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.)
I just hope I didn't *misplace* patience. :)
- TNW
[To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.]
|
