Ken McElhaney wrote:
> On May 11, 2:32 am, TNW <TNW7z7z7z12...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Ken McElhaney wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>>Biochemists, *not* evolutionary biologists, are the ones currently
>>studying the origins of life. There's a lot of research going on and a
>>lot of theories.
> Yes there are.
> Funny thing is, this should be simple stuff. After all, we know all
> the non-organic materials needed, we know the sequence it should be in
> and yet no one has really come close to creating life by this method.
> I would think that if the scientific community lived up to it's
> standards, then at least no one should publish completely unproven
> theories (or better yet just call them what they are, "hunches" or
> "speculation") until someone can deliberately create life from
> completely non-organic materials.
Unproven theories (which *are* hunches and speculation based on
evidence) are published so other scientists know about them and can
create experiments to prove or disprove them. That's how science works.
[more snipped]
>>And why leave out scientists who believe that God created the
>>universe, yet firmly disagree with Intelligent Design? That's where
>>the discussion should be -- not between ID proponents and atheists.
>Because the film, for the umpteenth time, does not promote "I.D" as
>the "valid" theory, it states that discussion of "I.D" in any form to
>be included in "reviewed" papers is not allowed. That those who do
>mention it are punished.
Because it isn't *science.* The ID proponents tweaked Creationism and
added language to make it sound scientific, but anything that relies on
a supernatural explanation can't go into a scientific journal, ever.
Those ideas go into religious or philosophical publications. That isn't
bias or rigidity or punishment; that's what science is.
And that's also why it is so im****tant to hear from scientists who agree
with Darwin's theory of evolution AND current efforts by biochemists to
get at the origins of life itself AND believe that God created the
universe. But the movie refused to include them, as showing scientist
believers who opposed "God of the gaps" believers would've destroyed the
movie's "atheists are excluding believers" thesis.
[snip]
> If he never heard of nor subscribed to "Eugenics", there would be no
> "master race" in Hitler's vision of utopia. No effort to "cleanse" the
> world of a particular race of people. Of course without this belief
> system of his, Hitler might never have risen to power anyway, so your
> point is rather lacking here. You cannot separate Hitler's beliefs and
> assume he would do the same thing or even be in the same position to
> carry it out.
I think perhaps you should read more about anti-semitism and Nazi
Germany.
Start with Gobineau (1816 to 1882) who, prior to Darwin ("Origin of
Species" was published 1859) believed the white race was superior and
came from an "Aryan"(Indo-Iranian) race. He attributed social and
economic problems to race pollution, was against the mixing of races,
etc. He formed his beliefs prior to Darwin and remained skeptical of
evolution. Oddly, he wasn't originally anti-Semitic, thinking the Jews
were part of the superior race (I think that changed at the end of his
life when he was influenced by anti-Semites). The Nazis borrowed his
ideology and removed the pro-Jewish parts in order to make it fit their
views.
Then there's Houston Chamberlain (1855 to 1927). A Brit who rejected
England and moved to Germany or Austria. He believed in Aryan supremacy
(particularly German supremacy) and also that it was necessary to
struggle against the Jews. His writings were widely read and heavily
influenced Nazi Germany (also, early in his career, Hitler visited
Chamberlain). Chamberlain was very religious and vehemently *anti*
Darwin, evolution and science.
Hitler also used Christianity to defend the Jewish genocide. He
frequently referred to Martin Luther to justify his actions (Luther said
about the Jews: "everyone would gladly be rid of them," and "we are at
fault in not slaying them."). And the following quote is from one of
Hitler's early speeches: "My feelings as a Christian point me to my
Lord and Savior as a fighter… How terrific was His fight for the world
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest
emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before, the fact that it
was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross."
The Nazis grabbed whatever they could to justify anti-semitism --
the writings of Master Race theorists (who pre-dated or were opposed to
evolution), distortions of Christianity as well as distortions of the
Theory of Evolution (i.e., eugenics).
But more im****tant -- Darwin vehemently opposed eugenics. In
"Expelled," when they quote Darwin on animal breeding, they leave out
his statement that this does *not* apply to man. And of course the movie
doesn't bother to mention that atheists like Dawkins use evolution and
natural selection to explain how man evolved into an altruistic being
who goes to great pains to insure survival of the sick and the weak.
Evolution does *not* logically lead to Eugenics or to atheism any more
than Christianity logically leads to anti-Semitism or genocide.
Worldwide, many more people believe in evolution today than did 100
years ago, yet there is no Eugenics movement anywhere. And many
scientists who believe in evolution and that eventually there will be
scientific explanations for the origins of life also believe in God.
