John Iwaniszek wrote:
> 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!
>
Scythe!
--
Jim
|
