Jim Larson wrote:
> TNW wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> (You misspelled patience.)
>
Trebuchet!
|