Unfortunately, those who see "Expelled" will be left with the opposite
impression.
[snip]
>>But they aren't questioning evolution with a competing scientific
>>explanation. They're inserting a supernatural explanation into a
>>current gap in science.
> No No NO NO NO NO.
>
> Once more for the cheap seats, the thrust of the film is that a wall
> has been built by the general scientific community that bans
> discussion of any theory that opposes Darwin's. NOT because "I.D." is
> anymore "valid" but because the general weakness of Darwinian theories
> when it comes to the origin of the first living cell has created such
> a defensive ("elitist" if I may borrow a line from Hillary) mindset
> that to question this is to question ALL of Darwin's work.
> Put it this way, if you don't know then you can't rule anything out.
> It doesn't mean you accept it, but you should be able to at least
> discuss it. What happens if someone does find some evidence contrary
> to the current line of thinking? Should it not be part of the
> discussion? Or does it get summarily ruled out as well simply because
> it doesn't fit the "proper" thinking?
Scientific theories are continually overturned. That's the whole point
of science as well as the major difference between science and religion.
Religion is based on faith and cannot be disproven; scientific ideas
change (i.e., are disproven) all the time. Yes, science is subject to
human frailty (bias, fraud, ignorance, errors, etc.) but over the years
(decades, centuries), it is ultimately self-correcting. But there is
one rule that can't be broken - you can't propose a supernatural
explanation for an unknown.
>>Science does not include supernatural explanations. Period. If there is
>>something that is unknown, scientists do research (for centuries if need
>>be) seeking a natural (vs supernatural) explanation. A scientist who
>>proposes a supernatural explanation for something we don't yet
>>understand is no longer doing science; he's doing philosophy or
religion.
> That is not disputed and I certainly believe that science needs to be
> separated from religion or philosophy. Science is the "how" while
> religion & philosophy provides the "why". Having said that, if the
> science leads you away from traditional Darwinian thought as to the
> origins of the first living organism, shouldn't you be able to pursue
> it without fear of being fired or not getting tenure?
Traditional Darwinian thought doesn't deal with the origins of the first
living organism. So how can thoughts about it (whatever they are) lead
anyone away from Darwin?
But addressing your other point -- no one has been fired or lost
tenure for expressing or writing about religious beliefs UNLESS they
tried to insert those beliefs into science. As long as there is
evidence, someone can propose whatever theory they want about the
origins of life. But if the theory involves the supernatural, it has to
be pursued under religion or philosophy, not science.
Extremely religious scientists, who understand what science is, don't
want it any other way.
Here's what the problem is - look at the long history of science
(including the long history of the warfare between science and
religion). [And by the way, I'm not making this stuff up for the sake
of argument; it comes from many History and Philosophy of Science
courses that I took as an undergrad, a zillion years ago.] Anyway,
science always eventually fills in its gaps with a natural/material (vs
supernatural) explanation. Might take centuries, but the current gaps
will be filled in, creating new gaps. (e.g., What came before the
universe? The big bang. What came before the big bang? Whatever
they're theorizing now...something to do with string theory??? and once
they figure that out, we'll want to know what came before that... and on
and on and on...).
Scientists who believe in God (ones I've read) see God everywhere in the
natural world, but not literally in the gaps in science, which they know
will eventually have purely scientific (or material/natural)
explanations. That doesn't diminish God unless you've pigeon-holed God
into a very narrow "God of the gaps" role, which is what the
Creationists/ID people have done.
>>My personal opinion - a person who uses the gaps in science to prove the
>>existence of God has as narrow a vision of God as the atheist who claims
>>science disproves the existence of God.
> Then Richard Dawkins will not be your friend...:)
> One part of the film I found interesting was the explaination of one
> scientist (not Dawkins) who said science will basically banish
> religion in the future, something for the great unwashed to do on
> weekends until they too become more enlightened. What struck me about
> it was that his little fantasy was almost word for word what a biology
> professer said during one of my cl***** oh so many years ago. So I
> can say from my own experience that while their viewpoints should not
> be represented as common among the scientific community, it is
> certainly there.
Yes, of course it's there. That doesn't mean those people are correct.
I'm agnostic (well, probably about 95% atheist and 5% agnostic), YET *I*
think those who believe science will disprove or banish
religion are fools (I was going to say morons, but that sounded too
harsh). And that's why Dawkins, with all his scientific brilliance, also
manages to really piss me off. 40% of scientists believe in God, most of
whom (unlike the Creationist/ID folks) do not insert God into scientific
gaps in order to maintain that belief. Those are the people we should be
hearing from.
OK, I'm going to try not to respond again. I'm out of time.
- TNW
[To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.]
|
