to the proof texts for evolution. The science is full of holes, but the metaphysics is certain. Does this not bother you in the slightest?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16019207523744606752010-01-31T21:29:58.053-08:002010-01-31T21:29:58.053-08:00nanobot:
==========
"So how do we know evolu...nanobot:<br /><br />==========<br />"So how do we know evolution is a fact?" Common descent, variation and natural selection are facts regardless of whether or not we contrast them with creationism/ID. That patterns of common descent occur(red) through a process of variation and selection is a robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses.<br />==========<br /><br />A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact. Here's a hint: the claim that evolution is a fact doesn't come from science. All you need do is read the evolution literature.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31482884963575905042010-01-31T21:24:41.389-08:002010-01-31T21:24:41.389-08:00Out of curiosity Cornelius - I assume you still te...Out of curiosity Cornelius - I assume you still teach. What do you actually teach your students? It's frankly so frustrating to try and argue with you because your own position on matters is so completely hazy and fuzzy. You seem reluctant to really take any clear position on anything. But knowing a little about what you teach (do you have a curriculum?) may help those hear trying to engage with you. I assume you don't just get up in front of a class and bash evolution all day. But perhaps you do. Seems to be the only thing you want to talk about.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.com